“Not all those who wander are lost.”

[Estelyn Telcontar]

One of the recurring themes of Tolkien’s works is that of change. We’ve discussed it before, but a lecture at ‘Tolkien 2005’ in Birmingham made me think about it more deeply. This post is based on Marjorie Willetts’ presentation: ‘The Good, the Bad and the Static: Wise Wanderers and Tired Travellers in Middle-earth’, augmented by my own thoughts and research, and limited to an introduction, in the hopes that many others will have something to add.

In his Letters, Tolkien mentions several times that the weakness of the Elves is their unwillingness to change.

…‘change’ viewed as a regrettable thing… (#131)
But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right… they were ‘embalmers’. (#154)
…the Elvish weakness is…to become unwilling to face change… (#181)

An important passage, which mentions change in connection with a journey is in Letter #183:

For if there is anything in a journey of any length, for me it is this: a deliverance from the plantlike state of helpless passive sufferer, an exercise however small of will, and mobility – and of curiosity, without which a rational mind becomes stultified.

(And later …calculable people reside in relatively fixed circumstances…

These statements show us that Tolkien considers change not only necessary, but important and beneficial. When we study his books, we see that he shows us the effects of staying static in his characters. Here are some examples, using the more important characters. I’m sure we can find others.

Wanderers are: Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Bilbo, Gimli, Legolas…

Fixed persons are: Saruman, Denethor, Bombadil…

Those who change from fixed to wanderers: Théoden, Treebeard, Éowyn…

Those who are fixed have a limited vision – inaccurate because incomplete - not seeing the concerns of others or other viewpoints; they are not open for possibilities outside their control. Stopping change is stopping growth. We see that in Saruman, who has settled down in Orthanc, which has relatively small windows in a stony wall. In limiting himself to one place, he loses sight of his mission and ultimately fails. He refuses to leave the tower until the end of the story, when it is too late for him to change.

We see it in Denethor, who says, “I would have things as they were – or nothing”, refusing to leave his city to do battle against the foe and even choosing death over change. (For more on him, please check out the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion of LotR, Book 5, Chapter 7 – ‘The Pyre of Denethor’.)

We also see unwillingness to wander in a 'good' character – Tom Bombadil! In limiting himself to the small boundaries of his own land, he sets limits to his powers and influence, having withdrawn from the wider world.

Gandalf (who is Saruman as he should have been) is the ultimate wanderer of Middle-earth. His travels give him a broad outlook on life, and experience gives him more than mere knowledge, it gives him wisdom. He gets to know and appreciate the different races and knows how each of them can effectively fight the good fight. After all, who else of the ‘great ones’ knows about Hobbits?!

Aragorn’s wanderings prepare him for his fate as King and give him an outlook that sees more than merely his own country and people. He is able to see the weaknesses of others with pity, not scorn, having learned both justice and mercy.

Théoden is at first limited to his hall; his sight is dim, and he has no will of his own. By leaving it (with Gandalf’s encouragement!), he regains a broader view, giving him hope and purpose, and ultimately plays an important part to victory in the great battle of his age.


I’m sure these are enough examples with which to start; I look forward to exploring this topic in greater depth through your contributions!

[Boromir88]

Wonderful thread Idea Estelyn, I expect nothing less. Oi, speaking of the CbC I need to get my butt back there, but I've fallen so behind, I see no way in catching up, unless I just skip through to the next chapter...Then a problem is finding time to post.

Anyway, perhaps we could identify the Characters in Tolkien with the labels you give (fixed, wanderer, change...etc).

For example, I would put Gollum with the fixed. He's unable to change. Though there is slight hope shown for him, in the end he was unable to change. He constantly desired the Ring back eventhough he hadn't had it for over 60 years. He was simply unable to let go of the past. Hence, a fixed character.

I would put Faramir with the wanderers. As Denethor would say he was "Gandalf's pupil" and was wise in lore. He was open to change, and was open to going against things he was told not to (not taking the Ring back to Minas Tirith). He does this because he knows better, and he is able to decide for himself what is right and wrong. He's not afraid of going against his Father's will.

Which leads into another Tolkien theme (and I hope this isn't too far off topic, if it is just reprimand me). But, Tolkien tends to give his characters a mind of their own (atleast some of them). Examples are Faramir, Beregond, and Hama. They aren't made mindless robots that do exactly what their lord says, but they're able to judge for themselves what is right and wrong, and if necessary CHANGE and explore their past or options.

Faramir with not taking the Ring to Minas Tirith.
Beregond committing treason and murder to save the life of his beloved innocent Captain. (This gives me a thread idea, for I just thought of something but indeed this would be off topic).
Hama after being told to take Gandalf's staff judges for the better and doesn't.

Would this make these characters wanderers then?

Then perhaps we see Eowyn begin to change from a fixed to more of a wanderer. She first starts out as an anxious Shieldmaiden wanting to die in battle, and not sit back at home. And she desires Aragorn because she thinks he can give him this. Then there's a change when she meets Faramir. She's more settled down, and she weds the life of a man who is more of a Guardian to the throne until the King returns from business, not a guy that goes out and fights.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I would put Gollum with the fixed. He's unable to change.

Not so sure I'd go along with this. Gollum certainly wandered far and wide for many years, and developed a certain amount of worldly wisdom after his fashion. He was eminently adaptable and managed to stay in the game right up to the very end -- in fact, succeeding at the last in his quest to recover the Ring.

Also, going with the theme of the positive effects of wandering, Gollum's put him within a hair's breadth of real redemption.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

We see it in Denethor, who says, “I would have things as they were – or nothing”, refusing to leave his city to do battle against the foe and even choosing death over change. (For more on him, please check out the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion of LotR, Book 5, Chapter 7 – ‘The Pyre of Denethor’.)

The paragraph above got me thinking about Aragorn's end, where he accepts change even at the end of all things. It is one thing to passively accept death, or to run from it as the Númenóreans did in their later years, but in Aragorn we see that he actively chose to change from this realm to whatever lay ahead. He knew that it was time to go, to change. And that's not an easy thing to do as one gets older and more "set in one's ways."

Similarly Denethor chose the timing of his own and almost that of his second son's ending, but to me it was an act of despair in which he wanted all thing to just STOP! Having lost one son, he now wanted to freeze time, keep his remaining son close and ward off the Darkness. In his pitiable mind it must have seemed that only immolation would stop change from finding him.

Great thread; will continue to think on it.

[davem]

Of course the first character we meet in the whole Legendarium is a wanderer - Eriol/Aelfwine the mariner - which is another thing that strikes me - how many of Tolkien's wanderers have links to the Sea - Tuor, Earendel, the father-son pairs in Lost Road & Notion Club Papers, Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Legolas & Gimli - even the more 'static' characters like Elrond & Galadriel - all finally seek the Sea. Even in SoWM Smith finds the Sea of Windless Storm.The Kingdoms of Gondor & Arnor are founded by Men who come from over the Sea.

The Road goes ever on, & it seems that that Road leads to the Sea - & ultimately over it to what lies beyond. I wonder whether what inspires Tolkien's wanderers to set out is the pull of 'something' they don't understand, but whatever it is is a 'spiritual' pull. Perhaps those who stay where they are are the ones who have refused to listen to the voice of Eru in their hearts? What's that line in Augustine? 'Our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee'? Or in the psalm:

O God, you are my God, I seek you, my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a weary land where there is no water.

