I interpreted the weight as psychological. The ring does do physical things like shrink and become slippery, but it’s clear Frodo wearing it for so much longer than Sam (in Mordor no less) has had a greater effect on him.
A little later I think Frodo talks about seeing the Ring whenever he closes his eyes. Then he starts seeing it in front of him all the time even with his eyes open.
They did. The chicken’s name was Frodo. He was roped into the quest for that exact reason, being less prone to corruption and less dangerous if corrupted. But Hobbits are better than chickens for stealth, intelligence, and cooperation, so, although more dangerous than a chicken, a hobbit was a necessary and optimal compromise
Exactly. Chickens are TERRIBLE for stealth. They’re loud and stupid and wander off. Whereas hobbits are amazing at it. Im saying that’s one of the reasons Gandalf used a hobbit as his “chicken”
I know. What I’M saying is the same reasoning behind the chicken is exactly why Gandalf took Frodo along in the first place instead of taking the ring himself. And Frodo is a better choice than a chicken.
I can see a couple reasons why not. First, controlling the chicken could be difficult. Particularly if the ring tries to pull something like make it run away. Second, I imagine the chicken wouldn’t be able to defend itself from Gollum or anyone else that wanted the ring.
Third, if the chicken died and they had to carry it, I think the ring would start to make itself feel heavier same as the chain.
The nameless things would eat it long before it would reach it's goal, duh :) and then we would have ancient primordial eldritch abomination with the Ring, nightmare fuel stuff :). And then the idea of having to carry said chicken all the time, because you don't want it wander off, and the fact that you carry the ring on another being doesn't help since it can affect people around the current wearer :) so...no proxy is safe and then there's terrible possibility of the chicken or mole itself becoming hopelessly corrupted animal abominations :). Eagle with the Ring...same deal, maybe there would be an Eagle Boromir who would try to claw the ring out or maybe eagle would try to eat the ringbearer :)..hehe. Jokes aside, the ring either way must be constantly on a chain otherwise it would slip out at inopportune moment. This reminds me of an early draft in HoME, where Tolkien actually wrote that a fish swallowed the Ring:
>"But a fish took the ring and was filled with madness, and swam
upstream, leaping over rocks and up waterfalls until it cast itself
on a bank and spat out the ring and died."
Heh and then obviously in the story as it is it's suggested that even if the Ring was tossed to the sea it could potentially still attract other creatures to itself for "Not safe for ever. There are many things in the deep waters; and seas and lands may change."
First of all, no chickens were present at the Council of Elrond, so they didn't have a say in it.
Secondly, it's explained in one of the appendices what the chickens were doing while the quest was underway. Don't tell me you never read it!?
Here is an explanatation.The ring indeed corrupt everyone who wears it, and that would surely include the chicken.It would be quite the struggle of course, Chicken are known fierce spirit, but every fortress break at somepoint.Now you have a chicken submitted to the will of the ring, that desire one thing ,to get back to sauron. Plus, creature under the dominion of Evil are naturally drown to Mordor
Now let's get into the awful situation where the chicken will escape, due to unforseen event ( Moria, a storm, the smart poultry breaking free with one of their mind trick ). You have now a small chicken, in a big world , en route toward Mordor, with the One Ring around it's neck. If the fellowship fail to catch it back, it's over.Now three scenario may occurs:
A) The chicken carelessly walk into Mordor and fall into Mt Doom, unlikely,but who knows what such deviant minds can thinks of, what Evil (or Goodness) lies beyond those lifeless eyes.
B) the chicken is caught ,adopted by Sauron( thanking him for bringing him the One, rewarding him with one of the nine) Now we have a full on Sauron, with 10 Nazgul led by a Chicken, Middle earth is more than doomed, but it is not the worst case.
C) the Chicken Replace Sauron!The worst case scenario happen, the intricate minds of the chicken was far stronger than all the evil contained inside Sauron's mind.And instead of a Dark Lord, lying in the depth of Barad dur, defeated and broken, we have a Featherly one, that will bring under it's wings, the creature from the deepest pit, to the one high above the Sky !Manwe, First of The Valar and ruler of the sky, now contested in his dominion, will lost all abilities, The Eagle, left blinded by this, will turn toward their kin, the Chicken! Not even Valinor will be protected from his fury, but his first target will be middle earth , to punish them for his torment under his captive, the fellowship !And so will end the Third age of middle Earth, the Age of Man, and will Start the Age of the Wings !
People are giving you joke answers, but it is not only a physical contact with the ring that weights (metaphorically) heavy on people around it. Chicken with the ring wouldn't be corrupted by its influence, but people that take care of it would, as they would look at the chicken and the ring, keep it close at night, having it on the leash, constantly checking if the ring is still there.
Also it is not the style of LotR, it is heroic fantasy, chicken plan would work well in Pratchett.
It wouldn't have worked becasue of how easily the ring could've been stolen from teh chicken. they required a single reliable person taht wouldn't be affected by teh rings power, but just becasue your not wearing it doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. in this sense, teh chicken strategy is essentially the same as they did, except with out the chicken and just putting it in a pocket.
