Why save them? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Kath · 07-27-2006, 05:48 PM

Not sure if this has been asked before, and not sure if it belongs here. Yell at me if either is the case.

Why does Tolkien save Frodo and Sam after the Ring is cast into Mount Doom?

We know that Tolkien was a fan of the noble sacrifice and a fantastic writer of bittersweet moments. Boromir's heroic death to try and save Merry and Pippin; the suicidal charge of the Rohirrim; Theoden's death; Gandalf's 'death'; returning to find the Shire torn to pieces - to name but a few.

To have Frodo and Sam die on the mountain after saving Middle Earth as Mordor crumbles around them would have been the ultimate noble sacrifice. Could it be that Tolkien got too attached to these characters and couldn't stand to see them die? Or that he thought after they'd been through so much they deserved a break?

Please, opinions greatly welcomed.

mark12_30 · 07-27-2006, 07:53 PM

Well, it was partly affection. But it was also to show the damage in Frodo, and the need for healing, and the whole response in the Shire.

That is rooted, I think, in the reception that soldiers got when returning to WW1 England from the front. "Roger, Pip-Pip, Old Boy, good to see you back home. Have your old job back." All very well-meaning, but for a world-war soldier, sometimes quite impossible. They were irrevocably (sometimes irreparably) changed.

MatthewM · 07-27-2006, 10:12 PM

I think he became too attached to them, and I don't think he ever planned for them to die. I think mark brings up a good point when he says they also live to show Frodo's dwindling away and insufficient life after the destruction of the Ring. Also, you can't make the "chief hero" (Sam) die! The death of Frodo and Sam after all they've been through would have made the story utterly depressing.

mormegil · 07-27-2006, 11:30 PM

I've said something similar to this somewhere else, but I cannot remember where it is. However, I feel that most fans of literature, movies, television, etc...are accustomed and rather demand to have the good guys win in the end. Had Sam and Frodo not survived people would generally leave the book feeling a bit empty.

I personally would like to see a bit more realism in killing off the main characters on occasion. Often we see secondary characters dies ie Theoden, Boromir etc... however the author is reluctant to kill the main character because of the public's view. The Silmarillion might be an exception to this for Tolkien but then the question would be raised: Who is the main character? Morgoth? He didn't die. The silmarils? They didn't 'die' though two were lost. Feanor is not the 'main character' per se as the story isn't about him and his deeds rather the quest of the Simlarils, which he happened to create.

I found the previous post here. I'm not sure how applicable it is but I think it is of merit.

Child of the 7th Age · 07-28-2006, 12:34 AM

I don't know why Tolkien did what he did, but I am glad he did it. I do know that, if Sam and Frodo had died, the book would have left me with a very different feeling. When I turn the last page of Tolkien's final chapter, I am filled with sadness and regret, yet a glimmer of hope remains. I've always felt that these few pages were special in showing the reader both how much had been gained and how much lost. Of all Tolkien's writings, these passages remain the most poignant and magical to me.

Not only would the death of Sam and Frodo been deeply depressing, but it would have removed much of that meaning. The tragedy at the end of the Lord of the Rings was not the death of any one or two individuals, but something much wider than that. It is the fact that an entire world was changing, and changing in such a way that Tolkien's depiction of its passing still brings an ache to my heart. I don't quite know how to say this, but are there others who sometimes wish they lived in a time or place where Elves or Hobbits were more than a figment of our imaginations? I've always had the feeling that there is something out there, something just beyond my fingertips. I catch a tiny glimpse, but then it whisks away.

The tragedy remains that Man lives in a universe where so much of the magic has departed. Like it or not, we are heirs of the Fourth Age. Even on those rare occasions when the magic is there, we simply fail to see it. Maybe the Elves faded not because of any change they went through but because of our own inability to understand and appreciate those things that can't be expressed in strictly physical terms. The ending of the Lord of the Rings makes me grieve for the passing of myth and magic in a way that the simple killing of Sam and Frodo would never have done. The death of these two beloved characters would have been a loss, but a much smaller one than the passing of a whole world, which is the final image that Tolkien chose to leave with his reader.