I think Tolkien is using the idea of the 'wanderer' as a symbol. As Bilbo says, you have to be careful stepping into a road, because unless you keep your feet there is no knowing where you may be swept off to.' The physical journey seems the first step on the spiritual journey. Refusing to wander is refusing the goal, choosing the self & its desires over spiritual things. Tolkien's wanderers seem not just wiser & more 'useful' in the world, but more spiritually aware & compassionate too.

The odd thing is that Tolkien himself was someone who hardly travelled at all - well hardly at all physically.

[drigel]

Here we contemplate one of what I feel is a theme that was actually intended by the author. The reader doesnt read road, the reader reads Road. I always interpreted this theme as mainly an internal journey for the reader, for some reason. Especially from the meek hobbits POV.

The sea represents the ulitmate journey, or IMO representing the barrier that separates the corporeal from the non-corporeal, the physical from the spiritual. Aelfwine's passage, or Frodo's footsteps, representing one's life journey (or struggle) from darkness to enlightenment. And what strikes me as I read this thread is how neither of them, for better or worse, are ever the same again. They cannot return from whence they came.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course the first character we meet in the whole Legendarium is a wanderer - Eriol/Aelfwine the mariner - which is another thing that strikes me - how many of Tolkien's wanderers have links to the Sea - Tuor, Earendel, the father-son pairs in Lost Road & Notion Club Papers, Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Legolas & Gimli - even the more 'static' characters like Elrond & Galadriel - all finally seek the Sea. Even in SoWM Smith finds the Sea of Windless Storm.The Kingdoms of Gondor & Arnor are founded by Men who come from over the Sea.

The Road goes ever on, & it seems that that Road leads to the Sea - & ultimately over it to what lies beyond.

Well, what would we expect from an author who was writing a mythology for an island nation?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

The odd thing is that Tolkien himself was someone who hardly travelled at all - well hardly at all physically.

But didn't Tolkien travel widely within the UK? It always surprises me to read of the number of different places he did visit, either on family holidays, for work, or simply for days out. You do not have to travel far to travel - speaking as one who has never had a passport and always has plenty of adventures on the old island.

I perfectly understand the pull of the Sea. Having grown up by it I miss it, and when I see it I have to get on or into it for some reason. At first it seems as though the Sea only has an irresistible attraction for Elves, but in most cases (apart from those Elves who live on the shores of Valinor) I would say it is not so much the Sea which attracts, nor the journey, but the place you can get to by making the journey over the sea. For Men, it is literally the Sea itself which attracts, as shown in the Numenorean and Gondorian mariners.

I've been thinking about the differences between the static and the mobile characters for quite a while. I noticed the differnence initially between the Rohirrim and the Gondorians. The Rohirrim in effect emigrated to their land from the North, and the parts of the story about them are relatively full of movement - going to and from Helm's Deep and travelling to Gondor. When they meet strangers such as Hobbits, they react with interest and they seem keen to expand their borders.

Originally Posted by Esty

Théoden is at first limited to his hall; his sight is dim, and he has no will of his own. By leaving it (with Gandalf’s encouragement!), he regains a broader view, giving him hope and purpose, and ultimately plays an important part to victory in the great battle of his age.

The chapter where we first meet Theoden is strangely enough one of the few moments in the book where the Rohirrim keep still!

In contrast, the Gondorians at the time of the War of the Ring seem to have stagnated, or more specifically, the residents of Minas Tirith. One of the first reactions to Pippin is one of suspicion. They also seem to be relatively unaware of what is happening outside their walls. While the stories about the Rohirrim are full of movement, those about the Gondorians are about a closing in, a shutting up shop. Yes, they are undergoing siege so this is natural, even so, this almost seems metaphorical for their state of being closed off from the world.

The actual motif of the journey is strong in Tolkien's work - not only within the plots but the Legendarium is almost a journey in itself, moving from the simple to the complex, the comic to the serious, from the eucatastrophe of LotR to the tragedy of the Sil. Journeys can be about discovery within as well as literal discovery, and the way that Tolkien melds the two always brings to mind Huckleberry Finn - as the journey is made down the river many perils and encounters are to be had, each one teaching a new lesson.

I notice how Tolkien takes care that each character who takes a literal journey also takes an internal journey of discovery, and those who do not take a journey do not change in this way. This would include even good characters, such as Galadriel or Elrond - but then they do take a journey at the end of the book. This perhaps means that they have only one more thing to learn, to relinquish power in Middle-earth and the trip to the Grey Havens teaches them to do this.

Originally Posted by Esty

We also see unwillingness to wander in a 'good' character – Tom Bombadil! In limiting himself to the small boundaries of his own land, he sets limits to his powers and influence, having withdrawn from the wider world.

Maybe Tom does not need to travel any longer? He may have already travelled far and wide and have no more or only one more lesson to learn. Or maybe one of the ideas about him is true, that he embodies Middle-earth itself and so does not need to travel? He is a traveller within his own land, and there may be many things to see in the Old Forest which are very small but nevertheless interesting.

Which brings me back to where I was, which must mean someone was reading the Road Atlas upside down...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Well, what would we expect from an author who was writing a mythology for an island nation?

I wasn't talking about the sea, but the Sea.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Maybe Tom does not need to travel any longer? He may have already travelled far and wide and have no more or only one more lesson to learn. Or maybe one of the ideas about him is true, that he embodies Middle-earth itself and so does not need to travel? He is a traveller within his own land, and there may be many things to see in the Old Forest which are very small but nevertheless interesting

It could be argued that Tom is the greatest traveller in Middle-earth - he may not travel far in space, but he certainly has taken a long journey in time, from the appearance of the first stars to the end of the Third Age (& beyond?).

[Boromir88]

The chapter where we first meet Theoden is strangely enough one of the few moments in the book where the Rohirrim keep still!

In contrast, the Gondorians at the time of the War of the Ring seem to have stagnated, or more specifically, the residents of Minas Tirith.~Lalwende

Very good point, something I did not notice before. Even when Theoden was under Saruman's control, the Rohirrim were still wandering (Eomer, Theodred, Erkenbrand...etc). Then their movement becomes increases greatly after Gandalf helps Theoden.

I think there can be two types of wanderers we can talk about here. There's the physical wanderers that travel all over (Gandalf,Elladan? and Elrohir?, Aragorn's been to a wide list of places), and perhaps their final journey is to reach the sea (except Aragorn). Then there are the "mind-wanderers" they may necessarily not travel a lot but their mind wanders.

The best example I can give for this is Faramir. Though Faramir does not travel a lot from what we can tell, he's basically fixed and stuck in Gondor, I would still call him a wanderer, atleast in the mind. Because, he is not afraid of change. He's got an open mind to knowledge, but greatest of all is he doesn't care about change. He doesn't care if he goes against his fathers orders, he doesn't care if Minas Tirith burns to the ground, he doesn't care a King has come back to claim the Throne. He doesn't mind(yes pun intended) the change.

What makes Denether the fixed-mind is as pointed out by Estelyn, he doesn't want change, he doesn't want to lose his throne, he wants to be obeyed and he wants things as they once were. Of course, also Denethor is fixed in the physical sense, we barely see him leave his throne.

It's also interesting how there's mostly been pointing at wanderers being the best and most faithful (Gandalf, Aragorn...etc), but can wanders get lost? For instance, the Noldor. They didn't want to stay fixed, and desired to roam about Middle-earth and run the lands themselves, even after being told no by the higher powers.

Perhaps, there's something with that drigel mentions.

The sea represents the ulitmate journey, or IMO representing the barrier that separates the corporeal from the non-corporeal, the physical from the spiritual.