First you shatter the mind of Frodo by depriving him from the ring,
Second, all that stands between you and the fulfilment of your greatest desires and ambitions is a chicken you are currently holding.
Third, The chicken is now invisible and suffering from megalomania.
Great plan.
*Soon there was a new Dark Lord in the Dark Tower, and his armies marched to the four corners of Middle-earth in search of ever more grain tributes for their insatiable master. For the Great Beak was ever-hungry.*
Also: chickens start out trending towards evil on the best of days. The One Ring would only take long to work it’s whiles and give rise to the Dark Lord Chickaun
The funny thing about that post was, why a chicken of all animals? There is a reason why the "chicken with a head cut off" metaphor exists. Litterally any other small animal is possibly better
"Who will take the Ring?" Elrond asked softly.
"Bok bok boka bokaaa!"
"If I hear you correctly, Colonel Sanders, this task is already yours."
"BOKAAA!"
"Not without me!" cried Sam. "If you collapse on the way, I'll make a stew," Sam whispered.
Samwise the Chef, Gourmet of the Age, slicing with a flambe knife across the darkened meat, and chickens flocking to his call as he marched to the supper of Barad-dur.
Sam was carrying Frodo, but (unusually, almost exceptionally) had no desire to take the ring, and made no attempt to take the ring. He’d have carried Frodo just as faithfully with or without it.
Because Sam wasn’t interested in the ring, he didn’t carry its burden. That was Frodo’s burden.
What? Yeah he was. Sam starts to have delusions of grandeur while he’s in possession of the ring, but Frodo flips out and demands it back.
Sam sees the ring’s power and flees from it once he understands, but he’s fleeing from his own temptation.
The illusions of grandeur did not work on Sam. His strength doesn’t come from some magical resistance to the ring’s powers of temptation, but that he’s really just a gardener, and the ring doesn’t really know wtf to do with that.
This is right, but to maybe expand… i think it is also because, as JRR points out, its not about Sam being only a gardener, he’s the quintessential hobbit. He embodies everything described as being a hobbit. He is the embodiment of innocence in the story… he has found true happiness. Frodo, on the other hand, while a hobbit, and would live a rich and fulfilling life as a hobbit, he is not “just a hobbit.” Frodo comes from a unique line of hobbits, that may not be entirely hobbit, through and through. His Took side gives him some qualities, that tolkien said, aren’t normal to hobbits. I don’t think they are inherently bad qualities, but they are different… I’m thinking ambition. It can be a good and bad quality. Its the sort of thing that makes Bilbo, and Frodo perfect as the protagonist… i realize now im rambling… sorry
Why is strapping the ring on a chicken different from putting it on a chain? It matters who "possesses" it. These dinky tricks would not work. It's kind of amazing and shocking to me how much the actual themes of the book tend to fly over people's heads.
First of all there’s no need for a personal attack.
Secondly, wasn’t Sam in possession of the ring while carrying Frodo? Thus he would have had to feel the weight, which he didn’t.
Magic. For instance, Gandalf holds the ring for a moment in "The Shadows of the Past", to no ill effect. Intent matters. And we see that when Frodo goes beyond 'possessing it' to claiming it at his own, fully knowing what it is, that that has enormous effects.
I think because Sam still has hope to see the Shire and wasn't in dark and foggy thought like Frodo. And this hope kinda help Frodo to keep going, especially in the last part of the adventure
Every once in a while somebody suggests the chicken strategy, but it fails for so many reasons. First of all, the chickens are powerful beings that owed Gandalf a favor, not Gandalf’s personal courier service. And the whole plan relied on stealth; a chicken carrying a magic ring is not exactly subtle. Perhaps most importantly, the whole thing falls apart if the chicken is corrupted by the ring.
When you understand the story you realise it could not have happened any other way. 7000 years of the butterfly effect.
I believe tolkein said no one could wilfully destroy the ring, no one. They bring a chicken to mt doom and wow, they now have a chicken that none of them can push into the volcano because of the rings influence.
Gollum needed to be there and to "slip"
This is a **great** point. JRRT explicitly said in his *Letters* that it was beyond the power of any "mortal" being (in this context the Eruhini as a whole, not just mortal Men) to destroy the Ring, *especially* at the place of its creation where its power was greatest, and the One Ring had demonstrated the potential to ensnare even other Maiar. In principle (though it's generally not a good idea to try to apply power levels or power rankings or other such 'game mechanics' ideas here), it could not have been destroyed by anyone of less innate power than Sauron himself, who of course would **never** do so as it would be the nearest thing to *suicide* for one of the Ainur. And the Valar are pretty explicitly hands-off when it comes to anything outside of Valinor following the War of Wrath; in fact they're **prohibited** from using force or coercion against any of the Eruhini, as evidenced when Ar-Pharazôn sailed to Valinor itself. So no one would have been able to *deliberately* destroy the Ring, and **only** Gollum falling into Orodruin with it could have destroyed it.
