I just realized that absolute power doesn't corrupt.

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yes, I know but you said, "You really need to read Tolkein again because you apparently didn't comprehend it at all. It wasn't that any Hobbit could carry the ring. Frodo was chosen to carry the ring; not specifically because he was a Hobbit but because he was Frodo, who happened to be a Hobbit."

Naturally, when you said I didn't comprehend why Frodo was chosen that maybe you did.

I was responding to your claim that Hobbits had "no ego" which is why they were capable of carrying the ring. The Hobbits definitely had egos, even Frodo, so that wouldn't have been the reason.

Why was Frodo specifically chosen? Probably for a number of reasons. Frodo was the closest relative to Bilbo so was the natural heir to the ring. He was unassuming; few would suspect something so small to be carrying something so important. Also, he was innocent and powerless, almost childlike, which made it more difficult for the ring to corrupt him. Plus, Gandalf chose him as ultimately the only resort since Gandalf himself couldn't even touch the ring.

From Tolkein's pov, Frodo also made for a great protagonist, an underdog that everyone could get behind. I suppose there are others reasons as well but the ones above are what immediately spring to mind.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was responding to your claim that Hobbits had "no ego" which is why they were capable of carrying the ring. The Hobbits definitely had egos, even Frodo, so that wouldn't have been the reason.

Why was Frodo specifically chosen? Probably for a number of reasons. Frodo was the closest relative to Bilbo so was the natural heir to the ring. He was unassuming; few would suspect something so small to be carrying something so important. Also, he was innocent and powerless, almost childlike, which made it more difficult for the ring to corrupt him. Plus, Gandalf chose him as ultimately the only resort since Gandalf himself couldn't even touch the ring.

From Tolkein's pov, Frodo also made for a great protagonist, an underdog that everyone could get behind. I suppose there are others reasons as well but the ones above are what immediately spring to mind.

Sounds like a very good analysis to me. I just threw the hobbit thing in because the one ring is a good catch phrase for the desire for ultimate power. I don't know the story well but picked up on the innocence thingi with Hobbits, the kind of liberal generosity I think is natural to people who grow up with all their emotional and physical needs met, folk who can give of their spirit because the are full up inside and don't have ego cravings and needs. The shire seems to me to be a very happy place, a place that the human spirit longs for. I also believe that we long for it because it's what we may have been lucky enough to taste as children.