Finally, death is an important piece of Man's legacy; it is actually part and parcel of the new age. In the period following the destruction of the Ring, despite renewed prosperity and hope, there are to be no more immortal Elves. Man's lifespan will continue to shrink, and hobbits will diminish in size. To have abruptly killed Sam and Frodo off at Mount Doom would have made these two just another part of "Man's World", meeting their end like all those who died on the battlefield. But Frodo especially wasn't part of the new age. As ringbearers, Sam and Frodo were an important piece of the world that was passing and needed to leave like the Elves and the Ents....gently fading rather than being violently wrenched away.

Maybe Tolkien was too soft hearted, maybe he wanted to undo the massive bloodshed and horror of the First World War, and this seemed like a good way to rewrite things and bring his characters to a gentler end. Yet I also can't help but feel that he is telling us something about ourselves, the fact that we live in a world where there will be a few small victories but many great defeats stretching as far as the eye can see...a world where change and sadness and hope are intermingled. No one can escape this cycle, not even the reader sitting comfortably in a chair. This kind of heartwrenching loss and portrayal of change transcends the death of any one character. It brings us into the circle. At the end we are not only grieving for Sam and Frodo, and all the departing Elves. We are also grieving for ourselves.

Boromir88 · 07-28-2006, 08:42 AM

Besides what has been said I also think that Frodo was sacrificed. He just wasn't sacrificed in the sense that he actually physically died. But, I would say he was emotionally scarred and altered so much, that after the ring's destruction that Frodo alread committed the 'ultimate noble sacrifice.'

Once we get to Mount Doom, Frodo is no longer himself. He has lost control and his own 'mind' to the Ring:

Quote:

”No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.”~Mount Doom

Frodo can remember nothing else, he sees nothing else, he is nothing and all that's there is the Ring...'the wheel of fire.'

Tolkien talks a little bit about memory. With Gollum he was not completely beyond redemption, he was not completely ensnared by the Ring. We are told of this 'small corner of Gollum's mind' where he still has memory of his past life, before even coming across the Ring. And most importantly he still is able to remember his name...Smeagol. Most important, because contrast that with the Mouth of Sauron who we are told was unable to remember his past name. the Mouth was completely enthralled to Sauron's service, he lost all memory of his past life. Where Gollum still had this 'small corner' left.

Frodo is almost to this point of being completely enthralled to the Ring. He remembers nothing except the Ring. It is him, the ring and 'darkness.' By the time Frodo gets to Sammath Naur the Ring has complete and total control over him:

Quote:

The suddenly as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.

"Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."~Mount Doom

The Ring now has complete control over Frodo. Frodo was now untouchable by Pity, the very quality we know that Frodo had...his pity and mercy for Gollum. Now Sam sees Frodo and sees him as 'untouchable by pity.' Then we go back to the wheel of fire, and it is the Ring that makes Frodo utter those words. Which seems strange...why would the Ring make Frodo say these words of 'begone and trouble me no more and cast yourself into the Ring of Doom.' It makes it seem like the Ring wants to be destroyed, so what purpose would the Ring have in making Frodo utter these words?

I think it was necessary for the Ring to get complete and total control over Frodo, and achieve it's goal, which was to get back to Sauron. We are told in this one moment that the Ring was at it's maximum point of influence, beyond anyone's will to resist:

Quote:

I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist,...~Letter 246

So, in order for the Ring to achieve it goal, it needs to get Frodo into the Sammath Naur. But prior to this Frodo did not seem to have the strength to do it, and suddenly he conjures up enough strength (perhaps the Ring has some part to play in that again?) And in order to get total control over Frodo, where he would claim the Ring and the Nazgul would come to bring him back to Sauron, the Ring needs to get Frodo into the Sammath Naur, where it would be at it's 'maximum point of influence.' But, the Ring did not intend for providence and Eru to step in.

Anyway, what I'm intending to show with all this, is that Frodo had already been sacrificed...he did not need to 'die' in the sense of committing and ultimate sacrificed, because besides literally being dead, Frodo actually was dead in a sense. Letter 246 from the quote above goes on to say...

Quote:

certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely...

Frodo was physically and mentally drained. He had absolutely nothing left, to get the Ring to where providence could take over, it took everything out of him.