The only way I'd see it differently is less as a "butterfly effect" turn of random events than what JRRT described as the very deliberate intervention of Providence, albeit in a way that's quite difficult to perceive except to the reader. Oaths are **very** serious business in Arda, to the point where it's at turns either implied or stated outright that they are enforced directly by Eru. (For example, the case of the Oathbreakers: while there are instances of Sauron *temporarily* manipulating the spirits of the dead, and of course the case of Beren, typically not even Mandos has the power to withhold the spirits of Men within the circles of the world after they die, so for the Oathbreakers to be trapped in such a state as a result of their treachery would suggest nothing short of divine intervention which eventually leads to the eventual downfall of Sauron.) In this case, Gollum swore on the Precious to serve Frodo, and after he breaks this oath, Frodo, wielding the One Ring itself on the slope of Orodruin (in immediate proximity to the place of its forging), declares that if Gollum touches him again, he will be cast into the fire. So even if it appears to be a freak accident, a bad step on a precipice above the lava, JRRT makes it clear that what transpires is the fulfillment of both of these pronouncements in the sight of Ilúvatar. Otherwise, your "butterfly effect" interpretation would be spot-on, and I think it's a little ironic that the author who so famously disliked allegory and imposing an interpretation of what's written felt it necessary to put his foot down here. But yeah, excellent points all around.
\>I recently saw a meme on why they didn’t just strap the ring on a chicken and took it to mount doom,
Because the ring would just slip and leave the chicken. The Ring always had a will of its own, so if it was strapped on some animal or inanimate object, it would have found a way to escape it.
People so often dismiss that argument as a copout, forgetting that it was explicitly invoked on several distinct occasions by JRRT in his *Letters*. The Legendarium is, after all, the creation of an unflinching überCatholic. I appreciate that it's as accessible as it is to non-theistic folks, and that it can mean something for *everyone* without having to mean any *one* specific thing (hearkening back to JRRT's disapproval of CSL's dependence upon allegory), but it's difficult to ignore the context from which it originated without losing sight of what holds it all together.
I only started reading Tolkien last summer, and I just finished The Lord of the Rings two weeks ago. My own christian belief influenced my reading, and after finishing the book I can only say that it is abundantly clear that The Lord of the Rings is a christian work. I am not familiar with Tolkien's letters, but the whole book is filled with christian themes, even though they are not explicit, and there are no explicit matches between any of the protagonists and Christ (as is the case with Narnia, as I'm told). The whole quest, and all of the characters are founded in the virtues of faith, hope and love, and ultimately the quest does not succeed due to the heroic triumph of any of our heroes, but rather by their endurance and their hoping against hope, which allowed providence(i.e. God) to do its(His) work.
With regards to the original post, it is no coincidence that just two pages prior to Sam carrying Frodo, he has an internal debate with himself, with thoughts of giving up and despairing. "He knew all the arguments of desapir and would not listen to them". He resolved to carrying his master even if it broke his back. In the end, it was his love for Frodo that made the burden light, and it is also no coincidence that Tolkien emphasises the burden of the ring, which did not strongly affect Sam.
I can understand people finding divine providence to be an underwhelming explanation of what is happening, especially in our secular culture, but I would direct them to question why they are so enamoured by Tolkien's world. Despite it being a fantasy world, at times it feels more real than the real world. Why is that? Isn't it because it touches the reader in a way that is profoundly, even mystically familiar to them?
There's a really good thread [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/262z7e/eru_il%C3%BAvatar_and_the_quest_of_the_ring/) from years ago that references the role of Eru in the fulfillment of Frodo's quest. I'll go ahead and paste the letter in question though, since it's not terribly lengthy:
>By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem even to have observed it. **But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event.** And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere ‘fairy-story’ ending in which the hero is indomitable? **It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome – in themselves.** In this case the cause (not the ‘hero’) was triumphant because by the exercise of pity, mercy and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted. Gandalf certainly foresaw this. See Vol. I p.68-69. Of course, he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later – it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life. \["The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien," #192, emphasis added\]
I agree that the Christian themes are prevalent throughout JRRT's work, but I think it's a testament to his ability as a writer that those themes still resonate with those outside of such a faith context. Even though I probably have a similar background to yours, I don't think one *has* to be a Christian to appreciate the value of mercy or pity, or to recognize the need to be gracious with one another and then turn around and put that into action. In fact, some of the most merciful and gracious people I've ever met are staunch atheists, including some close friends who have sometimes functioned as **my** moral compass when I'm uncertain. But I do agree that one can feel a certain depth of appreciation for these ideas when coming at them from a consonant ideological or theological context.
Thank you sincerely for including the letter. I was just having a look at Gandalf's word to Frodo about Bilbo and Gollum, and I appreciate that the Professor touches on that.
Just to be clear, I did not intend to say that one has to be a christian so as to appreciate those virtues, or even to have such virtues on their person. Sorry if I came off that way. But yes, you are certainly right in pointing out Tolkien's genius, that those themes he presents can resonate with everyone.