The Sea is that ultimate journey and those who go to it are the wanderers that are on the right path. But those who want to depart from the sea, and wander away from it (Noldor) are "lost."

Mr. Underhill, I will say "near" redemption isn't the same thing as redemption, but you bring up the great point that Gollum did travel a lot and all over. But I think it's a different case for Gollum. He's wandering because he wants to be fixed. The one time Gollum was fixed in his Misty Mountains for some 500 years was when he had the ring. The reason he wanders is to look for the Ring, possibly similar to what Denethor wanted, wanted life the way as it was. Gollum wanted the Ring back so he could hide in mountains and stay there with it. Just a suggestion, I would love to hear your input.

[Mister Underhill]

Great points about Gollum, B88. It's like the old saying about how almost only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades. In fact, the more I think on it, Gollum's wide wanderings in search of the Ring (selfish gain) didn't teach him much except for geography and a certain brand of wily survivalism. His internal journey doesn't begin until he undertakes (albeit under extreme duress) an external journey for something other than himself. And even though he never made it the whole way, the only thing that even gave him the chance was that journey. If he had remained fixed -- both mentally and physically -- in his hole under the Misty Mountains, he would have never had even the chance of redemption. In the end, it is his lack of real commitment to the service of others that leads to his downfall.

So maybe that's an important component of the wandering -- not wandering aimlessly, nor yet merely with the object of selfish gain, but wandering that leads to the service of others. Gandalf epitomizes this. Bilbo began his journey (also not completely of his own will) ostensibly for gain, but ended up willingly sacrificing his share of the treasure to avert bloodshed.

An interesting topic indeed, Esty.

[alatar]

Didn't Barliman Butterbur's mind tend to wander?

And are we talking about the lack of 'wandering' or control/stasis? The wanderers to me not only accept change, they also accept that there are things that are beyond their care and control. It's that whole serenity prayer thing - one must accept that there are things beyond one's control - you just have to let them go.

Gandalf, the ultimate wanderer, attempts to influence and coerce the inhabitants of ME yet does not seek to control and 'order' the same as does Saruman. Aragorn aids the battle at Helm's Deep yet does not supersede the orders of Theoden - he does not have to 'order' everything. Sauron, stuck as an Eye in a box, wants to reshape all of ME in his image. All things would be in under his dominion.

Anyway, where this all started was in thinking about the Sea. What place contains more chaos, and therefore less order? Even Ulmo doesn't seem to be in control of the Sea all of the time, and even then it seems that he just 'manages' it. The earth can be formed and shaped, but the Sea? Ever changing, formed but ever formless. And never a friend of a being like Sauron.

Didn't Melkor create cold and/or ice in an attempt to control the Sea? Note to Melkor: next time, make ice heavier than water, and then you stand a better chance of freezing the whole deal.

Do our wanderers, having accepted change throughout their lives, go onto the next step, the Sea, the ultimate source of change?

Sorry for the muddled rambling - must be too much water on the brain - but there's a thought in there somewhere.

[Boromir88]

So maybe that's an important component of the wandering -- not wandering aimlessly, nor yet merely with the object of selfish gain, but wandering that leads to the service of others.~Mr. Underhill

I agree and I think the Bilbo-Gollum comparison shows this perfectly.

And are we talking about the lack of 'wandering' or control/stasis? The wanderers to me not only accept change, they also accept that there are things that are beyond their care and control.

Alatar, I think your post makes perfect sense, nothing muddled about it. I think Gandalf's speech to Frodo on "Do not be so eager to pass out death and judgement," when Frodo said Bilbo should have killed Gollum is a good example of this.

And the big theme of Pity in Tolkien's books can tie in with all this. Gandalf has faith that Gollum could still change, and the pity of Bilbo and Frodo given to Gollum was a belief that he could change. Bilbo and Frodo have accepted things are out of their control, and all they can do is show pity to those lost in hopes that they will change.

I mean pity was shown to Saruman and Grima, hoping a change would occur. I definitely agree that the acceptance that things aren't in your control is a big factor in this. Saruman did not understand this.

Aragorn aids the battle at Helm's Deep yet does not supersede the orders of Theoden - he does not have to 'order' everything.

And actually there was a brief moment when Aragorn did not understand this. In King of the Golden Hall when Hama asks for his sword Aragorn tries to assert his power as being Elendil's heir that he is more powerful than Theoden and can overrule his orders. Also, to mention that he isn't even the King yet. But, with some help from Gandalf Aragorn learns from this instance. Aragorn learned to show humility to Theoden, recognizing that it wasn't he who could take control and order over Theoden.

So could we discuss the big factors that involve in what makes the wanderers...well wanderers.
I think Mr. Underhill and alatar have given some of them...
1. You don't wander aimlessly or for the purpose of self-gain, but to help and aid those in need.

2. Accepting you aren't in control, and you can't control everything.

Could we also add humility to this? As Aragorn and Faramir both show this.

Yes, it has been a great discussion Estelyn.

[Child of the 7th Age]

This is a fascinating topic, Esty .

There are two things that come to my mind that suggest somewhat of a "flip side" or at least a slight addendum for this equation of "wandering=good." I'm not quite sure how to put these things in words, but I think there are other layers of meaning in this equation.

First, Tolkien makes a point of saying that the place where you start from is almost as important as the wandering you do. And there is also the question of exactly why you are wandering and whether you started out "voluntarily" or not. I'll deal with the voluntary aspect first and then go on to the other.

Here I'm referring specifically to the journey of Frodo and Sam to Mordor and how Gollum fits into this equation. In the case of Frodo and Sam, the going out on the road is not an unequivocal good. Frodo is motivated by the fact that there is a job that must be done. Whether or not he wants to do the job (i.e., to go out on the road) is not the central point. The fact is that there are clear moral choices in life, and sometimes that moral choice points someone towards the outside world. Turning down that choice can mean you have taken the lesser moral path that may eventually lead to something even worse. (Others have noted that the contrast between Saruman and Gandalf can also be seen this way.)

Yet one of the things that strickes me in LotR is how much Frodo does not want to leave the Shire. He dillies and dallies as long as he can to delay the inevitable departure. (We have had threads on this before.) As Bilbo says to Gandalf early in the story, Frodo is not ready to leave, although he might have come to Rivendell if his uncle had asked him. Overall, though, and in contrast to Bilbo, Frodo is someone who would rather have stayed home and enjoyed the benefits of Bag-end. Strange, but I don't get this same sense of reluctance from any of the other hobbits who set out from the Shire. Sam is excited about seeing Elves, and Merry and Pippin seem bound up in the whole idea of being with friends and going on an adventure. Of course, none of them realizes the seriousness of their path to the same extent that Frodo does.

In a sense Frodo is more like Gollum. Both Gollum and Frodo were "forced" to leave home. It was not a totally free choice on their part. The reaction of Gollum's neighbors to his increasingly nasty behavior impels him to flee the community. Frodo was also forced to leave home by external developments that he could not control. Is there any significance in the fact that both of these characters do not leave wholly of their own volition? Both grow on the trip, although obviously Frodo grows more than Gollum, and both are eventually "defeated" by their journey. Gollum dies, and Frodo is forced to wander even further from the place where he wants to be. The reader feels pity for Frodo and even to some extent for Gollum, despite all the latter's misdeeds.

