Heroes in Middle-earth

[Andorinha]

This concept has been kicked around before, on the old MSN board I think, but as it has come up on another site, I thought I'd start up a section of the "heroic" conception here as well.

So, what is a hero? How do the definitions alter through time? What did JRRT mean by "hero?" Which of his characters exhibits "heroic" qualities?

[Andorinha]

Frodo as "hero," flawed from the beginning?

We often use one of the modern standards of definition for "hero,"when reading JRRT, chief among them seems to be an altruistic urge to sacrifice one's self for a higher purpose, such as the "common good." And I think this is just what JRRT intends us to see (primarily) in LotR, chpt 2, "The Shadow of the Past." But, I am wondering here, is there something else at work when Frodo chooses to take up the burdern of being the Ring Bearer? Gandalf speaks of at least two different Wills influencing these events, beyond Frodo's own "freedom" of choice. One, the predestined flow of Middle-earth history demands Frodo take the Ring, the other, a darker purpose, works towards this end as well.

At this point in the narrative, just how powerful is the Ring? In the published version LOTR, Frodo received the Ring on the night of Bilbo's disappearance (III Age 3001), and he keeps it until 3018 when Gandalf arrives to reveal its true nature. By this time, how much of a hold does the Ring have over the hobbit's mind? JRRT does show us that Frodo is already influenced by the ghastly thing, he reacts with shock and dismay as Gandalf tosses it into the 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. Frodo gave a cry and groped for the tongs...'" (FotR, hb version, p. 59 first third of chpt 2).

When Frodo then queries the possibility of destroying the Ring, Gandalf demonstrates just how far its control of Frodo has already been extended: "'Would you [destroy it]? How would you do that? Have you ever tried? ...' 'Try!' said Gandalf. 'Try now!' Frodo drew the Ring out of his pocket again and looked at it. It now appeared plain and smooth, without mark or device... The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its colour, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious. When he took it out he had intended to fling it from him into the very hottest part of the fire. ... then with an effort of will he made a movement, as if to cast it away -- but he found that he had put it back in his pocket." (pp. 69-70 FotR end of chapter 2)

The Ring looks after its own survival, the Ring, as Gandalf tells us (p. 65), seeks actively to be re-united with its maker, it manipulates those around it to better ensure its eventual return to the Black Hand. Is this will at work in chapter two? Gandalf seems to think so.

Consequently, if you were the Ring, would you rather be possessed by a supremely powerful agent like Gandalf, or a mere hobbit of the Shire? Even if the One Ring could overthrow Gandalf's mind, corrupt him utterly, still Gandalf would keep it and overthrow Sauron and take his place. The Ring does not want a new master, it seeks Sauron. If Frodo keeps it, and even if he claims it (as he did at Mount Doom) he has not the power and skill to wield it, and as JRRT speculated in Letter #246, p. 331, it could still be taken from him. The Ring wants to be carried by the weakest will available, and at this moment (when the alternative is Gandalf) that is Frodo. So, does Frodo "sacrifice" himself altruistically then? Or are there several "controlling" forces that "guide" his decision to be Ring-Bearer? The force of predestined history pushes him that way, and the Ring itself may very well have re-inforced Frodo's choice.

Does this make Frodo's choice any less heroic? I don't think so, because I don't believe JRRT, especially after WW I, had a simplistically idealistic conception of "heroism" in his mind. He should have been quite familiar with the complexity of motivations (including chance or fate) that influence the doing of "heroic" deeds. I think, regarding Frodo's action, JRRT would still see it as heroic, even if the decision were reached through a complex system of competing motivations -- some of them not particularly altruistic at all. In this sense, I believe Tolkien, creates "realistic" heroes, not uni-dimesional, cardboard cutout

[Andorinha]

Hero, ah, this is a more interesting topic than it might at first appear.