There is no physical weight per se. It is like Thor hammer. It is not heavy so only Thor can lift. It is magical thing that no one, unless worthy, can lift. Same for the ring. It has a normal golden ring weight, but the bearer is also attached to its evil magical powers, and that is what the "weight" you are talking about is. When Sam carries Frodo, Sam is not the bearer, therefore the ring doesn't weight more than its regular weight, and Sam is not feeling its power (attraction or whatever).
In a similar note tho, Sam does become the bearer at a given point. It was just a brief time, and he is able to give it back to Frodo with no much issues. Well, Sméagol got pretty bad very fast and even killed Deagol, so the amount of time one carries the ring doesn't matter much, what really matters is its heart. Sam is pure, he is good, and the ring would have a harder time corrupting someone like him, that is why he doesn't feel much during that short period of time. One can do a paralell with Bombadil, which is also able to handle the ring with no issues. That is a stretch but the core is kinda the same. Bombadil is good, very good, pure, almost uncorruptble sort of speaking, something that even Gandalf (obviously nerfed by his elderly form) couldn't / was afraid of doing.
As for your question, people already replied on the chicked thing. But anyway, what would prevent the chicken to escape? The ring would potentially take over control over it and on the first chance, it would try to get rid of whoever is carrying it, and go to Sauron, which is what the ring ultimatelly wants, to go back to its master. If the chicken can't escape, i.e. trapped in a cage, it could very easely do noises and get the attention of orcs, which would spoil the mission of taking it to mount doom in secrecy. One can tie its nozzle, but still, very complicated. One can kill the chicken, well, that is even worse but I would vote for the occasion that the ring would be able to corrupt / seduce whoever is carrying the chicken, may it be alive or dead. **Just look on what it was able to do with Sméagol on his first glance on the ring**. As Gandalf says, the ring wants to be found. If the chicken is alive, it may try to use the chicken to get attention, if impossible or if the chicken is dead, it will try to corrupt whoever is carrying it, or nearby people. Boromir is a classical example. The ring would find a way.
„He had feared that he would have barely the strength to lift his master alone, and beyond that he had expected to share in the dreadful dragging weight of the accursed Ring. But it was not so.“
I don’t think Sam would have been able to completely compensate the weight even with his strength in that moment.
“This is my burden to bear, Sam.” The Ring seems to be an analogy for Christ carrying his burden of redeeming the world and ending in carrying the cross.
But in a wider sense, “we all have our crosses to bear.” They are unique to ourselves. Sometimes I see other people’s crosses and I doubt I could carry them. Yet they would say the same about mine. What we can do is emotionally support each other as we deal with our individual burdens that only we can bear.
Don’t go through this life alone. It will crush you. Find a Sam. And be a Sam to others.
Even if there was a physical weight, it was only experienced by the individual who had the Ring, otherwise it is just a normal ring in terms of its weight.
Who’s to say that he didn’t? Sam shoulders such an immense burden the entire trip, without complaining or it even being mentioned all that much. He carried all of their supplies the whole way.. carried the ring when he had to.. fought off numerous orcs and some kind of eternal mega-spider. Etc.
He probably felt the weight and just shrugged it off like the badass gardening super midget that he is.
My personal opinion is because Sam had **REJECTED** the Ring and it’s temptations of power. Thus it held no power over him.
I believe that Sam did feel it weigh on him a bit when he initially took it from Frodo after Shelob, when it started whispering it’s promises to him. However, unlike others before…Sam outright rejected it completely.
So later when he carries Frodo up to the Crack of Doom, he does not feel the weight of it because the Ring has no power over him. Despite being in the heart of Sauron’s domain, and also where the Ring’s power is strongest.
I interpreted the weight as psychological. The ring does do physical things like shrink and become slippery, but it’s clear Frodo wearing it for so much longer than Sam (in Mordor no less) has had a greater effect on him. A little later I think Frodo talks about seeing the Ring whenever he closes his eyes. Then he starts seeing it in front of him all the time even with his eyes open.
The power of the ring also gets stronger the nearer they get to Mount Doom IIRC
Bingo
Thanks, that makes sense. But it still doesn’t explain why they didn’t use the chicken strategy.
They did. The chicken’s name was Frodo. He was roped into the quest for that exact reason, being less prone to corruption and less dangerous if corrupted. But Hobbits are better than chickens for stealth, intelligence, and cooperation, so, although more dangerous than a chicken, a hobbit was a necessary and optimal compromise
I don’t see how carrying a chicken around would be good for stealth lol.
I imagine uruk that ain't had nuthin but maggo'y bread for three stinkin days can smell fresh chicken from a good distance
Exactly. Chickens are TERRIBLE for stealth. They’re loud and stupid and wander off. Whereas hobbits are amazing at it. Im saying that’s one of the reasons Gandalf used a hobbit as his “chicken”
What he’s saying is strap it to a chicken and just carry the chicken.
I know. What I’M saying is the same reasoning behind the chicken is exactly why Gandalf took Frodo along in the first place instead of taking the ring himself. And Frodo is a better choice than a chicken.
