Gollum and Eagles: Deux ex machina?

[Elu Ancalime]

I could not find another thread primarily about this.

A deux ex machina is usualy a person that comes unlooked for at the end of a literary work, that solves the problem and ends the conflict. Many times, the deux ex machina is an allegorical figure representing the Abrhamic God, or some other supernatural being. Wikipedia offers:

The term Deus ex machina (DAY-oos ex MAH-kee-nuh) literally means "the god comes from a crane" and refers to an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot. The phrase has been extended to refer to any resolution to a story which does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is so unlikely it challenges suspension of disbelief; allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, but more palatable ending. In modern terms the Deus ex machina has also come to describe a person or thing that suddenly arrives and solves a seemingly insoluble difficulty. While in storytelling this might seem unfulfilling, in real life this type of figure might be welcome and heroic.

In the Lord of the Flies by William Golding, the Deux ex mahina is a Naval officer who shows up on the last page and a half of the book; his arrival solves the conflict between good and evil, for the boys that were stranded stop fighting amongst each other and have a emotional breakdown at the sight of their rescue.

In the Return of the King, Gollum might be considored a deux ex machina. He appears at the end of the Chapter 'Mount Doom', and solves the conflict by bringing the Ring to its end and succeeding where Frodo failed (even though it be moments afterwards). He does fit the standard that he comes when he should not be expected, and it is generally viewed as the climax. However, a deux ex machina is (by general) not shown until the very end of the book. Gollum may have ened the main problem, but then there is falling action, namely 'The Scouring of the Shire', which Gollum does not fix. Also, Gollum is not exactly 'complteley new to the plot.' Granted, I thought he was either dead or perhaps taken prisoner at Barad-dur. The notion of him coming back and jumping in so quickly is not looked for though.
Also, the Eagles are sometimes presented as a deux ex machina. I thought that Frodo and Sam would pass away in exhaustion. (BTW this is where the question about the Eagles taking the Ringbearer directly to Mordor comes in) But, the Ealges dont nessecarily end the conflict and problem. No offense to Frodo Im sure, but sending him to Orodruin and coming back wasnt the problem. The RIng needed to be destroyed and Sauron destroyed.

What do you think?
________
Mazda S Platform Picture

[Lalwendë]

Good question!

I wouldn't say Gollum fulfilled those criteria. In fact I think his reappearance at Mount Doom is integral to the whole story; he completes what Frodo was unable to complete and this situation leaves the reader with many questions to ask, ideas to consider. I also think that Gollum's end was one of the most perfect endings to any character in literature; it is not merely convenient that he did what he did, but entirely right. He disappears and then turns up right at the last moment, driven by the Ring, thus showing how far the bearers will go to keep possession of it. I also cannot see how Gollum could have gone on without the Ring, and in doing what he did, he seems to have also gained some kind of redemption.

Yes, it's a big shock, but it fits the logical pattern of the story perfectly. In the end, at Mount Doom, the culmination of all this effort, there are no heroes.

Now those Eagles, they are a different matter...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Good question!

I wouldn't say Gollum fulfilled those criteria. In fact I think his reappearance at Mount Doom is integral to the whole story; he completes what Frodo was unable to complete and this situation leaves the reader with many questions to ask, ideas to consider. I also think that Gollum's end was one of the most perfect endings to any character in literature; it is not merely convenient that he did what he did, but entirely right. He disappears and then turns up right at the last moment, driven by the Ring, thus showing how far the bearers will go to keep possession of it. I also cannot see how Gollum could have gone on without the Ring, and in doing what he did, he seems to have also gained some kind of redemption.

Yes, it's a big shock, but it fits the logical pattern of the story perfectly. In the end, at Mount Doom, the culmination of all this effort, there are no heroes.

Now those Eagles, they are a different matter...

What Lal said.

[Nogrod]

Elu!

You seem to be addressing the one case, I myself am a bit dissatisfied with Tolkien. It sure would have been beautiful, if Sam and Frodo had died at the mount Doom! That would have been a story worth singing about (remember those recurrent mentionings by Sam about the food-ratios!), as Sam foretold it.

The whole ending sequence is a bit odd. First there is this "deus ex machina", the Eagles', to turn Frodo & Sam safe and sound back to Minas Tirith, and then all this stuff with the hobbits' making the better of Saruman. It's kind of an easy ending for a story that would have deserved a better one?

Another thing to be worth of a closer look, is Tolkien's going for a fatalistic solution. Like in Matrix - were the whole thing was made even more badly - the end-result is kind of "the way things have to be". Gandalf points out to the decision of Bilbo, not to kill Gollum, and Frodo takes on that: Gollum has a role to play in some larger picture, that is foretold already, even if he doesn't understand it quite yet. Then, while Frodo can't throw the Ring away, Gollum comes to finish the thing. Kind of "deus ex machina" that one too...

So everything's in order, as it will have to be, you just have to find out the reason to behave in a manner you should? But how about, if the world really is a bit more complicated place? Maybe the world is a place, where there are no easy solutions (black or white) and going strongly by your belief, really makes more damage than helps anyone?