Our usual answers here, Frodo, Gandalf, Eowyn, Bilbo, Sam, Aragorn, Gimli etc. perhaps, reveal a good deal about who WE are, and how well integrated we are within a particular society. From the list of potential JRRT heroes normally offered, I think I see a common thread of thought -- all of the names are nice, "safe types," embedded in the "socially useful" mode of heroics, characters to be upheld as examples of "correct behavior," characters that are to be emulated. School book heroes, and school book heroics where our conception of "the heroic" has been culturally pre-defined for us. How well we seem to have internalized this single system of values, this prescriptive definition of heroism. As late as the penning of Beowulf, the heroic concept had few "uplifting" social values to offer us. Beowulf goes to fight Grendel for the same reason Achilles goes to slaughter the Trojans, or Gilgamesh wanders the world slaying demons: there is no immortality in life, none after death, so reputation is all these heroes seek, trying to find an ersatz immortality by becoming the matter of legends, remembered in ancient songs.

But, nowadays, we require more than just a list of bold deeds if "heroic" status will be conferred, don't we?

1. a hero should be self-effacing, no hint of egotism in her/ his actions and motivations. But, of course, this is one of our modern prejudices, is it not? The classical hero, mythical or real, Gilgamesh, Achilles, Alexander the Great, Beowulf, Thor, Gunnar (Njal Saga), and the not so time-lost heroes like Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay), or "The Man With No Name" (Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns) are all highly motivated by a quest for personal glory, personal gain. Today, we might tend to downgrade their heroisms as self-serving, perhaps in the mode of Boromir?

2. a hero must be self-sacrificing. Again, this seems to be a late addition to the concept of heroics. I'm trying to figure out just when this criterion crept into the picture, probably a Victorian ideal that bled over into a common European, USA value system, very useful in times of war?

I think today, I'd rather use a broader, less Madison Avenue derived definition of hero, one where heroes are not restricted to those culture models deemed useful as standards of behavior that we the public should emulate, serving a set of goals established to preserve and further the societal status quo.

In Milton's "Paradise Lost" (read by, and in some ways imitated by JRRT) Lucifer is "heroic" in his rebellion. By extention, Morgoth/ Melko, playing a Luciferan role in JRRT's version, partakes in that particular sort of heroism as well. It is egotistic, it is self-enhancing, but it is still "heroic" in the original sense of the word: extraordinary actions done by figures larger than life. But I see that in the list of potential heroes offered so far, this entire side of heroism has been, thus far, left out?

Here, as heroic in his deeds, the classical measure, I would offer the miserable Gollum. For those of you who engage the wilderness in cross country pursuits -- scrambling among the rocky tors, or sweating your way through a jungle, or just treading the endless miles of a ten day back-packing tour -- could you survive what Gollum survived in the Wild? Could you face the terror of your age, be tortured by a Sauron, and still keep even a spark of your own will? Gollum did. Would your water skills allow YOU to baffle an acknowledged expert in tracking like Aragorn? If nothing else, and I argue there is a good deal "else," Gollum's persistance toward the only goal that has any meaning for him, regaining the Ring, is truly heroic in its proportions, whatever we may say regarding his motivations.

Maybe Samwise was being fully wise -- even IF accidentally -- when he had the intuition to realize that Gollum might in some ways, be regarded as heroic?

Another example of Gollum's heroics may hark back to Gilgamesh as well, the struggle of the self. Confronting the mortality of Enkidu, watching the worm of corruption drop from his friend's nose, Gilgamesh, 2/3rds divine, realizes that even HE must die. From this point on Gilgamesh struggles with his own sense of mortalilty, becoming heroically self-engaged, trying to find a way to compromise with the inevitable fact of his own death. Gollum is similarly "self-engaged," his mind half eaten by the Ring, he struggles heroically to remain himself, to become once more, simply Smeagol. He nearly wins. Temporarily he banishes the Gollum side, and in the Letters even Tolkien mentions that this heroic struggle nearly produced a victory, nearly. But, in the end, the overwhelming power of the Ring overcomes the hero Smeagol, just as it overcame a supposedly more noble-heroic mind, Frodo Baggins.