But there's another definite contrast between Frodo and Gollum: the place they are coming from. Of course, I am speaking spiritually as well as physically. Several times in his Letters, JRRT makes the point that what makes the trip bearable to Sam and Frodo is that they can remember where they've come from. They know why they are on the road, even if they don't much like what is happening to them. One of the chief examples of this is that Sam sits and thinks about Rosie and going to the swimming hole as a young lad. The same is true for Frodo. As long as the Ringbearer can hang on to his identity and community (i.e., the Shire), he is alright. When he loses this, he is in serious trouble. Indeed, one of the most poignant moments in the tale for me is when Frodo confides to Sam that he can no longer remember the Shire.

Gollum, by contrast, has lost his identity and community right from the start. He has nothing to remember. It is only when he comes into contact with Frodo (someone who is also trying to hang on to his hobbit identity) that he begins to get snatches of these things back again. In the end, however, it is not enough to save him.

So where does this contrast leave us. It seems that you must throw into the equation of "good=road" a number of other things. Are you leaving of your own volition, and are you able to hang onto your identity and community inside your head? If not, change may overwhelm you, and the road can become a potential agent for destruction as well as for good. I can't help but personalize this. I have come a long, long way from where I grew up as a kid. I am physically distant, and my choices in life have taken me on some different paths than those my family took. Yet, as much as I believe I made the right choices, I fight fiercely to retain that part of me that still has one foot in my childhood. I also wonder how Frodo fared once he got to Tol Eressea? Surely, a big part of his healing was the need to regain his original self and somehow integrate that with what he had now become.

************

Davem -

I also have some thoughts about the question of wandering in terms of the "Sea". When Elves wander over the Sea, they reach a place where, to tbe best of my knowledge, nothing ever changes. Ironically, it seems like the place to end all wandering: to negate the orginal equation. From my perspective, the Blessed West looks too "static". Presumably things would be peaceful without any conflict, so how would you have any real change at all? Isn't it Galadriel's dream realized: mummifying the present?

I guess what I am asking is this. Is the end result of wandering to reach a place where you no longer wander, or is it to reach a place from which you can wander even further? Of couse, the West only pertains to Elves and misplaced hobbits like Frodo. The hard thing is that we don't know what happens to man when he goes beyond the circles of the world. Any thoughts here?

[davem]

Child Difficult one. I suppose Elves & mortals have a different relationship to the world - Elves belong in it & men don't - 'restlessness' is part & parcel of the 'gift' of Eru. So whatever Men achieve they soon become dissatisfied & begin immediately seeking something else. For Elves the Sea is the road home to the West, for Men it seems to have a more 'metaphorical' role. It doesn't lead them to a place of rest.

Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else;

Men are wanderers in M-e & perhaps the Sea to them is the way to mysteries, to the unknown, rather than to a specific place. Elves seek the Sea as a road to a specific place, to Men it is a road to the unknown. It may even be that the fact that they cannot come to Valinor gives a greater symbolic significance to it as far as they are concerned - it may not lead to Valinor, but it could lead anywhere. Men would become restless even in Valinor. For Men (within the circles of the World at least) are driven to seek what they are doomed never to find.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I wasn't talking about the sea, but the Sea.

I see. And so this is another example of a localised social and historical trait that is extrapolated into a Universal value applicable to every history and society?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Child

Overall, though, and in contrast to Bilbo, Frodo is someone who would rather have stayed home and enjoyed the benefits of Bag-end. Strange, but I don't get this same sense of reluctance from any of the other hobbits who set out from the Shire. Sam is excited about seeing Elves, and Merry and Pippin seem bound up in the whole idea of being with friends and going on an adventure. Of course, none of them realizes the seriousness of their path to the same extent that Frodo does.

I was thinking about this idea in relation to Hobbits today so this was interesting. What I came up with was that even though Hobbits as a people are not wanderers in the sense of travelling great distances to unknown lands, they do seem to enjoy wandering within The Shire. Even Frodo seems to enjoy this, and when he eventually sets out from Bag End he seeks to go by paths he has enjoyed. In this respect, they are like Tom Bombadil. They do not wander to explore, but to enjoy the familiar and maybe to look a little deeper at the small things they see around them.

But Hobbits in general are also said to be quite insular, suspicious of 'foreigners' from Bree, and even suspicious of those from other parts of The Shire. This too can be said of the Gondorians at the time of the War of the Ring, and they too are not an essentialy bad people, just a people in danger or in decline. So maybe being static is not in all cases necessarily a bad thing. It may lead to limited mental horizons, which in the case of Gondor is almost its downfall, but it is not a bad thing in essence. Interestingly, we see what happens when a culture does become too static - in Moria. The Dwarves here were static and their community was eventually destroyed.

So must it be a difference in the type of stasis? Or is it that stasis in itself not necessarily bad, but can nevertheless lead to disaster?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Excellent posts so far - thanks to all participants! I'm enjoying this discussion as much as I'd hoped to! Two thoughts that occur to me as we go on:

First of all, I wouldn't separate the spiritual aspect from the physical act of wandering. There may be occasions where one occurs without the other, but very frequently, they are closely connected. Body and mind work together more than we consciously realize, and movement/change of the one will produce awareness of the possibility of change in the other. I have experienced that effect in exercise groups that do physical therapy with psychological effects. I also recall reading at least two books that tell of the changes in a person's life taking place in connection with walking or running.

The other thought that I had concerns Aragorn. When he settled down in Minas Tirith to become King, he chose "Telcontar" as the name of his house - meaning "Strider", of course. Isn't it striking that he, who had so many names from which he could have chosen, decided to emphasize that aspect of his personality? It would seem to me that he wanted to make clear that he would keep that wandering outlook on life, the broad point of view, even after he resided primarily in one fixed place. And of course he did continue to travel, to the northern part of the Kingdom, to the Shire, and certainly to other places as well.

(Cross-posted with Lal - interesting thoughts on stasis. I would agree that it is not 'evil' as such, but it means stagnation, lack of growth, and that must almost inevitably lead to negative results.)

[davem]

I see. And so this is another example of a localised social and historical trait that is extrapolated into a Universal value applicable to every history and society?

Yes.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Quote:
I see. And so this is another example of a localised social and historical trait that is extrapolated into a Universal value applicable to every history and society?



Yes.

davem, I bet your map of the world is still covered with pink.

Estelyn and everyone here: intriguing ideas! Just for the sake of exploring the idea of wandering more, and who wanders, I'd like to point out that this list of wanderers includes only one female, Eowyn, who wanders only to end up in 'a cage of her own choosing.'

Does Arwen 'wander'? She does of course make the most significant spiritual choice in LotR, after, perhaps Frodo. And Tolkien has her leaving Gondor after Aragorn's death, to wander back to Cerin Amroth.

Of course, Rosie Cotton doesn't wander. Nor does Sam, does he, after he returns to the Shire (except for going West ultimately). Yet his children do: one daughter in particular is important for her 'moving on'.

On the other hand, when the Ring quest is complete, Gandalf does say he has finished his wandering and makes an important comment about the hobbits:

Originally Posted by Tolkien in Homeward Bound

"I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you."

"But if you would know, I am turning aside soon. I am going to have a long talk with Bombadil: such a talk as I have not had in all my time. He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling. But my rolling days are ending, and now we shall have much to say to one another."

I think there is indeed a very close relationship between the need for stimulation--'agency' it has been called by some--and exploration, spiritual as well as other forms--but I wonder (no homophohic pun intended) if there isn't also a flip side here, that ultimately there is also the expectation that the benefits acquired from 'wandering' should somehow be returned. One journies in order to bring back the wealth of the experience, to expand those who have not?

