Sauron's The One Ring In 'The Lord Of The Rings' Is Not What You Think
There are few better examples of post-Ground Zero clutural illiteracy than popular commentators’ and literary critics’ hamfisted interpretations of the One Ring.
Let’s get the basics out of the way first: The One Ring is not a metaphor. It is neither a stand-in for atomic weapons nor political power, nor is it a commentary on World War II. It is not an allegory for fascism, communism, capitalism, imperialism, or any other –ism.
Tolkien stated the above points explicitly, repeatedly, and with the weariness of a man who knew exactly what he was up against. His tragedy was that of the linguist trying to speak to a civilization that had lost the ability to hear.
Because our society no longer reads; it scans. All day online, we listen to commentary from people who have not read The Lord of the Rings—never mind The Silmarrillion or Tolkien’s letters—and would not understand the material if they had.
READ: Brandon Sanderson's Flaw: The Trouble With Constantly Dynamic Characters
Too many people only engage with Tolkien to the extent that they can bend and warp his work to serve as a vessel for their ideology. And so the One Ring, which was written with a precise and non-allegorical meaning, has become a kind of literary Rorschach test; another mirror in the Pop Cult funhouse. Readers; let’s be real here, movie-watchers, see in the Ring whatever they already believe about power, war, or politics.
That’s not just a misreading. It’s a desecration.
Why?
We should start, as always, by listening to the author himself.
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."
—J.R.R. Tolkien, Foreword to the Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings
Tolkien couldn't have explained his position more plainly. But critics, both academics and amateurs, insist on ignoring him. They quote the line and then proceed to interpret the Ring allegorically anyway, as if the author’s disclaimer was just a polite British eccentricity.
Tolkien did not write allegory. He wrote applicability: his word. The idea is that meaning emerges from the story because the story is true in the way that great myths are true—not because they stand in for real-world events, but because they reveal the contours of human nature and the created order. The One Ring is not a metaphor for the atom bomb. It is a concrete instantiation of a metaphysical principle: the corruption of the will through domination.
That is why the Ring must be destroyed; not because it’s a stand-in for power, and power always corrupts, but because using it to defeat Sauron must involve coercion, or moral violence, which can never be licit.
To spell it out even more plainly, using the Ring with full knowledge of its corrupting nature, even with the best of intentions, would have constituted a grave sin. And condoning such a war crime would have disqualified those who were called to wield power justly.
READ: The Pop Cult And The Death Cult That Are Destroying The West
Remember: Tolkien was a philologist, a scholar of language and meaning. Think of him as a detective working in the ruins of fallen civilizations, reconstructing worldviews from fragments of lost words. Tolkien approached his legendarium not as a hack writer slinging metaphors, but as a historian excavating a lost age. The Ring is not a "symbol of power." It is a concrete object within a secondary world crafted by a being of diabolical will and power for a concrete purpose in the context of that world.
To understand the Ring, one must understand how power works in Tolkien’s secondary world—not in terms of brute force or realpolitik, but in light of the moral order created by Ilúvatar, the One. The Ring is focused demonic oppression; its wearer imposes his will on others. It doesn’t amplify your good intentions; it corrodes them. It doesn’t offer you power; it constantly and subtly tempts you to abuse it. Nor is that corruption mechanical, but spiritual.
We can attribute the widespread misinterpretation of Tolkien’s work to the fact that everybody has missed that distinction for years.
Peter Jackson’s film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, while impressive as visual achievements, finished deadpub lit critics’ job of flattening Tolkien’s metaphysic into Hollywood psychology. Jackson’s Frodo is a shell-shocked waif. His Aragorn is a reluctant king riddled with Gen X angst. And his Ring is just a magic item with a growing “will of its own,” reduced to a convenient MacGuffin.
Being hotter visual media than the books, the Jackson films needed a simple, pictorial shorthand for the Ring’s influence. So they settled on temptation + invisibility = evil.
But in doing so, the film makers undercut the source material’s theological foundations.
In Tolkien’s books, the Ring does not just tempt; it damns. It does not merely whisper; it deforms the world. To wear the Ring is to exist out of phase with the created order. That is why it draws the Nazgûl and why it torments Frodo more the longer he bears it, enacting a slow warping of the soul.
But Late Modern minds don’t have a category for that kind of evil. And so the Ring gets projected through whatever lens the critic already favors.
Are you an academic enamored of Foucault? The Ring is hegemonic power. Are you a 1960s hippie posturing against the Cold War? The Ring is nuclear deterrence. Are you a Libertarian? The Ring is the state. That’s not literary interpretation; it’s projection.
Tolkien understood that tendency and rejected it. That’s why he refused to let allegory reduce his story to a tract. He didn’t want the reader to "decode" the story. He wanted the reader to inhabit it.
The Ring’s primary function is not to represent power but to test the soul. That is why it tempts each character differently. For Boromir, it’s military victory. For Galadriel, forcibly halting the fading of the Eldar. For Gollum, a grotesque self-love indistinguishable from self-hatred.
This is why the Ring cannot be used, only resisted. The test is not about wielding power responsibly; it’s about refusing the will to dominate in all its guises. That’s a fundamental proposition of moral theology that has more in common with the Desert Fathers than with modern concepts of statecraft.
Late Modern readers cannot grasp the difference, because they no longer believe that domination is evil. They see it as neutral; even necessary. Fixated on correct ends, not moral means, we’ve become a culture of consequentialists. And consequentialism must always reduce to moral relaativism. So when Current Year audiences encounter the Ring, they identify it with some good used improperly; not intrinsically disordered moral matter.
