'I do really wish to destroy it!' cried Frodo. 'Or, well, to have it destroyed.'

I 've seen two kinds of 'what ifs?' in the Reading Room. The first is about Tolkien's book, and the second isn't really.

The first kind is an exploration of Tolkien's writing - often his plots specifically - by changing something to see how Tolkien's story is changed. It is an approach familiar to anyone from a Science, Technical, Engineering, Medical or Maths background. A geneticist or molecular biologists seeks a mutant that does not do that particular biochemical step; the mathematician or theoretical scientist tries "let x be overwhelmingly significant", or "let x be trivial" (Hmmm...I suppose that is also what Elon Musk is up to too!...).

For example, I remember we once tried something like this by discussing what would have happened if Boromir had not tried to take the Ring. The conclusion is quickly reached that the plots of The Two Towers collapse. And so the finding is that Boromir's treachery and the Breaking of the Fellowship is a keystone of Tolkien's plot.
The 'Critical analysis and discussion of Tolkien's literary works' scope of the Reading Room can cope with that. And of course we are expecting to find we've broken Tolkien's plot: we want to learn how it used to work from how it now doesn't work. This has the happy social consequence that anybody can tackle the ball without ny players feeling tackled - people are proposing ideas they don't expect to work, rather than someting they feel strongly about.
And it probably doesn't matter what ideas people have about exactly how that alternative plot wouldl go --who would go where and do what, and how that would all end up. That could only be tacked by fan fiction, whether the new author wants to solve the puzzle of somehow getting Tolkien's orignial plot back on track, or whether it is the most cliched kind of fan fiction in whch Boromir is rescued by an omnipotent self-insert character, in order to become her boyfriend (and the rest of Tolkien's plot is not really all that interesting compared wirth them shopping for curtains together or having lots of sex or whatever).

(I do realise that not all fan fiction deserves the negative and patronising cliches that some people have about it. I have also read some that does.)


The other kind of 'what if?' produces a plot outline for a fan fiction (in my opinion).
What I mean is that we're not, if we're honest, talking about Tolkien's book or his imaginary world anymore. We're talking about how Middle-earth could be if it were rearranged to suit whatever interests, delights or arouses the new author; or to serve some other wish or goal the new author has.
I'm not against fan fiction (or whatever term someone wants to substitute for basically the same thing if the term 'fan fiction' has too many negative connotations). But I've found there are pitfalls to discussing it in the Reading Room. For example:

• It often gets heated and very personal - past experience shows that people often find criticisms of their idea hard to bear. And what is interesting, delighful or arousing to one forum member is (again from past experience) boring, disturbing or enraging to someone else.
  
• It's a waste of time to point out any flaws and plot-holes in the new author's idea, under the misapprehension that we're still discussing Tolkien's views and plot. Any problem can just be 'yes but what-iffed' away. Someone's parallel fan fiction copy of Middle-earth will of course always do exacly what they want if they have unlimited turns of the 'what if?' crank to get there. The problem (I suspect) is not that an intelligent and imaginative person can't get fan fiction Middle earth to sit up and do tricks if they are willing to work that crank. The problem for fan fiction authors seems to be finding like-minded people who enjoy a result that is, well...cranky.

Oh wait - there is a third kind of 'what if?' in teh Reading Room! Or there used to be. We used to have a regular item called 'conspiracy theories' in which the game was to propose the most ridiculous and outrageous ideas possible, and provide as much extrapolation without evidence, contorted logic, pseudo-reasoning, absurd assumptions and fake 'evidence' as possible. Those were harmless fun because everyone knew we were being silly.
Ah happier times, before 'conspiracy theory' suggests what it does nowadays.

Anywayz. How then can I contribute to the current 'what if?' before us?
I used to be part of a writers' circle (the kind of thing where people circulate draft stories or things they are stuck with, and we all critique each others' work). Fan fiction didn't turn up (maybe it wasn't allowed? - I forget). But if I had seen a plot outline for military fantasy then I'd have excused myself from critiquing it. Works need to be critiqued by people who would understand and enjoy a good one.

So I choose not to critique Tolkien's Middle-earth turned into military fantasy. That doesn't mean it's wrong or bad - just that my honest feedback stops at 'it's not interesting to me'.
What if I assume this 'what if? ' is the other kind -- a look by mutation or reducto ad absurdum at what makes up Tolkien's actual plot? I can do that. Here goes:

I think that as early as in Book I Chapter 2 we see Gandalf say two fundamental things, one much more important than the other.