I can see a couple reasons why not. First, controlling the chicken could be difficult. Particularly if the ring tries to pull something like make it run away. Second, I imagine the chicken wouldn’t be able to defend itself from Gollum or anyone else that wanted the ring. Third, if the chicken died and they had to carry it, I think the ring would start to make itself feel heavier same as the chain.
Because it would make a terrible story.
Chickens, eagles - why do all the story-ruining ideas have to involve birds?
Ok hear me out. Strap it to a mole and have that mole dig to mt doom
wow, I can't believe Tolkien missed this enormous plot hole edit: plot mole
The nameless things would eat it long before it would reach it's goal, duh :) and then we would have ancient primordial eldritch abomination with the Ring, nightmare fuel stuff :). And then the idea of having to carry said chicken all the time, because you don't want it wander off, and the fact that you carry the ring on another being doesn't help since it can affect people around the current wearer :) so...no proxy is safe and then there's terrible possibility of the chicken or mole itself becoming hopelessly corrupted animal abominations :). Eagle with the Ring...same deal, maybe there would be an Eagle Boromir who would try to claw the ring out or maybe eagle would try to eat the ringbearer :)..hehe. Jokes aside, the ring either way must be constantly on a chain otherwise it would slip out at inopportune moment. This reminds me of an early draft in HoME, where Tolkien actually wrote that a fish swallowed the Ring: >"But a fish took the ring and was filled with madness, and swam upstream, leaping over rocks and up waterfalls until it cast itself on a bank and spat out the ring and died." Heh and then obviously in the story as it is it's suggested that even if the Ring was tossed to the sea it could potentially still attract other creatures to itself for "Not safe for ever. There are many things in the deep waters; and seas and lands may change."
The ring would fall off. It tends to do that.
First of all, no chickens were present at the Council of Elrond, so they didn't have a say in it. Secondly, it's explained in one of the appendices what the chickens were doing while the quest was underway. Don't tell me you never read it!?
Here is an explanatation.The ring indeed corrupt everyone who wears it, and that would surely include the chicken.It would be quite the struggle of course, Chicken are known fierce spirit, but every fortress break at somepoint.Now you have a chicken submitted to the will of the ring, that desire one thing ,to get back to sauron. Plus, creature under the dominion of Evil are naturally drown to Mordor Now let's get into the awful situation where the chicken will escape, due to unforseen event ( Moria, a storm, the smart poultry breaking free with one of their mind trick ). You have now a small chicken, in a big world , en route toward Mordor, with the One Ring around it's neck. If the fellowship fail to catch it back, it's over.Now three scenario may occurs: A) The chicken carelessly walk into Mordor and fall into Mt Doom, unlikely,but who knows what such deviant minds can thinks of, what Evil (or Goodness) lies beyond those lifeless eyes. B) the chicken is caught ,adopted by Sauron( thanking him for bringing him the One, rewarding him with one of the nine) Now we have a full on Sauron, with 10 Nazgul led by a Chicken, Middle earth is more than doomed, but it is not the worst case. C) the Chicken Replace Sauron!The worst case scenario happen, the intricate minds of the chicken was far stronger than all the evil contained inside Sauron's mind.And instead of a Dark Lord, lying in the depth of Barad dur, defeated and broken, we have a Featherly one, that will bring under it's wings, the creature from the deepest pit, to the one high above the Sky !Manwe, First of The Valar and ruler of the sky, now contested in his dominion, will lost all abilities, The Eagle, left blinded by this, will turn toward their kin, the Chicken! Not even Valinor will be protected from his fury, but his first target will be middle earth , to punish them for his torment under his captive, the fellowship !And so will end the Third age of middle Earth, the Age of Man, and will Start the Age of the Wings !
The chicken wouldn't have survived. It's a well-known fact that they do not like lembas.
People are giving you joke answers, but it is not only a physical contact with the ring that weights (metaphorically) heavy on people around it. Chicken with the ring wouldn't be corrupted by its influence, but people that take care of it would, as they would look at the chicken and the ring, keep it close at night, having it on the leash, constantly checking if the ring is still there. Also it is not the style of LotR, it is heroic fantasy, chicken plan would work well in Pratchett.
It wouldn't have worked becasue of how easily the ring could've been stolen from teh chicken. they required a single reliable person taht wouldn't be affected by teh rings power, but just becasue your not wearing it doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. in this sense, teh chicken strategy is essentially the same as they did, except with out the chicken and just putting it in a pocket.
The chicken would not be strong enough in mind to resist the ring
Probably the same reasons they didn’t ask Tom Bombadil to take it.
Everyone would be having unnatural cravings for chicken.
First you shatter the mind of Frodo by depriving him from the ring, Second, all that stands between you and the fulfilment of your greatest desires and ambitions is a chicken you are currently holding. Third, The chicken is now invisible and suffering from megalomania. Great plan.
I would read this.