[Parmastahir]

Wuff! After reading your comments on heros, I'll remain a simple calendar-collecting Hobbit. I can not offer any comments other than yours are thought-provoking. The idea of Morgoth's heroism and Gollum's (albeit intentional and absolutely as foreshadowed early on by Gandalf) is intriguing. Thanks for a different perspective on these characters!

Away from The Green Hill Country,

Parmastahir

[Stormrider]

I have never thought along these lines either. It is hard to adjust to the notion that anyone could have heroic tendencies in them no matter what they are.

Frodo loves the Shire. He inherits the Ring. He tries the Ring out several times. Gandalf comes and says it is an evil Ring. Frodo already has a tie to the Ring since he has used it. After understanding how evil it is, Frodo wants to destroy the Ring because he understands that it must be done. Despite the fact that the Ring is weaving itself into Frodo's mind, thoughts, and heart, just the fact that Frodo recognizes the need to and accepts the mission to destroy the Ring is a very heroic step.

I guess next to Gandalf, Frodo would be considered by the Ring to be weaker will. But is Frodo really weak willed? It doesn't seem like he is as he travels closer and closer to Mt. Doom. He still knows and wants to get there and destroy the Ring. He keeps it secret (as secret as he can--Faramir finds out eventually). He really, really tries to destroy it but it is just too powerful and he succumbs and claims it as his own where Sauron can now come and take it from him since he is stronger than Frodo even if Frodo has the Ring.

But how dumb is that of the Ring to travel with Frodo? I mean, Frodo went all the way to Mt. Doom--on the precipice of destruction! What if the Ring sensed wrongly and Frodo was able to overcome it and destroy it?

But then again, there have been comments on these foums from m e m b e r s that Eru may have placed Bilbo in the right place to find the Ring and thus Frodo ends up with it. The Ring might even have realized Frodo was stronger than it would have liked but because Frodo inherited it, it was stuck with Frodo and had to make due.

Let me think about Morgoth. He rebelled against Eru and in doing so, the cold, the snow, and ice developed from their clash of wills. The mountains were created from the smashing and crashing of the earth during the fights. Those things are beautiful things that resulted from the discord.

Was Morgoth's different style and way of doing things and his attempt to go about doing them against Eru's vision a heroic move on his part which ended up creating some interesting and beautiful new concepts in the world that were not even part of Eru's vision? I hope I am getting the point I want to make across clearly here.

Regarding Smeagol/Gollum--I'm trying to remember when Samwise "he had the intuition to realize that Gollum might in some ways, be regarded as heroic." Is there a specific passage that states (or hints at) this?

[Andorinha]

Hi Parmastahir! Thanks for the comments. Yeah, sometimes I try to see things from a different angle, occasionally that method leads to unexpected insights, sigh, other times it just degenerates into nonsense...

______________


Re Stormrider's "Regarding Smeagol/Gollum--I'm trying to remember when Samwise 'he had the intuition to realize that Gollum might in some ways, be regarded as heroic.' Is there a specific passage that states (or hints at) this?"

As I recollect, this bit by Sam is used both in the book and the movie. I'm poring over the text of "The Two Towers" now to see if I can get the exact wording. Off hand, while I page through the leaves, Frodo and Sam had just been talking about old tales, and how they never really end, and the quest that the two hobbits are on has connections even with the Silmaril (through Frodo's Phial from Galadriel) and they speak of whether they themselves will ever be regarded as heroes; and Sam gets embarassed when Frodo suggests that Sam will be remembered as a hero, but most likely that's the point where the kids will get tired and tell their dad to put the book away. Sam then mentions Gollum, and wonders if he sees himself as a hero.

I assume this must be AFTER Gollum's capture and taming, maybe while they are on the way to the Black Gate, or even as they enter Ithilien? LOL, I hope it IS in the book, maybe it's just in the movie? ACK, I'm up to the capture of the hobbits by Faramir, still don't see it...

Ah, think I've found it, further on than I remembered, the scene is actually ON "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol," while they take a "breather."