I fear I'm being rather foggy this morning. My coffee must not have been strong enough. I do hope I'm not 'rambling' too much here. (sowwy, cannot resist.)

EDIT: Just so you all know, I have copied some of my and davem's posts from here to Sauce's thread, Does LotR have cross-cultural appeal?, so I wouldn't take the discussion here off topic.

[Lyta_Underhill]

originally posted by Child of the 7th Age:

First, Tolkien makes a point of saying that the place where you start from is almost as important as the wandering you do.

originally posted by Estelyn Telcontar:

The other thought that I had concerns Aragorn. When he settled down in Minas Tirith to become King, he chose "Telcontar" as the name of his house - meaning "Strider", of course. Isn't it striking that he, who had so many names from which he could have chosen, decided to emphasize that aspect of his personality?

An interesting discussion indeed! And I do think it is significant that the good guys all remember their origins and emphasize them in latter days. I find it fascinating to consider the position of Barliman Butterbur as the hobbits and Gandalf return to stay with him for but a short time after the War of the Ring--his surprise and sudden enlightenment when told that "Strider" is actually the returned King of Gondor and Arnor, and that he "knows and loves" Bree and doesn't forget it. Butterbur is in a unique position to appreciate the length of Aragorn's journey, if not to understand how he got from here to there. It is in that moment that we realize that the wanderer was not lost, because he did not lose sight of the simple folk of Bree, even after ascending to the throne.

In this light, we consider others--particularly Arwen and Frodo, who always seemed linked by some ethereal thread to me (symbolized perhaps by the jewel she gives to him and the fact that they both wander away from others in the end). Arwen has lost her roots in a literal way--she has come from the line of the immortal Elves, who have all deserted her (of course, it is she who is the deserter with relation to them). She has lost, in an essential way, her beginnings and has become transformed. All that she has gained has been lost as she is a point in the wilderness, alone once Aragorn is dead.

In this same way, Frodo has given up his life in the Shire, and returns to it unable to share in its bounty. He ends up making the long journey away, breaking earthly ties and going over the Sea. In an essential way, these two have lost their origins, become transformed beyond the ability to remain anchored in Middle Earth. Both tarry awhile but in the end, both must go off alone. Perhaps this is the beginning of the great journey, which each one of us must make alone. Who knows how to retain the thread of one's beginnings when one makes the journey out of Middle Earth, or, in Arwen's case, where few Elves have gone before, but every Man, all journeying alone.

I'm not sure if this post makes sense, but I'll post it anyway, hoping someone will get something out of it! I think my coffee isn't reaching my brain very well today! Great discussion!

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

davem, I bet your map of the world is still covered with pink.

I was of course only referring to cultures that have links to the sea in some way. Cultures that have never known the sea would have some other 'natural' image that served the same purpose - the Desert, Mountains, plains, Forest etc.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I was of course only referring to cultures that have links to the sea in some way. Cultures that have never known the sea would have some other 'natural' image that served the same purpose - the Desert, Mountains, plains, Forest etc.

Oh of course, absolutely, and by all means.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh of course, absolutely, and by all means.

Well, the sea would be a meaningless concept to anyone who had no knowledge of it. If someone had never know the sea was asked about it they would simply be confused. Therefore, if we're talking about what the sea means to cultures we can only speak about those who would understand what it is.

I was (& am), also, speaking about Middle-earth, avoiding dragging primary world baggage into the discussion. My references to Christianity were attempts at 'applicability'.

[Boromir88]

I've been pondering (though these are just my thoughts, no one has to agree, and I always encourage feedback ). This thread may be able to explain why Faramir was able to resist the Ring and Boromir wasn't. I think there's many things that go into Faramir being able to resist, but all and all, it's been sort of an uknown/opinionated topic. Numenorean blood ran truer in him, he was wiser in lore, he learned from his brother's mistakes...etc, while I think these all contribute to Faramir being able to resist the Ring, I think there's something missing, and this thread may have just explained it. I mean Faramir doesn't even show signs of being severely tempted, he comes and flat out denies it.

I think it lies with the important phrase of Faramir's..."Not if Minas Tirith were burning to the ground would I use it."

Now, this I don't think shows that Faramir could give a rat's behind about Gondor, but I think it's just Faramir accepting he can't control what happens. As being discussed, there's a higher power at work, and accepting that you can't be in control is a key to spiritual healing.

The Ring is all about control and controlling what happens. Faramir realizes that he's not in control, and that he can't control what happens (nor does he want to control what happens) hence his fond denial of the Ring.

Where his brother wants to be in control of what happens and his strong pull to the Ring is because he wants to be in control. Where Faramir's strong resistance to the Ring comes from his unwillingness, and KNOWING the he can't control. It's not up to him.

[tar-ancalime]

I've been ruminating on a slightly different thought about wanderers and non-wanderers (homebodies?) in Tolkien. I'll post it here and move it if anyone thinks it's thread-hijacking.

It seems that frequently (if not always) characters who are wanderers are paired with characters who stay put.

Obvious example that has already been mentioned here: Gandalf and Saruman.

But wait, there's more...

The Ents and the Entwives. Treebeard has been described above as changing from static to active, but I disagree with that characterization. He has always been active, always been a wanderer; all that changes in Book Three is that he decides to become involved in the affairs of the outside world. It is, in my opinion, irrelevant to his status as a traveler/wanderer.

Aldarion and Erendis, two of my favorite characters. I think I've posted before about the parallel I see between their story and the Ent/Entwife story.

Among the Firstborn: those who traveled to Valinor and those who refused.

Aragorn and Boromir. Now, hear me out on this one, as I know it's rather a stretch. Aragorn is obviously the wanderer, and while Boromir does get around, I submit that he's a homebody at heart. He's a little like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz--not sure how he got to where he is, and totally focused on getting home. He displays a startling lack of knowledge about the world outside Gondor, more than once dismissing real places and people as myths (Fangorn/Ents, Lorien/Galadriel). Again, as with Treebeard, the Ring and the War are irrelevant to his status as a homebody, except that the dream (which almost always came to Faramir) was the impetus for his journey to Rivendell.

Bilbo and Frodo. Another possible pairing of hobbits is Frodo (wanderer) and Sam (homebody), but I think it's a false projection of Sam's strong association with the Shire. Throughout the story, it's Sam who wants to have adventures, see mountains and Elves. Sam isn't really a good model for either a wanderer or a homebody. Frodo, on the other hand, is not at all eager to leave the Shire and in fact delays to his peril. He's like Boromir--a reluctant traveler who would rather have stayed home. Bilbo (Lord of the Rings Bilbo, not Hobbit Bilbo), on the other hand, leaves home out of wanderlust. He misses the Road. He's the appropriate pairing for Frodo.

I'd really like to find a common thread among all these paired characters, as I think there are too many pairs to be a coincidence, but I haven't come up with anything yet. Thoughts?

I was thinking that perhaps it's the wanderers who survive--i.e. Treebeard remains while the Entwives are lost, Aragorn ascends to the throne and we all know what happened to Boromir, Gandalf wins his battle and Saruman meets a most undignified end, etc. But I don't know. This part of it (the all-important conclusion to what is otherwise merely a set of observations) eludes me, and I'd love to have some feedback.

Again, I apologize if I'm hijacking this thread, as I realize I'm going in a different direction than the previous posters.

[Boromir88]

Good thoughts Tar-Ancalime, later I may have more to think of, but just a quick thing to say...

Frodo, on the other hand, is not at all eager to leave the Shire and in fact delays to his peril. He's like Boromir--a reluctant traveler who would rather have stayed home.