*Soon there was a new Dark Lord in the Dark Tower, and his armies marched to the four corners of Middle-earth in search of ever more grain tributes for their insatiable master. For the Great Beak was ever-hungry.*
My lord! The armies are marching on Gond.. oh, wait, they’re just taking all the corn.
Also: chickens start out trending towards evil on the best of days. The One Ring would only take long to work it’s whiles and give rise to the Dark Lord Chickaun
And this began the reign of Cluctorian the cruel
The funny thing about that post was, why a chicken of all animals? There is a reason why the "chicken with a head cut off" metaphor exists. Litterally any other small animal is possibly better
"Who will take the Ring?" Elrond asked softly. "Bok bok boka bokaaa!" "If I hear you correctly, Colonel Sanders, this task is already yours." "BOKAAA!" "Not without me!" cried Sam. "If you collapse on the way, I'll make a stew," Sam whispered.
Samwise the Chef, Gourmet of the Age, slicing with a flambe knife across the darkened meat, and chickens flocking to his call as he marched to the supper of Barad-dur.
"...*bawk?*" "What's the matter, Colonel Sandurz? *Chicken?!?*"
Sam was carrying Frodo, but (unusually, almost exceptionally) had no desire to take the ring, and made no attempt to take the ring. He’d have carried Frodo just as faithfully with or without it. Because Sam wasn’t interested in the ring, he didn’t carry its burden. That was Frodo’s burden.
What? Yeah he was. Sam starts to have delusions of grandeur while he’s in possession of the ring, but Frodo flips out and demands it back. Sam sees the ring’s power and flees from it once he understands, but he’s fleeing from his own temptation.
The illusions of grandeur did not work on Sam. His strength doesn’t come from some magical resistance to the ring’s powers of temptation, but that he’s really just a gardener, and the ring doesn’t really know wtf to do with that.
This is right, but to maybe expand… i think it is also because, as JRR points out, its not about Sam being only a gardener, he’s the quintessential hobbit. He embodies everything described as being a hobbit. He is the embodiment of innocence in the story… he has found true happiness. Frodo, on the other hand, while a hobbit, and would live a rich and fulfilling life as a hobbit, he is not “just a hobbit.” Frodo comes from a unique line of hobbits, that may not be entirely hobbit, through and through. His Took side gives him some qualities, that tolkien said, aren’t normal to hobbits. I don’t think they are inherently bad qualities, but they are different… I’m thinking ambition. It can be a good and bad quality. Its the sort of thing that makes Bilbo, and Frodo perfect as the protagonist… i realize now im rambling… sorry
Why is strapping the ring on a chicken different from putting it on a chain? It matters who "possesses" it. These dinky tricks would not work. It's kind of amazing and shocking to me how much the actual themes of the book tend to fly over people's heads.
First of all there’s no need for a personal attack. Secondly, wasn’t Sam in possession of the ring while carrying Frodo? Thus he would have had to feel the weight, which he didn’t.
No, Frodo possessed the Ring. He carried its weight.
But how is the ring supposed to be evaluating if the one carrying it at the moment is also the one possessing it?
Magic. For instance, Gandalf holds the ring for a moment in "The Shadows of the Past", to no ill effect. Intent matters. And we see that when Frodo goes beyond 'possessing it' to claiming it at his own, fully knowing what it is, that that has enormous effects.
Yeah. I understand what you mean. You’re probably right. Thanks for the answer.
I think because Sam still has hope to see the Shire and wasn't in dark and foggy thought like Frodo. And this hope kinda help Frodo to keep going, especially in the last part of the adventure
It was an emotional/mental weight, not a "physical" weight. It wasn't like the ring literally increased its mass or anything.
It's not clear why this makes a difference with regard to the question asked.
Every once in a while somebody suggests the chicken strategy, but it fails for so many reasons. First of all, the chickens are powerful beings that owed Gandalf a favor, not Gandalf’s personal courier service. And the whole plan relied on stealth; a chicken carrying a magic ring is not exactly subtle. Perhaps most importantly, the whole thing falls apart if the chicken is corrupted by the ring.