Page 322 hb version TT, towards the end of chapter 8:

" 'Shut the book now, dad; we don't want to read any more.' 'Maybe,' said Sam, 'but I wouldn't be one to say that. ... Why, even Gollum might be good in a tale, better than he is to have by you, anyway. And he used to like tales himself once, by his own account. I wonder if he thinks he's the hero or the villain?' 'Gollum!' he called. 'Would you like to be the hero -- now where's he got to again?' "

For Sam, I think this is quite astute. It shows him as deeper in mind than his status as gardener/ servant/ "batman" might suggest. Here, I interpret this passage as Sam's intuition that relativity is at work in all things. Sam realizes that he (Sam) may not regard Gollum as being of much good, but that maybe, from Gollum's perspective he (Gollum) might still be a hero; and even from Sam's perspective, Gollum might yet turn out to be a "good-guy" type of hero, if he plays fair with Frodo. At any rate, Sam can at least conceive of Gollum as being "heroic" in some fashion or another.

LOL, well I got part of my bi-annual re-reading done ahead of schedule now!

You've got LOTS more good material in your post Stormrider, I'll be back later to respond to several more excellent points you've made, stuff I would never have thought of on my own! Thanks!

[Desi Baggins]

This is kind of a goofy comment...but since I have children I tend to see lots of kids TV...They have the Justice league, Power Rangers, Incredibles, Powder Puff Girls and the list goes on....What I am getting at is all of these have a team effort and not just one hero, so could Tolkien have been pointing at that....the way to solve problems is to work together and not as individuals..........

[Stormrider]

Desi, In a way, I think so. The Fellowship started out as a team. They were meant to work together to destroy the Ring. Although they were broken up, they were still focussed on the same goal=destroy the Ring. In each of their own ways, they played an important part in its destruction.

Pippin and Merry--distracting Sauron's Eye from Frodo by being captured by Saruman's orcs. Especially Pippin looking into the Palantir focussed his Eye. Also they fought alongside the Rohirrim or Gondorians after they were split up.

Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn leading the dead to Minas Tirith and helping to destroy Sauron's forces. Aragorn specifically looked into the Palantir and faced Sauron, causing him to worry about the thread of the 'real' king of Gondor.

Gandalf suggesting that they distract Sauron from looking inside his own borders or Mordor for the Ring and Sam and Frodo by leading a confrontation of the Men of the West at the Black Gate.

Sam and Frodo still plugging away on their mission to reach Mt. Doom and destroy the Ring. Thank goodness for Gollum--he even played a part although it wasn't what he intended.

Boromir for frightening Frodo and helping cause the split of the Fellowship. I think Boromir's meeting with Frodo reinforced Frodo's decision that he had to go it alone to Mt. Doom. It seems that breaking up the Fellowship was what was needed--so each group of the Fellowship worked in aiding the cause in its own way.

[Stormrider]

Andoinha:

Of course, Sam's speech about stories and whether they would be included in the stories. That is one of my all time favorite passages. I guess I forgot that Sam had wondered if Gollum thought of himself as a hero.

I imagine Gollum did think he was a hero--the hero who saved the Ring from being thrown into Mt. Doom! But, of course, at the time that Sam asked Gollum, Gollum would not have admitted that to Sam. I imagine Gollum would have said, "Hero? No Smeagol is no hero." He was saved from answering by having slunk off somewhere else.

[fimbrethil]

Wow! I'm trying to digest all that is here. I'm sure I haven't read everything carefully enough, but I have a few comments:

1. Before we go any further, we must define the word "hero." It seems to me that there is something inherently positive about the word. Otherwise, why would we speak of "anti-heroes." I have a hard time thinking of Morgoth as a hero.

2. Andorinha - why do you think that the ring is seeking a weak bearer? Frodo repeatedly offers it up to powerful individuals - Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel - if the ring was controlling him, and didn't want to go to a person of power, then he wouldn't be making those offers. The ring stays with Frodo because those others won't take it. I think the ring simply seeks power. If Gandalf claimed it, overthrew Sauron, and became the new Dark Lord, I think the ring would be "content."

3. In your second post, A, you say

2. a hero must be self-sacrificing. Again, this seems to be a late addition to the concept of heroics. I'm trying to figure out just when this criterion crept into the picture, probably a Victorian ideal that bled over into a common European, USA value system, very useful in times of war?