Which, by the way, was Saruman’s error.
READ: Red Letter Media Share Advice To Save Hollywood, But It's Already A Corpse
The Ring reveals character, not by making you do evil, but by showing you what you already want and offering it to you with diabolical strings attached. But that’s is not how Moderns understand temptation; it’s how Medieval Christians did. The Ring is not a sin metaphor. It is gravely sinful matter.
Now, the foregoing may sound counterintuitive—especially to Modern ears. But it follows inexorably to reveal the contradictions at the heart of every post-Christian moral system. Libertarians, for instance, might argue that any use of state power is inherently coercive; therefore the state meets the criteria of grave matter, equivalent to using the Ring. But Libertarianism has the biggest moral defect of all to contend with, since its foundational premise is elevating personal freedom to an absolute unanchored from any external obligation.
You can immediately see the problem with trying to define the good according to individual preference, which is necessarily subjective. So by the rules of the Libertarian worldview, neither evil nor good can be located in the object, which negates Tolkien’s conception of the One Ring as objectively evil.
And that objective evil is why (spoiler alert), at the climax of the story, Frodo fails.
That is not a plot twist. It is the whole point.
Modern readers bristle at the books’ original climax. They are used to protagonists growing and overcoming. Frodo’s arc ends in defeat. He gives in and claims the Ring.
Why?
Because Tolkien, unlike the storytellers of our age, understood that some victories are not possible by human effort alone. Frodo is saved not by inner strength, but by grace mediated through the pitiful, corrupted, miserable person of Gollum. The evil Gollum intended for himself becomes the means of salvation for Frodo—and all of Middle-Earth.
Frodo’s moral failure becomes an occasion for Providence. The Ring quest’s resolution gives us a deeply Christian vision of how redemption works. It is not cinematic. It is not satisfying in the Joseph Campbell sense. But it is real.
And if there’s one thing Modern readers and viewers hate, it’s reality.
Audiences raised on Campbell (both of them) want Frodo to triumph through determination. They want the Ring to be conquered by his will. And they want the ending to reflect the modern dogma that we are strong enough, good enough, and smrt enough—on the right side of history.
But Tolkien didn’t believe that. And he didn’t write it.
When the One Ring is flattened into metaphor, it becomes a plot device rather than an instantiation of spiritual reality. It becomes subject to our theories rather than a challenge to them.
And once the Ring is politicized, the rest of the legendarium collapses. Gandalf becomes a mere manipulator. Aragorn dwindles to a monarchist fantasy. The hobbits get recast as noble savages.
That’s what happens when critics approach myth with suspicion instead of humility. They believe they are interpreting the text, but they are only projecting onto it. And projection is the best way to never actually read anything.
If we want to understand the One Ring, we must recover the worldview Tolkien assumed.
That means abandoning allegory. It takes denying the urge to decode. Most of all, it requires learning to read again: slowly, carefully, at least twice, with a sense that not every question has a tidy answer.
But here’s one shortcut for you: Tolkien’s work is not a product of modernity. It is a repudiation of it.
The One Ring is not a tool. Nor is it an allegory or an ink blot test. It is a secondary world artifact that carries within it a real moral weight. Because unlike too many elements of the real world, Tolkien’s world doesn’t lie to itself constantly.
To read Tolkien correctly is to undergo a kind of re-enchantment. Not because he tells us what to believe, but because he shows us what it looks like when belief permeates every element of a created world.
Read what Tolkien actually wrote, and you will understand why the Ring must be destroyed.
Not explained.
Not used.
Not understood in Late Modern terms.
Just destroyed.
Because politics is downstream from culture, and the will to dominate must be thwarted first in fiction.
For a non-Tolkien story in the vein of Elden Ring that allows you to experience this re-enchantment read Lord of Fate.
NEXT: Substack Fantasy Powerhouses Launch Steel Hearts Anthology
 | A guest post by
|
the rings reference capital sins.
Very interesting and enjoyable read, thank you.
Luckily for me, I always take creative works at face value. People in my life, the ones who like to 'project' as the author notes, sometimes look down on me for that. They want to see messaging everywhere. They think it makes them sound intelligent or they simply want to, as described above, hijack popular material to further their own ideologies.
I keep it simple because I think it's arrogant to assume one knows the mind of an author from an intellectual point of view and it's also rude to them from a creative point of view. It's their work, not yours. If the author speaks out about 'the message' in their work then fair enough but otherwise, leave it be.
I remember a similar thing happening to American Sniper, iirc. Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper said it was a simply story about a man based on his thought provoking autobiography - nothing more, nothing less. Of course, activists ignored that and went ahead and excused them of promoting U.S.A exceptionalism, glorifying the military and being racist by reducing middle-eastern people to savages. Definite projection.
As for the One Ring, I always felt it was exactly as described - a corrupting artifact of supreme evil power; the devil in ring form I suppose. Even in the movies, Gandalf explicitly states something like, 'It is a thing of pure evil and cannot be used' and 'It will corrupt all who attempt to use it'.
Seeing it as an allegory of nukes or the estate is actually quite distasteful to me and goes against the magical fantasy of it all...it takes me out of the incredible world Tolkien went to such great efforts to create. What's the point of that? I read these works to escape the real world for awhile, not drag it back into my thoughts.