I think the difference though between Frodo and Boromir, is that Frodo is willing to give up the Shire. Though he is reluctant, he makes the ultimate sacrifice of carrying the burden and throwing aside his desire to go back home. He was able to put past his own selfish wants and figuratively carry the fate of Middle-earth.

In Boromir's case he seems to make it pretty clear he has full intentions are to go back to Minas Tirith. Even with his death his body happens to make it back to Minas Tirith. He doesn't put aside his wants like Frodo is able to.

In many ways I would consider Boromir more closely tied to Gollum in this matter. Though Boromir has travelled around (he's been to Rohan a few times, and as we see him in Rivendell) there are things to show that he's not the true "wanderer" like say Gandalf.

As you've mentioned he has little knowledge of things outside Gondor and pays little respect to things he doesn't understand. I think his travel to Rivendell can show that Boromir isn't a true wanderer either, he gets lost. "Not all wanderers are lost, but are some of them?"

As was being discussed with Gollum, he wandered around a bit, and roamed from place to place, was very familiar with the geography, but that doesn't necessarily make him a true wanderer. He wandered for his own greed and selfishness, to ge the ring back, so he could go back and hide.

I think Boromir wanders for the same reason. He goes to Rivendell to get an answer to a riddle he had in a dream. Could this be selfish? I think to Boromir it can be (and I believe this is the first time I've spoken bad about the guy so if I start crying just ignore me)...He goes there to get answers on Isildur's Bane and the sword-that-was-broken, and while he does go there for answers he rejects the answers that are given. He doesn't agree with what the Council has to say on the ring, and he gives this somewhat of a doubtful response to Aragorn...

"Yet we are hard pressed, and the sword of Elendil would be a help beyond our hope - if such a thing could indeed retur out of the shadows of the past." He looked again at Aragorn, and doubt was in his eyes."~Council of Elrond

There's another quote in there where Boromir says that if Aragorn merely hadn't inherited an heirloom or if he could wield it like the kings of old, but can't find it right now and it's getting late. So, does this make Boromir a wanderer because he went to Rivendell searching for answers. I wouldn't say so, because the answers he was given, he rejected, and found fault in them, didn't agree with them.

I think we can split the "wanderers" category. There are those who are true wanderers. That don't wander for their selfish-greed, or self-gain, but do it to help and aid those in need. Best example Gandalf, or an Aragorn.

Then there are those "wanderers who ARE lost." They wander yet they do it for their own gain, not to the benefit of others....Gollum and it pains me to admit...Boromir.

[The Perky Ent]

Interesting thread. I didn't really start thinking until I read the fixed character list: Saruman, Denethor, and...Bombadil. According to Esty's post, change is (and BTW, i'm sure i'm analyzing this wrong) a beneficial and essential thing to a good character, and that he who changes sees more than others. Now, i'm not half as smart as most of you here (you can blame it on the Coca-Cola and Juicy Fruit), but is Tom Bombadil, a Tolkien character who doesn't change, weakened in sight? In my opinion, he seems to have a rounded mind. By merely bringing up the issue of Tom Bombadil, i'm dragging so many variables about himself, like his history and what he actually is. Despite his dancing frenzies, I can't help but feel that in his past he was experienced in the events of the world, and knows what's going on in the world. But then again...maybe he just dances because he knows nothing can hurt him (Because we all know Bombadil is actually a valar in disguise :P)

Oh, and Wormtail is a changer. I'm sorry I don't write as articulatly as everyone in here, but I just don't possess your skill, knowlege, age, experience, and attention span. Just curious about my Bombadil question (which has so many holes in its argument you'd think it's raining when you pour water through it).

Perky

[Anguirel]

I'm most intrigued by Boromir's point about lost wanderers, the negative side of wandering, if you like. The Silmarillion is full of such travels.

At first, thinking of Turin, I wondered if forced wandering-Turin's travels to Doriath and Nargothrond, for instance-born out of desperation, tended to have baneful effects. However, I dismissed this. The forced wanderers Beren and Tuor are both successful, while the voluntary wanderer(ess) Aredhel is doomed.

My next formula involved shoehorning in this thread's thesis that mortals adapt more easily to wandering than the Firstborn. I explained Turin by his status as Adanedhel-is he, in terms of outlook, an Elf when it comes to wandering? Certainly, at various critical moments it is stubbornness and stasis that does him harm.

The Elves start by wandering all the way from Cuivenien-but a schism is caused by this and a Vala is needed to spur them on. Thingol's wanderings end in Melian's arms. The returned Noldor are the first completely voluntary wanderers we've seen, and yet, ultimately, they are all lost. Their delight in the new land fades in Morgoth's presence. They hide themselves in fixed positions, and few emerge from them; most are caught in their realm's fall.

During this fixed period, they attempt to settle and fix Men, and are only partially successful. Driven by knowledge of death, and perhaps by lack of rest in Arda, the wanderings of this race will be momentous.

After the Nirnaeth, the Sons of Feanor are specifically described as wandering in Ossiriand. In fact, all the way through Feanor's line has been an exception to the Elven psychosis. Feanor yearned for change-hence he was "unfriend" to Galadriel. He provoked the greatest stravaige in history, over the sea or Helcaraxe. Celegorm and Curufin-the sons superficially most like him-wandered out of necessity, but used this for political and recreational ends (the pursuit of wolves/Luthien, the usurping of Nargothrond...) At last all seven were without their homes, also without their ties, the one child left behind. They wandered constantly, they longed for change, they strove for it, but they are lost all the same.

Of course, the most clear lost wanderers are Maglor and Daeron (perhaps sharing that doubtful honour with Alatar and Pallando). "The Noldolante, that Maglor wrote ere he was lost..."

[davem]

It seems there are different reasons for wandering. Men are wanderers in part because they have been destined by Eru nver to be satisfied within the circles of the world & therefore they will always be looking for something else, always wondering what's over the next horizon, about what tomorrow will bring. This brings as much hope as despair, but it also makes dissatisfaction an inescapable part of human nature.

Elves do not wander for the same reason, because they belong within the circles of the world - they may experience deep unhappiness with what happens in the world, with the marring of Arda, but they dream of Arda Unmarred, not of a place beyond Arda. Or at least that was the original situation for them. Once the world was changed & the Blessed Realms removed from the physical Arda their position would have become more complex.

What both Men & Elves had in common was that they were exiles & their wanderings came ultimately from that feeling of being 'displaced', of being far from home.

But at root none of the inhabitants of Middle earth feel that they are where they ought to be. Elves are driven by the feeling they belong in Aman, Men by the feeling that they belong somewhere else entirely.

I think this sense of being exiled runs rght through the Legendarium & perhaps its what we feel when we read LotR. Why are we drawn to Middle-earth? What does that place mean to us, what does it 'stand for'? Why, in some ways, does it actually feel more 'home like' to so many of us?

Yet, if the situation of the Elves is complicated after the re-sahping of the World, it becomes increasingly so for Men due to the existence of the Elves. Men envy the Elves their immortality within Arda. Their innate sense of dissatisfaction, their inability to rest within the Circles of the World, comes increasingly to conflict with their fear of death & their desire to live in Middle-earth forever & have dominion over it. Men are 'torn in two' & in a way we see this conflict in Sam - he is drawn to stay with Frodo - or to go West with him (ie he is drawn to 'spiritual' things) - & to remain in the everyday world with Rosie & his children. It sems that Sam's solution is to live in the world fully, to live out his 'human' existence but to retain his hope that one day, when his worldly tasks are done, he will be able to move on.