Ummm, no. This is an ancient idea, and is core to the Christian story. I won't say that Christians invented the idea of the self-sacrificing hero, but I will claim that wherever Christianity has shaped a culture this idea has become part of it. "Greater love hath no man than that he give his life for his friends..." etc.

Fimbrethil

[Andorinha]

I did not expect this particular topic to elicit this much quality response, so I see, in retrospect, that I have introduced it in a rather lazy fashion by just jumping right into the examples I thought pertinent to LOTR.

You are right fimbrethil, the term "hero" needs preliminary definitional treatment, sigh, something I was hoping to avoid, LOL. Here I must admit that I have never made a particularly deep study of "heroism," and I am quite willing to accept the general input of all TR members here as we try to establish the parameters of heroism, and I probably will alter my own impressions as a result of the discussion here.

From my current state of semi-ignorance, I see the "alturistic" and/ or "self-sacrificial" modes of heroism as being fairly late additions to the definitional base. I would agree with you, that Christianity seems a likely source from which the concept of "self-sacrifice" might be derived as a component of "heroism." Of course, there were pre-Christian examples of a hero being elevated for self-sacrifice (Regulus of Rome, perhaps even the Spartan band at Thermopyle) -- but when did altruism and self-sacrifice become the "default" modes of western civilization's concept of heroism?

Until quite recently in US/ English history such figures as Henry the Eight, Columbus, Cortez, Pizzaro, Napoleon were all considered "heroic" because they manipulated history through the outstanding, supernormal impact of their deeds. This is, I would argue, a classical definition of heroism, and it was still largely in effect down to the 1830s in western European cultures, especially Great Britain and the United States. Even the great criminals, like Blackbeard, or the James Brothers were considered properly heroic under this classical dictum. Only quite recently this situation prevailed, when, at last, we seem to have found it necessary to reclassify some of our former "heroes" as "anti-heroes" -- because our new form of heroism has now become almost solely defined by the twin virtues of altruism, and a self-sacrifice that is designed to secure the good of society above the welfare of the individual.

So when did this change occur, when did altruism/ self-sacrifice become the new "predominating" mode of heroics?

Maybe, fimbrethil, it happened earlier than I think, and I'm open to arguments that might shift this movement further back in time, but from my readings to date, I see it as starting during the Great Awakening Movements, especially during the Second of these evangelistic, purifying movements, in the 1830's and 1840's, the beginning of the Victorian period. By 1855, I think a good, synthetic statement of this "new heroism" is found in Ayrault's magisterial statement, "Heroes and Heroism." (The Knickerbocker, vol. XLV, June, 1855, No. 6, pp 551 ff).

Here, in the first third of Victoria's age, Ayrault goes to great pains to establish a new definition of heroism, moving it away from its classical roots, and even its current 19th century popular traditions: "The popular idea of the hero is, that he is the bravest among the brave, and that his heroism is the highest effort of courage." Ayrault, wanted to go beyond mere battlefield courage as a definition, and he also finds "true heroism" in the quiet manner with which the Christian martyrs accepted their lots and displayed "fortitude under persecution..." (p. 552) Beyond even this, he seeks a form of true heroics that is based upon "a combination of the noblest faculties of the mind... nobility of character... and tenderness of soul..." (p. 552) But is this all? No, he continues, heroism must also be associated with a socially uplifting result: "We come then to our definition of heroism; that it is the giant exertion of will by which any moral, or social condition of mankind is elevated!" (556)

books.google.com/books?id=rxIAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA559&dq=hero
+%2B+heroism&lr=#PPA552-IA7,M1

Is this the concept of "heroism" that Tolkien has internalized? More on that later! And, how does this Victorian conceptualization of heroism stack up against the literary critical definition of heroism (100 years later) as defined by Northrup Frye (kindly provided by Fanuidhol elsewhere)?