1. The most important one - he suggests that the Bagginses were meant to have the Ring and quickly gets some supporting evidence from Frodo's behaviour. I think the significnce of that (to Tolkien's plot) is collossal. But first let's list off:
2. He also suggests that it's already unlikely that Sauron can be stopped by military means. By his speech in The Last Debate he'll make it clear it's impossible (a conclusion to which Elrond has also come independently, judging by the advice he's sent along with his sons - same chapter).

But back to (1):
'Meant to have the Ring' by whom? The LOTR reader is not told. Will all the posthumous Tolkien publishing we can access now, we can probably say that Gandalf suspects or knows it's Eru. Big League stuff then.

'Meant to have the Ring' to do what with it? I suppose Gandalf has a preference, though I note he doesn't tell Frodo what to do (I checked just now!). But I expect he is greatly encouraged where Frodo offers that he is willing to 'take the Ring and guard it' And when Gandalf explains how the Ring might be destroyed, Frodo immediately responds:

Quote

So that's the answer then.

From this point onwards we're asked to believe it is reasonable within the fantasy world of Middle-earth to do the apparently insane: send Frodo alone or with the companions that chance will provide (if such a thing as chance now applies to Frodo's doings) to achieve the destruction of the Ring.
The point is re-iterated later - Elrond: ' If I understand aright all that I have heard...I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and if you do not find a way, no one will.'

Now of course we readers of a book by Prof JRR Tolkien know that there is an author at work. Those who have consulted HoME know there's a very early outline of the Ring destruction scene at Mount Doom. So we know that Tolkien had decided early on where Frodo would go and what would happen there. The rest is working out an interesting and entertaining series of near-catastrophes, narrow scapes, tests of character and other obstacles thorugh which the heroes must past first.
And that, of course is what authors do. I suspect nobody would really like it if Frodo could just chuck the Ring in his Book I Chapter 2 fireplace at Bag End to destroy it, and then they all went off for a pint. (Though for all I know there is fan fiction covering exactly that - I suspect there might be fan fiction covering everything.)
Therefore, there is absolutely no way the Ring Quest is going to fail in this book we're reading: it's the plot that the Ring Quest will succeed. It will only come within a exciting whisker of failing, and do that repeatedly.

What about considering the prospects for the Ring Quest from within Middle-earth though - where the Wise percieve that Frodo is meant to do it, but there's no evidence they are aware of being characters of an author who is driving a plot?

I think that a citizen of Middle-earth would observe something that I as a reader notice too (especially when Tolkien goes out of his way to point it out specifically!) Apparent setbacks or catastrophes end up working to his advantage if Frodo (and Sam) only have the courage not to abandon the Quest. I mentioned the practical upshots of the Breaking of the Fellowship already. That's one example. In this thread we're looking at Gollum's attempt to get Frodo and Sam eaten by Shelob (one of the 'what ifs' in this thread is that this works completely - Total Party Kill.) But of course Gollum's treachery only nearly works - and the practical upshot is that Frodo and Sam get over the Mordor border still carrying the Ring. Potentially this was impossible in any other way.

So I think the 'what if? of the Ring Quest failing utterly is a huge one - it smashes Tolkien's plot to smithereens. It is categorically not something that can happen (unless, possibly, Frodo decides to abandon the Quest - I don't know what would happen then, but presumably it is a possibility, if we assume Frodo retains free will).


What about point 2, Sauron being militarily unstoppable even assuming he does not recover the Ring? Tolkien is utterly clear about this, most explicitly in Gandalf's Last Debate speech (which GreenHillFox has already quoted for us). It's also the learning point of Frodo's vision on Amon Hen (before his supernatural vision is drawn unwillingly to Barad dur and he's nearly 'caught').
I think it's a second crucial plot point.
Someone with full faith that Frodo is meant to have the Ring [to destroy it, or have it destroyed] would I suppose be comfortable about letting Frodo simply walk into Mordor even if Sauron could be beaten back by swords in the meantime. Frodo would achieve total victory instead of stalemate.
But the idea that Sauron is undefeatable is not only explicitly made, but also seems necessary to me. That's because it sharpens to an awful point the dilemma what to do with the Ring. There is the strongest possible temptation to use it. Or to do everything possible to deny it to Sauron (not letting it go anywhere near Mordor, for example). This heightens the faith and courage needed to do the right thing.
Forum members may or may not be conviced by Tolkien's attempts to rule out all other courses of action other than trying to destroy the Ring. But what's undeniable is that Tolkien tries to do that (in Council of Elrond, especially).

And that is all I can contribute to this thread, I think!

It is admitted that Sauron would eventually win, but would it be immediate? Does he have enough to conquer right away?