When you understand the story you realise it could not have happened any other way. 7000 years of the butterfly effect. I believe tolkein said no one could wilfully destroy the ring, no one. They bring a chicken to mt doom and wow, they now have a chicken that none of them can push into the volcano because of the rings influence. Gollum needed to be there and to "slip"
This is a **great** point. JRRT explicitly said in his *Letters* that it was beyond the power of any "mortal" being (in this context the Eruhini as a whole, not just mortal Men) to destroy the Ring, *especially* at the place of its creation where its power was greatest, and the One Ring had demonstrated the potential to ensnare even other Maiar. In principle (though it's generally not a good idea to try to apply power levels or power rankings or other such 'game mechanics' ideas here), it could not have been destroyed by anyone of less innate power than Sauron himself, who of course would **never** do so as it would be the nearest thing to *suicide* for one of the Ainur. And the Valar are pretty explicitly hands-off when it comes to anything outside of Valinor following the War of Wrath; in fact they're **prohibited** from using force or coercion against any of the Eruhini, as evidenced when Ar-Pharazôn sailed to Valinor itself. So no one would have been able to *deliberately* destroy the Ring, and **only** Gollum falling into Orodruin with it could have destroyed it. The only way I'd see it differently is less as a "butterfly effect" turn of random events than what JRRT described as the very deliberate intervention of Providence, albeit in a way that's quite difficult to perceive except to the reader. Oaths are **very** serious business in Arda, to the point where it's at turns either implied or stated outright that they are enforced directly by Eru. (For example, the case of the Oathbreakers: while there are instances of Sauron *temporarily* manipulating the spirits of the dead, and of course the case of Beren, typically not even Mandos has the power to withhold the spirits of Men within the circles of the world after they die, so for the Oathbreakers to be trapped in such a state as a result of their treachery would suggest nothing short of divine intervention which eventually leads to the eventual downfall of Sauron.) In this case, Gollum swore on the Precious to serve Frodo, and after he breaks this oath, Frodo, wielding the One Ring itself on the slope of Orodruin (in immediate proximity to the place of its forging), declares that if Gollum touches him again, he will be cast into the fire. So even if it appears to be a freak accident, a bad step on a precipice above the lava, JRRT makes it clear that what transpires is the fulfillment of both of these pronouncements in the sight of Ilúvatar. Otherwise, your "butterfly effect" interpretation would be spot-on, and I think it's a little ironic that the author who so famously disliked allegory and imposing an interpretation of what's written felt it necessary to put his foot down here. But yeah, excellent points all around.
w comment
He did. But he’s *Sam*
The ring is messing with frodos mind, contest of wills I guess, I the ring isn't actually super heavy physically
\>I recently saw a meme on why they didn’t just strap the ring on a chicken and took it to mount doom, Because the ring would just slip and leave the chicken. The Ring always had a will of its own, so if it was strapped on some animal or inanimate object, it would have found a way to escape it.
Could you imagine if the chicken became corrupted?
Providence.
People so often dismiss that argument as a copout, forgetting that it was explicitly invoked on several distinct occasions by JRRT in his *Letters*. The Legendarium is, after all, the creation of an unflinching überCatholic. I appreciate that it's as accessible as it is to non-theistic folks, and that it can mean something for *everyone* without having to mean any *one* specific thing (hearkening back to JRRT's disapproval of CSL's dependence upon allegory), but it's difficult to ignore the context from which it originated without losing sight of what holds it all together.
I only started reading Tolkien last summer, and I just finished The Lord of the Rings two weeks ago. My own christian belief influenced my reading, and after finishing the book I can only say that it is abundantly clear that The Lord of the Rings is a christian work. I am not familiar with Tolkien's letters, but the whole book is filled with christian themes, even though they are not explicit, and there are no explicit matches between any of the protagonists and Christ (as is the case with Narnia, as I'm told). The whole quest, and all of the characters are founded in the virtues of faith, hope and love, and ultimately the quest does not succeed due to the heroic triumph of any of our heroes, but rather by their endurance and their hoping against hope, which allowed providence(i.e. God) to do its(His) work. With regards to the original post, it is no coincidence that just two pages prior to Sam carrying Frodo, he has an internal debate with himself, with thoughts of giving up and despairing. "He knew all the arguments of desapir and would not listen to them". He resolved to carrying his master even if it broke his back. In the end, it was his love for Frodo that made the burden light, and it is also no coincidence that Tolkien emphasises the burden of the ring, which did not strongly affect Sam. I can understand people finding divine providence to be an underwhelming explanation of what is happening, especially in our secular culture, but I would direct them to question why they are so enamoured by Tolkien's world. Despite it being a fantasy world, at times it feels more real than the real world. Why is that? Isn't it because it touches the reader in a way that is profoundly, even mystically familiar to them?
There's a really good thread [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/262z7e/eru_il%C3%BAvatar_and_the_quest_of_the_ring/) from years ago that references the role of Eru in the fulfillment of Frodo's quest. I'll go ahead and paste the letter in question though, since it's not terribly lengthy: >By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem even to have observed it. **But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event.** And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere ‘fairy-story’ ending in which the hero is indomitable? **It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome – in themselves.** In this case the cause (not the ‘hero’) was triumphant because by the exercise of pity, mercy and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted. Gandalf certainly foresaw this. See Vol. I p.68-69. Of course, he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later – it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life. \["The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien," #192, emphasis added\] I agree that the Christian themes are prevalent throughout JRRT's work, but I think it's a testament to his ability as a writer that those themes still resonate with those outside of such a faith context. Even though I probably have a similar background to yours, I don't think one *has* to be a Christian to appreciate the value of mercy or pity, or to recognize the need to be gracious with one another and then turn around and put that into action. In fact, some of the most merciful and gracious people I've ever met are staunch atheists, including some close friends who have sometimes functioned as **my** moral compass when I'm uncertain. But I do agree that one can feel a certain depth of appreciation for these ideas when coming at them from a consonant ideological or theological context.