See Herman Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_Criticism

[Andorinha]

I have some problems with using Frye's work as a paradigm for a discussion concerning a definition of the root tern "hero," as he seems in 1957 (the era of the "anti-hero") to be interested in only creating a typology of heroics. Frye assumes we have already decided "so-and-so" IS a hero, and we turn to his list to find out what sort of descriptive phrase will best categorize him/ her? In this case, I note that Frye does not include a specific demand for an altruistic conceptualization of heroics, nor is the "hero" referenced by "self-sacrifice."

So, I'll look further, to see if I can find any more strict definitions of "hero," but in the meantime, here is Frye's program. I hereby admit that the following quote from Northrop Frye has been reproduced (shamelessly stolen) from one of Fanuidhol's posts elsewhere:


"---In the mode of myth, the hero is superior in kind to other men and the environment of other men. These stories in which the hero is a divine being are important for literature, but generally fall outside the normal literary categories.

"---In a romance, the hero is superior in degree to other men and to the environment, but is simply an extraordinary human being. The laws of nature in romances are often not those that we meet in the real world, but they are self-consistent once they are established.

"---The high mimetic mode obtains when the hero is superior in degree to other men, but not to the environment. This is the kind of hero Aristotle principally had in mind: the leader whom we find in most epic and tragedy.

"---The low mimetic mode treats of a hero who is no better than the rest of us, which we find in most comedy and realistic fiction. We respond to the hero's common humanity in this sort of fiction. The story must display the canons of probability that we use in ordinary experience.

"---When the hero has less power or intelligence than ourselves, so that the scene is one of bondage, absurdity, or frustration, the mode is ironic.

"Frye tells us that irony, pushed to extremes, returns to the mode of myth. Characters who are so constrained by circumstances that they fall below the level of common humanity become hard to distinguish from the superhumans of myth: both kinds of stories enact archetypal patterns that do not turn on ordinary questions of personality or motivation. Frye's chief example of this return to myth is Finnegan's Wake, but we also see it in the low mimetic mode, particularly in science fiction."

For full review see www.johnreilly.info/aoc.htm

If anyone else can add to the list of "hero" definitions that would be grand!

[Andorinha]

Re Desi #6 "What I am getting at is all of these have a team effort and not just one hero, so could Tolkien have been pointing at that....the way to solve problems is to work together and not as individuals..."

Does not seen "goofy" to me. I wonder how much of the public school system played into JRRT's mindset? The education he got often stressed group solidarity (our school vrs your school) and especially team sports. This was partially done to get students ready for their military service duties. Tolkien's WW I experiences would have reinforced this concept. The entire idea of a "Fellowship" is based on such a team approach to problem solving, isn't it? In this sense, I see Gollum, Sam, and Frodo as being all necessary parts to the eventual success of their mission, even if that success came about, in the end, from two different acts of "betrayal," Frodo's refusal to immediately toss the Ring in the fire gave Gollum a chance to grab it, and then he, inadvertently, completed the quest.

[Andorinha]

Re Stormrider: "Was Morgoth's different style and way of doing things and his attempt to go about doing them against Eru's vision a heroic move on his part which ended up creating some interesting and beautiful new concepts in the world that were not even part of Eru's vision? I hope I am getting the point I want to make across clearly here."

Yeah, I like this idea. A lot of the high beauty of Middle-earth results from the various acts of rebellion, failures to follow the original script. All the beauties that come from conflict, hot versus cold, sudden mountain uplifting and cataclysmic valley formation -- resulting in some of the most stunningly awesome of our landforms -- may have originated in Morgoth's contest for control. Even the brightening of the stars was a result of his actions in Arda being counter-acted. The Sun, the Moon. Certainly the rebellion of the Elves causes much pain and suffering, but it also creates the Silmarils, and the Three Rings that allow places like Lothlorien and Rivendell to exist. I suppose, without these sorts of conflict, even the books JRRT wrote would never have been composed. Not much of a story talking about a perfect universe that has no strife, no conflict? No reason for Bilbo to leave home, because all Middle-earth would have been adventurelessly the same?