[Aiwendil]

Some who wander are lost

Edit: Somehow I missed Anguirel's post above, which brings up some of the same points as mine. Just to give credit where it's due.

I don't know how relevant this is to the points under discussion, but when I think of wandering in Middle-earth there are some Silmarillion characters that spring immediately to mind.

First of all, there are Daeron and Maglor. It's interesting that these two, the greatest musicians of Arda, share such similar fates. Daeron leaves Doriath seeking Luthien (after she escaped from her tree house) and wanders "upon strange paths" far into the east and out of the story, making laments for Luthien. Maglor casts his Silmaril into the sea because it burns his hand; thereafter he wanders the shores of Middle-earth lamenting the loss of the Silmaril. Here we have two wanderers who are very much lost; moreover, each wanders precisely because he has lost the thing most precious to him. Actually, one could take the parallel even further - each lost their valued thing through their own actions. In the "Lay of Leithien" it tells that Daeron twice betrays Luthien to Thingol, but the third time, when he learns of her plan to escape, he remains silent. It was, then, within his power to prevent Luthien's (temporary) loss. Similarly, it is through the actions of Maglor and his brothers that he loses the purity required to touch a Silmaril; and of course, it is he himself who casts it away in the literal sense.

These are two very evocative figures in my opinion; their wandering is inextricably tied to loss - both to the loss of things and to becoming lost. They survive into a time that is not their own, seeking things that are gone forever (or at least until the end of the world). It seems to me that they are quintessential representations of the overwhelming sense of nostalgia that pervades the Silmarillion.

Very different from those two, but very different also from the heroic wanderers of LotR, is the post-captivity Hurin. I admit that he comes to mind largely because of the title of the HoMe text "The Wanderings of Hurin" - but it's Tolkien's title, so it may be considered significant. Hurin is a powerful figure here. He is not lost like Maglor and Daeron; on the contrary, his wandering is quite purposeful. He is a great man who has become grim and embittered by his long imprisonment and by the misfortunes of his family; he brings the shadow of Morgoth with him wherever he goes. In a way, he seems to be the negative image of a character like Gandalf; both "wander" quite deliberately, and with a singular, hardened purpose - but of course Gandalf brings aid to those he visits while Hurin brings death and destruction.

The last character from the Silmarillion that comes to mind as a quintessential wanderer is Earendil. Earendil is a fairly unusual character. He is one of only a few unambiguously heroic characters (the others that come to mind are Beren and Tuor). He is also perhaps the only character in the Silmarillion who achieves a real, unambiguous victory. Nonetheless, he is a wanderer in something of a similar sense to Maglor and Daeron. Actually, Earendil's wanderings ought to be divided into two separate cases. First of all, there are his sea-voyages seeking Aman. Like Daeron and Maglor, he is seeking something that was (in a sense) lost to the Elves and Men of Middle-earth. Also, tied up in this quest, is his desire to find his parents again - a desire that bears a striking resemblance to Daeron's search for Luthien. Of course, unlike Maglor and Daeron, Earendil is succesful in his quest (i.e. in his quest to reach Valinor; he does not find Tuor and Idril). But there follows for Earendil a second period of wandering, one that (like Maglor's and Daeron's) is open-ended; he wanders the sky in Vingilot until the end of the world. But (again quite unlike Maglor and Daeron) this is not really presented as an unhappy fate. He is not seeking something that can never be found; he is in fact not even sundered from Elwing, who flies to meet him when he draws near to Arda. Indeed, his celestial wandering is a sign of great hope to those in Middle-earth.

I don't really know what point is to be drawn from these four cases, which present the theme of wandering in three very different ways. But I think that, particularly in a topic such as this, to examine only LotR is to leave aside several major pieces of Tolkien's thought.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Some excellent replies here - I'm glad there's a renewed interest in this topic!

I think the latest posts show that the title is not setting up an absolute, general rule:

Not all those who wander are lost. (my emphasis)

There are lost wanderers, as Anguirel and Aiwendil's posts show - interestingly, these examples are taken from the Sil, which is quite different from LotR in many ways. The element of loss is certainly more pervasive there.

There's no need to apologize for your post, Perky - you bring up a thought that could lead to an interesting debate. Are all who do not wander static? Is Bombadil right to stay within the small realm he has chosen for himself? Is his wandering within those narrow boundaries enough to keep him flexible? Should we list him with Radagast as one who does a little, but too little, for the good cause in Middle-earth? Could he have helped more effectively if he had ventured out of the Old Forest, away from Goldberry - or was he doing the right thing for a married man, and only those who choose to have no family are free to wander?

davem brings up the concept of exile in connection with wandering; should that be counted with the enforced journeying, as even one who voluntarily goes into exile has a reason beyond his own control?

Hmmmm, I'm finding more questions than answers... But then, maybe questions are the wandering of the mind!

[Kath]

I haven't read through this properly yet and so this will be short as it is just to pick up on something I noticed.

Esty originally said:

Those who change from fixed to wanderers: Théoden, Treebeard, …

I have to say that I disagree that Éowyn went from being fixed to being a wanderer. If anything to me it is the other way around. She wasn't fixed to begin with, at least in spirit if not physical movement. She was always looking outside her borders and limitations, trying to be equal to Éomer and do the things he could. Physically I would sincerely doubt that she sat inside Meduseld day after day learning how to make tapestries or whatever. We know that she knew how to fight and ride. With a horse she would have had the freedom to ride over Rohan, though possibly with various guards in tow. She can't have been a static spirit, she was too wild. Then comes the War and Aragorn, and she is able to wander further afield.

But then she is injured and she meets Faramir and her whole outlook on life seems to change, and only then does she 'settle down' and accept that you can stay still in life without it being a bad thing and become a fixed person. 'Not all those who wander are lost' is the title but it seems that whilst Éowyn she is lost, and only once she becomes fixed does she 'find herself'.

That's just my take on it, sorry if it's been said before.

[Angry Hill Troll]

Good thread topic, Esty!

I was about to start a thread on isolationism--namely, the tendency of civilizations in Tolkien's books to want to shut themselves off from the outside world and its problems. But then I realized that the topic is rather closely related to this one. Well, maybe not exactly, since it's the difference between an individual being a homebody, and an entire society wanting to isolate itself.

Examples:
Valinor (after Melkor and the Noldor leave) In HoME X, Tolkien says that

The lifting up of the range of the Pélori to a great height. It is possible to view this as, if not an actually bad action, at least as a mistaken one.

Nargothrond -- eventually gets overrun

Gondolin -- eventually gets overrun

Doriath -- eventually gets destroyed

Moria (isolated after the fall of Eregion) --eventually gets destroyed

The Shire -- gets saved, but suffers some very bad times at the hands of Saruman

Lórien -- survives Sauron's attack, but cannot continue in suspended animation once the Three Rings have lost their power.

Imladris -- similar to Lórien

(and various other examples)

Tolkien's view seems to be that all attempts to create a haven safe from the outside world's troubles are at best temporary, and often lead to very bad ends. What he seems to be saying (IMO) is that it is better to engage the outside world and all its problems, however bad they may seem.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Angry Hill Troll

I was about to start a thread on isolationism--namely, the tendency of civilizations in Tolkien's books to want to shut themselves off from the outside world and its problems. But then I realized that the topic is rather closely related to this one. Well, maybe not exactly, since it's the difference between an individual being a homebody, and an entire society wanting to isolate itself.