So, besides his life, Frodo had already sacrificed everything. He had sacrificed his comfortable life style in the shire, he had sacrificed every bit of mental and physical strength to get the Ring to where it needed to get to. And we see Frodo completely changed and scarred because of the Ring, so in many ways he was already dead and did sacrifice everything.

Thinlómien · 07-28-2006, 08:59 AM

I very much agree with Child; the tragedy of Frodo's and Sam's death would have taken importance from the fading of the Elves and the magic -tragedy. If there are too many big tragedies in a book, they have no impact on the reader anymore.

Kath, you mention bittersweetness. I have always considered it one of the most bittersweet - or bitter - things in LotR that though Frodo is the one who saves the world - and the Shire, he can't stay there, in the land he loves. This tragedy wouldn't exist, if Frodo and Sam died in Mt. Doom.

One aspect is that in old tales (and in Christian faith) good is rewarded and evil punished. How could such a good and loyal person as Sam face his end in a hope-forsaken, bitter place for co-saving the world, though he craves to see his home and sweetheart and old father again?
Now one might ask that wasn't Théoden a good man too, who shouldn't have died in case good is rewarded and evil punished. The matter is different with Théoden. He was an old man who was ready to die and saw his end, but still rode to it. He was a brave man, and he rests in peace.

Or maybe Tolkien simply loved happy endings...

MatthewM · 07-28-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I don't quite know how to say this, but are there others who sometimes wish they lived in a time or place where Elves or Hobbits were more than a figment of our imaginations? I've always had the feeling that there is something out there, something just beyond my fingertips. I catch a tiny glimpse, but then it whisks away.

I'm with you on that, I feel the same way.

Lotrelf · 04-04-2014, 12:24 AM

Tolkien says Frodo wrote the book, and later Sam finished it. Merry, Pippin and the others told them their tales, and this was how the Red Book was written. If, Tolkien had killed Frodo and Sam, who'd have known what happened in their journey! Also, their deaths wouldn't seem like sacrifice, instead they'd be like victims of the Shadow. This way, Sam was there to tell the story, and Frodo's ultimate sacrifice became a noble one.
P.S. I apologise if someone has posted this thought before, I didn't the entire thread.

littlemanpoet · 04-05-2014, 01:59 PM

How did I miss this back in the day?

Anyway, the observations about Frodo being broken war survivor are apt. Somehow this puts me in mind of Tolkien's dream of the great wave, which preceded WWI, so only if dreams can be prophetic would this work: could there be a correlation between the wave and the war?

Inziladun · 04-05-2014, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Somehow this puts me in mind of Tolkien's dream of the great wave, which preceded WWI, so only if dreams can be prophetic would this work: could there be a correlation between the wave and the war?

In Letters I can find no mention by Tolkien that he had any knowledge of the impetus of his "Atlantis" dream. Curiously, he does note that his son Michael was visited by the same dream, but that M. was the only one of his children so affected.

Jabbawocky Took · 04-21-2014, 03:29 PM

Such an interesting discussion, I've gained many new insights from your posts! Thank you.
I would agree that the ending of LOTR is anything but happy - surviving a traumatic experience is in many ways more severe than 'a glorious death'. Frodo was not allowed noble 'martyrdom' - there was that momentary peace that he felt at Sam's side once he was relieved of the Ring, had Frodo died at that point he would have died a typical hero, relieved and immortalised by death, forever celebrated by those who remembered him.
Having Frodo return to the Shire, and to fade into relative obscurity in the eyes of the people he sought to save, is really very sad. He has no peace, tormented by memories, guilt, loss and physical hurt; he exists merely on the peripheries of Shire life.
Not every hero gets to bow out in a blaze of glory, sometimes they will simply fade, perhaps forgotten even - how many of these heroes live amongst us, every day in our own communities. The ending is achingly sad yet beautiful.

William Cloud Hicklin · 04-21-2014, 03:32 PM

It is interesting that Tolkien wrote the last chapters, more or less as Michael's guest, during the period where Michael was just putting his life together as a "broken survivor" with severe PTSD.

The Mouth of Sauron · 04-25-2014, 05:54 PM