[Andorinha]

RE Fimbrethil

Excellent work, especially #3 needs to be emphasized and expanded, if you have the time. You may be correct in seeing an early alteration in heroic concepts, but I'm trying to think of examples outside the actual Biblical pages. I think even in the Christian medieval kingdoms, military success, and economic success are the paramount goals, even during the supposedly "altruistic" Crusades. The hero is not the brave "defender" who loses, so much as the bold winner? Most of us know and remember William the Conqueror, but far fewer of us can recount the fate of Constantine XI.

LOL, I'm definitely open to conversion here, especially if you can produce instances where the general population's heroic concept can be shown to feature the dominating influences of altruism and self sacrifice. I may not have looked in the right places!

2. RE "why do you think that the ring is seeking a weak bearer? Frodo repeatedly offers it up to powerful individuals - Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel - if the ring was controlling him, and didn't want to go to a person of power, then he wouldn't be making those offers."

Proof of the pudding is in the eating, did any of those who were offered the Ring, take it?

But you do bring up some good points here, and I must admit, the following is my personal interpretation of the situation, and while it does not, I think, violate any texts I know of, still, it is not "proven" by any texts I know of. So the following is highly speculative until I can find something, maybe in HOME or the Letters that might confirm or fully deny my thoughts...

A) I do really believe that the Ring WANTS reunion with Sauron, we are told that it has a will of its own, but that will IS the will of Sauron, isn't it? The Ring, I feel, wants not just any master because Sauron poured HIMSELF into the Ring, or so I interpret the scenario. In a very real sense the Ring IS Sauron, not merely a neutral device of power. There may be some material in the Letters that will help us answer this point, sigh, I can remember a few statements to this effect, but I need the actual quotes now, I'll start looking.

B) IF the Ring itself wants Sauron (not yet established) it would prefer to be carried by the weakest bearer who can still function independently and bring it ever closer to Sauron. Gollum might not do, as JRRT tells us, because he would just hide himself away again. If Galadriel or Elrond or Gandalf take the Ring, they have the personal power to keep it from Sauron, at the cost of their own eventual corruption so that they become Sauron. Here, I really cannot say if the Ring would mind that much, maybe a Sauron-Galadriel, or Sauron-Gandalf would suit its purposes? But as its original source WAS Sauron, I just have the feeling it would be keyed preferentially to his persona, and given a choice, would rather be on his hand than any other. Nothing yet to prove this though). Would the Ring eventually do to Gandalf or Galadriel what it did to Gollum, gobble up their minds completely? Once so reduced, would Sauron come out of the shadows again to claim it?

C) This is also speculation on my part, but, for what it is worth, here it is:

Frodo was not yet fully controlled by the Ring, when he offered it to Gandalf, not even in Lothlorien is he really controlled. It is not, I think, until he reaches the Cracks of Doom that the ring asserts full control. Before this point Frodo still has some freewill in the matter, and he can at least "toy" with the idea of passing it on, as Gandalf says "its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to some one else's care..." (FotR, "Shadow of the Past" p. 64 hb version, last 2/3rds).

Note, JRRT, through Gandalf says "plays with the idea," so how did Frodo ever get the thing? Did the Ring actually make the transition from Bilbo to Frodo easier? Did it sense that Bilbo was too old to carry it much further? That, combined with Gandalf's help -- intensified by Narya the Red Ring -- may have combined with Bilbo's own good nature, to allow the old hobbit to do what no one else could, do more than just "toy" with the idea of passing it on?

But, when we come to Frodo, I note that he only seems to offer the Ring (conveniently?) to those who will not take it. Aragorn may be said to have some legitimate claim to it, as Frodo recognizes in Rivendell, but again, Aragorn is one of those capable of refusing it, and he does so, even though Frodo never actually offers it to him. Does Frodo offer it to Elrond? Again, the same situation, he would have refused it too. So everyone that Frodo might rationally give the Ring to, is too powerful for the Ring to want as a possessor, and it just so happens, they are also the very ones best able to resist its lure. Coincidence? Maybe, but with my devious mind, I also think, maybe not... LOL!

Thanks Fimbrethil.