The elves would offer stiff resistance and thus keep Sauron busy enough that he would also be unable to wage war on Gondor or anywhere else for that matter. But victory would be up to him, and how much he would be willing to invest. I think he aims to conquer everything east of the mountains. The mouth of Sauron offered these terms to the men of the west at the black gate, indicating Sauron was not in the mood for immediate worldwide conquest after failing to capture Minas Tirith, “All lands east of the Anduin shall be Sauron’s for ever, solely. West of the Anduin as far as the Misty Mountains and the Gap of Rohan shall be tributary to Mordor,.”

But the idea that Sauron is undefeatable is not only explicitly made, but also seems necessary to me. That's because it sharpens to an awful point the dilemma what to do with the Ring. There is the strongest possible temptation to use it. Or to do everything possible to deny it to Sauron (not letting it go anywhere near Mordor, for example). This heightens the faith and courage needed to do the right thing.

Today I gave a little more thought to my note above, that in 2006 I'd paralleled Curious' 2007 UUT about Tolkien's dragons subsisting on the greed symbolized by their hoarded gold. Wait, I realized, I probably still have the post as a file on my computer, because on TORN I'd learned early not to compose a long Reading Room screed on the live app. Best to write it out off-line, and then copy and paste.

So a quick search turned it up, written as a set of longish answers to Beren IV's interesting RR discussion on dragon ecology (B IV, if I remember, was an ecologist for his day job and loved topics like this).

Here is his question on dragon predation ecology, in bold, and then my response. Wow, what a blast from the past...

Beren IV: 7. How many Men/Dwarves/Elves/Orcs does it take per day to feed a Dragon enough to keep it alive? How big of a population of prey species is needed per Dragon?

squire: As I said above, nothing on Middle-earth “lives” on Men or the other anthropoid races. Dragons certainly do not. Their prey species is in fact unclear, since men seem (quite sensibly) to stay away from their territory. Whatever Dragons are, they are large, and would eat large prey animals; yet as I’ve remarked, Tolkien gives little heed to wild animals and one can only hope that the deer and other ruminants that seem absent from the wildernesses of Middle-earth nevertheless frequent the Dragons’ various wastes!

One characteristic of Dragons in Tolkien that seems to draw on their cold-blooded ancestry is their ability to lie dormant for months at a time after feeding. Yet they breathe fire, can travel for days without food, and Smaug and Ancalagon at least can fly – are Dragons cold-blooded or hot-blooded?

What we are overlooking here is the obvious evidence of what Dragons really subsist on, in Tolkien: Men’s souls. Men’s souls are what Dragons consume, both in person by the Dragon-spell, and by proxy in the form of the Dragon’s Hoard. The Hoard represents Men’s greed for possessions and property; Men who put their souls into owning something will pay for it when their bodies are burned by the Dragon-breath and their treasure is taken and heaped under the Dragon’s body. Even those who survive and escape may be seized by Dragon-lust for treasure themselves (Thorin is one example; and this was a direction Tolkien considered taking Bilbo in when contemplating a Hobbit sequel); when that happens, the Dragon has taken their soul as well.

Note that Glaurung’s sack of Nargothrond takes the form of burning, or enslaving the Elves and Men within. He eats no one. Then he heaps the treasure of the Elf-king up, and takes a well-deserved, and no doubt highly-nourishing nap! With enough souls, with enough treasure, a Dragon can live several centuries without eating anything we would call “real food” – as Smaug seems to have when The Hobbit begins.

Do they eat? If so what? Do they subsist on negative energy?

Other Maiar eat, sleep and even reproduce.

Has anyone jumped down the Balrog rabbithole?

About Dragon ecology, I think the indications are that they are animated machines/magic items and don't need to eat organic food, though they do need to be refueled on occasion. This need for refueling would be why Dragons spend most of their time "asleep" in power-saving mode. Smaug couldn't refuel himself, and every moment of rampage brought closer the time he would finally shut down for lack of energy.

So I think Tolkien never fully abandoned his early Fall of Gondolin conceptions of mechanical dragons, but made the machines be possessed and operated by evil spirits with supernatural powers.

(Farmer Giles of Ham is a different and unrelated continuity, so you can't assume the world-building mechanics are compatible.)

(I'd been thinking about making a proper topic post about this subject, but hadn't even started with the writing.)

I'm not sure how far you are taking this concept. Dragons do seem to be living beasts, whatever their magical nature. Morgoth bred them, he didn't construct them. Smaug could hardly have been a "young" dragon when he came to Erebor if he had been an automaton "built" in the First Age.