I think this is relevant, as it is individuals who make up a society after all. It may be a collective wish to be isolated or it may be the wish of their leaders; either way, there are many isolationist societies in Middle-earth. Why are they this way though? Is it through fear that they shut themselves off? Or is it to protect their power?

Looking at that list of different societies which are either shut off to, or not cooperative with, the outside world, it's interesting how many of these are places held by and for the side of 'good'. Where is Mordor? Well, it is a society which is not isolated; it is indeed closed off to its enemies, but it works closely with those other cultures which it has subsumed such as Harad and Umbar. Mordor counts amongst its hosts many soldiers and warriors of many different nations; these are well travelled minions, not restricted by staying at home. They wander more than most. I wonder what that means?

[Angry Hill Troll]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Where is Mordor? Well, it is a society which is not isolated; it is indeed closed off to its enemies, but it works closely with those other cultures which it has subsumed such as Harad and Umbar. Mordor counts amongst its hosts many soldiers and warriors of many different nations; these are well travelled minions, not restricted by staying at home. They wander more than most. I wonder what that means?

Well, one perhaps trivial explanation is that since Sauron (and for that matter Morgoth and Saruman) was bent on world domination, he couldn't achieve his ends by self-imposed isolation, so he had to be engaged with the outside world enough to be able to take it over.

One the other hand the bad guys who aren't really working for a Dark Lord (for example: Smaug, the Moria Balrog, Shelob) seem quite content to just lurk in their lairs.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Looking at that list of different societies which are either shut off to, or not cooperative with, the outside world, it's interesting how many of these are places held by and for the side of 'good'. Where is Mordor? Well, it is a society which is not isolated; it is indeed closed off to its enemies, but it works closely with those other cultures which it has subsumed such as Harad and Umbar. Mordor counts amongst its hosts many soldiers and warriors of many different nations; these are well travelled minions, not restricted by staying at home. They wander more than most. I wonder what that means?

If for a moment I can sidestep Angry Hill Troll's comments, which point to an interesting distinction but which were posted while I thought about Lal's post, let me offer some ideas about place.

I think place can provide an opportunity for two things, simultaneously. On the one hand, a well enclosed place can be a means of containing fear of borderlessness and trespass, obviously. This creates an immediate value system of difference, wherebye that which is outside or external is that which is feared, possibly even a projection or denial of fearful elements internal to the community. In this case, what is left is the pettiness of, say, hobbits in their complacency and parochial habbits and values. We could even ring some ideas off the similarity of hobbit/habbit here. Insecurity breeds the need for borders.

On the other hand, well confined or defined spaces provide a means for releasing and exploring those pent up feelings of longing for limitless empty frontiers, freedom, independence. The boundary creates the desire for wandering. The call of the sea is a call of release for those pent up within the incredibly constructed layers of control which is Minas Tirith.

I have no idea where I am going with this.

[Boromir88]

I wanted to respond to something earlier mentioned by Perky.

According to Esty's post, change is (and BTW, i'm sure i'm analyzing this wrong) a beneficial and essential thing to a good character, and that he who changes sees more than others.

I'd say that's it, and it's something that can be seen in other works of literature. In T.S. Elliot'sHollowmen, we see there are many people who are like scarecrows.

Scarecrows meaning they do nothing. They're hollow, they're a shape without a form. They're there, but they're not really. They simply just stand there and do nothing. Now according to T.S. Elliot, (himself included) more people are "hollowmen" then the ones who change and choose their path.

The path for good reasons leading to heaven, making bad decisions go to hell, and all these "Hollowmen" since they make no decisions for themselves and simply do nothing but take up space are waiting for the boat to lead them to the "other ending dream" (Hell).

Some of the most famous lines from the poem...

This is the way the world will end...
This is the way the world will end...
This is the way the world will end...
not with a bang but with a wimper.

The world is simply going to slowly and queitly die out, that's how it will end. Not with a bang and Glorious battles, because there are more "hollowmen" then there are not.

I think in LOTR we see something totally different then from the poem. We have a group of people who step up and decide not to be "hollowmen." Not to sit around and just let things happen. Frodo was faced with this decision, go home and let others deal with it, or act on his dream and do something about it.

I think the clearest examples of "Hollowmen" are Tom Bombadil and Treebeard. Both have passed out of knowledge.

Bombadil does not care what happens outside, and he sort of fades out of all knowledge.

Treebeard was like this until he and the Ents decided to act. They sat and did nothing, they were scarecrows, and for many years the Ents faded away and were only remembered as vague creatures of the past, until they decided to put their ideas and thoughts into action.

[Márcolië Lamen]

The odd thing is that Tolkien himself was someone who hardly travelled at all - well hardly at all physically.

Pointing this out really makes me think about the focus of wandering not be the physical, but to be more of the idea of a journey, and learning from that. There are those who physically wander, but not all those learn from what happens. There are also those though like Tom Bombadil who don't physically wander but don't show the same set in his ways and unapprocable in relation to change that others do. For me I feel characters such as him are more of mental wanderers, those who explore only one area, but are open to that area, and learn from that one. The idea of learning and growing itself through "wandering" either by letting your mind get away from you or going off not knowing what will happen, is stronger to me.

I notice how Tolkien takes care that each character who takes a literal journey also takes an internal journey of discovery, and those who do not take a journey do not change in this way. This would include even good characters, such as Galadriel or Elrond - but then they do take a journey at the end of the book. This perhaps means that they have only one more thing to learn, to relinquish power in Middle-earth and the trip to the Grey Havens teaches them to do this.

I agree with this statement in general but I would like to point out that those who took the literal journey didn't necessarily need to take it to take an internal journey.
For example Bilbo, in the beginning of The Hobbit even would say

Sorry! But I don't want any adventures, thank you. Not today

yet was still strange for a hobbit. He might have been more normal in that he liked the security but was a wander even before he set off. His ability to even think about the idea of going even though he would say to himself

Bilbo, you were a fool; you walked right in and put your foot in it.

really showed this.

I think the journeys and wandering was as much as it was focusing on the physical a metaphor, and looking at their ability to have gone through the internal journey even if they hadn't gone on the physical one is important. However, the physical journey acted as a catalyst. Those who accepted change and abnormality were more often those who would help in the battle against the evil, but they were not the only ones, because even before they traveled they were wandering in themselves.


And I appologise for the poor wording of this post. I was more getting thoughts out than writing it well.

[tar-ancalime]

I disagree with the characterization of Treebeard and Bombadil as "hollowmen."

They're not wasting their lives, they're not just waiting for the end. What they're doing, though, is refusing to concern themselves with the world "outside." The two are not the same thing.

To call Bombadil and Treebeard "hollowmen" because they've not become involved in other societies is shortsighted, I think. Treebeard never gives up searching for the Entwives or tending to his trees and his forest. Bombadil walks through his land and keeps the Willow under control, and also maintains contact with Farmer Maggot. These are important things, at least as important in their way as farming in the Shire or re-settling the Lonely Mountain. Both Treebeard and Bombadil are instrumental in the continuing existence of their own societies. While it's true that their societies would be overrun by Sauron if not defended by the weapons of Gondor, Rohan, and the Rangers of Arnor, that doesn't make the societies themselves any less valuable. Middle-earth is a diverse place, and I think that any character who is actively involved in maintaining a society is filling an important role, very different from the empty waiting of the "hollowmen."

If there are "hollowmen" in Middle-earth I think they are Elves who have resigned themselves to fading and going West, and are merely waiting for the right moment to take the ship.