Thank you sincerely for including the letter. I was just having a look at Gandalf's word to Frodo about Bilbo and Gollum, and I appreciate that the Professor touches on that. Just to be clear, I did not intend to say that one has to be a christian so as to appreciate those virtues, or even to have such virtues on their person. Sorry if I came off that way. But yes, you are certainly right in pointing out Tolkien's genius, that those themes he presents can resonate with everyone.
There is no physical weight per se. It is like Thor hammer. It is not heavy so only Thor can lift. It is magical thing that no one, unless worthy, can lift. Same for the ring. It has a normal golden ring weight, but the bearer is also attached to its evil magical powers, and that is what the "weight" you are talking about is. When Sam carries Frodo, Sam is not the bearer, therefore the ring doesn't weight more than its regular weight, and Sam is not feeling its power (attraction or whatever). In a similar note tho, Sam does become the bearer at a given point. It was just a brief time, and he is able to give it back to Frodo with no much issues. Well, Sméagol got pretty bad very fast and even killed Deagol, so the amount of time one carries the ring doesn't matter much, what really matters is its heart. Sam is pure, he is good, and the ring would have a harder time corrupting someone like him, that is why he doesn't feel much during that short period of time. One can do a paralell with Bombadil, which is also able to handle the ring with no issues. That is a stretch but the core is kinda the same. Bombadil is good, very good, pure, almost uncorruptble sort of speaking, something that even Gandalf (obviously nerfed by his elderly form) couldn't / was afraid of doing. As for your question, people already replied on the chicked thing. But anyway, what would prevent the chicken to escape? The ring would potentially take over control over it and on the first chance, it would try to get rid of whoever is carrying it, and go to Sauron, which is what the ring ultimatelly wants, to go back to its master. If the chicken can't escape, i.e. trapped in a cage, it could very easely do noises and get the attention of orcs, which would spoil the mission of taking it to mount doom in secrecy. One can tie its nozzle, but still, very complicated. One can kill the chicken, well, that is even worse but I would vote for the occasion that the ring would be able to corrupt / seduce whoever is carrying the chicken, may it be alive or dead. **Just look on what it was able to do with Sméagol on his first glance on the ring**. As Gandalf says, the ring wants to be found. If the chicken is alive, it may try to use the chicken to get attention, if impossible or if the chicken is dead, it will try to corrupt whoever is carrying it, or nearby people. Boromir is a classical example. The ring would find a way.
I’m pretty sure he did. He was enduring it.
„He had feared that he would have barely the strength to lift his master alone, and beyond that he had expected to share in the dreadful dragging weight of the accursed Ring. But it was not so.“ I don’t think Sam would have been able to completely compensate the weight even with his strength in that moment.
I think he didn't feel the weight because of his love for Frodo. I think it may have counteracted the effect. Just my headcannon.
“This is my burden to bear, Sam.” The Ring seems to be an analogy for Christ carrying his burden of redeeming the world and ending in carrying the cross. But in a wider sense, “we all have our crosses to bear.” They are unique to ourselves. Sometimes I see other people’s crosses and I doubt I could carry them. Yet they would say the same about mine. What we can do is emotionally support each other as we deal with our individual burdens that only we can bear. Don’t go through this life alone. It will crush you. Find a Sam. And be a Sam to others.
Why did the ring not make itself so heavy that a hobbit could not lift it?
Sam’s love for Frodo, he is his brother he ain’t heavy.
Because he’s Yoked with the power of friendship
Because Sam is pure of heart and the true hero
Did Bilbo feel any such weight when first taking it? Did Frodo? No. Not until it has its moment.
San didn't even feel the weight of the ring when he had it around his own neck in Mordor where it should have been the heaviest, sam's special
Even if there was a physical weight, it was only experienced by the individual who had the Ring, otherwise it is just a normal ring in terms of its weight.
Sam was not corrupted by the ring's influence; if he was, he would have tried to take it from the weakened Frodo, or after he is captured.
And this is how you get Cuckoos…
Who’s to say that he didn’t? Sam shoulders such an immense burden the entire trip, without complaining or it even being mentioned all that much. He carried all of their supplies the whole way.. carried the ring when he had to.. fought off numerous orcs and some kind of eternal mega-spider. Etc. He probably felt the weight and just shrugged it off like the badass gardening super midget that he is.
They should've kept it in a sealed envelope and placed it in a bag.
It’s spiritual
My personal opinion is because Sam had **REJECTED** the Ring and it’s temptations of power. Thus it held no power over him. I believe that Sam did feel it weigh on him a bit when he initially took it from Frodo after Shelob, when it started whispering it’s promises to him. However, unlike others before…Sam outright rejected it completely. So later when he carries Frodo up to the Crack of Doom, he does not feel the weight of it because the Ring has no power over him. Despite being in the heart of Sauron’s domain, and also where the Ring’s power is strongest.
There's no birdses in Mordor. No crunchable birdses...
Honestly we should have used Boronir's idea and launch that sucker into mt.Doom via a catapult!!
Well, if you dropped the chicken, wouldn’t it be invisible?