[Farael]

Well, personally I think the Eagles may be a case of 'deux ex machina' as they had not been an integral part of the story (besides perhaps saving Gandalf from harm) and I can't recall knowing how they got there.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with Gollum being anywhere near the definition. First of all, he is definetly a big part of the story. Frodo would have never made it to where he did if it wasn't because of Gollum, even though his betrayal. Then, we just don't know what happens to Gollum, but ithere is some mention of him by the two orcs that were looking for Frodo and Sam once they escape from the tower.

Originally Posted by RoTK

'All right, all right!' said the tracker. 'I'll say no more and go on thinking. But what's the black sneak got to do with it all? That gobbler with the flapping hands?'
'I don't know. Nothing, maybe. But he's up to no good, nosing around, I'll wager. Curse him! No sooner had he slipped us and run off than word came he's wanted alive, wanted quick.''Well, I hope they get him and put him through it,' growled the 241 tracker. 'He messed up the scent back there, pinching that cast-off mail-shirt that he found, and paddling all round the place before I could get there.'

So we know Gollum is still around and even more, he is still following Frodo (he messed up the scent, therefore he is probably following it)

Besides, in retrospective, it's quite evident that Gandalf knew that Gollum would have something to do with the destruction of the ring

Originally Posted by Fellowship

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many--yours not least.

I must say I added the first part mostly because I love that quote *blushes* but there we see Gandalf 'hinting' that Gollum might yet do something. When he helps the hobbits get into Mordor you can say "ah, that was it" and then he turns up in the very end (of the Ring anyhow) and destroys it.... then you realize that was his destiny all along.

Having said that, I also agree with Lalwendë in her assesment of Gollum's end.

[Firefoot]

You seem to be addressing the one case, I myself am a bit dissatisfied with Tolkien. It sure would have been beautiful, if Sam and Frodo had died at the mount Doom! That would have been a story worth singing about.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Even if the Eagles may have been slightly out of place (more on that in a second), I definitely disagree about Sam and Frodo dying at Mt. Doom. Not only would this be extremely depressing, it would also be dissatisfying, at least to me. The story would not be complete. It would completely remove the topic of healing (or the lack thereof) and how you really can't go back, both for Sam and Frodo, but especially Frodo. It's one of those cases where dying would almost be the easier way out. The fact that they must go on and deal with it is one of the poignant things about the book.

Concerning the Eagles. Yes, I would say that they are definitely a case of Deus ex Machina. In some ways, they don't really 'fit.' Gwaihir, of course, has connections with Gandalf - are Eagles capable of osanwë? But if Frodo and Sam were to be saved, then there really doesn't seem to be much way around it. The circumstances were too dire and everyone else too far away, even if they could be able to rescue them. And although the Eagles could not have brought the Ring directly to Mordor because it would draw too much attention, there is already a battle going on (or about to go on when they start out), it's not like they're going to bring a lot of extra attention. The other thing that perhaps is not considered enough is that the Eagles might actually have come to aid in the battle (that question of osanwë again), and that their aid was just needed when Gandalf realized what was going on. So I suppose the case could be presented either way. Just like Gollum's death can be explained in other ways, so can the appearance of the Eagles.

And in a fantasy world that does have a God, and in a story where there are the themes of hope and mercy and healing, maybe the Eagles aren't so out of place after all.

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Even if the Eagles may have been slightly out of place (more on that in a second), I definitely disagree about Sam and Frodo dying at Mt. Doom. Not only would this be extremely depressing, it would also be dissatisfying, at least to me. The story would not be complete. It would completely remove the topic of healing (or the lack thereof) and how you really can't go back, both for Sam and Frodo, but especially Frodo. It's one of those cases where dying would almost be the easier way out. The fact that they must go on and deal with it is one of the poignant things about the book.

Well, that's quite a familiar feeling. It sure is nice to see the Hobbits coming back to their home, as learned and experienced ones'. But enough of miracles? Sorry to oppose you Firefoot again, we should be more common-minded?

Concerning the Eagles. Yes, I would say that they are definitely a case of Deus ex Machina. In some ways, they don't really 'fit.' Gwaihir, of course, has connections with Gandalf - are Eagles capable of osanwë? But if Frodo and Sam were to be saved, then there really doesn't seem to be much way around it. The circumstances were too dire and everyone else too far away, even if they could be able to rescue them. And although the Eagles could not have brought the Ring directly to Mordor because it would draw too much attention, there is already a battle going on (or about to go on when they start out), it's not like they're going to bring a lot of extra attention. The other thing that perhaps is not considered enough is that the Eagles might actually have come to aid in the battle (that question of osanwë again), and that their aid was just needed when Gandalf realized what was going on. So I suppose the case could be presented either way. Just like Gollum's death can be explained in other ways, so can the appearance of the Eagles.

Anyhow, the eagles were there, and saved the day. So "deus ex machina"!

And in a fantasy world that does have a God, and in a story where there are the themes of hope and mercy and healing, maybe the Eagles aren't so out of place after all.

The question being all the time, whether the world is fatalistic or not...

[alatar]

Isn't the deus ex machina (used in Greek plays) the fall into Sammath Naur, in regards to Gollum? Don't some believe that it's the hand of Eru who gives him the nudge over the edge?

Today, being of different opinion, I think that Gollum is not nudged, and that Eru played no overt part in it. Gollum is a rogue, meaning, to me, the element of chaos. Good and evil can be balanced, yet every now and then the pot needs a good stir, some tension, to bring forth something new. Bilbo possessed the Ring, but did not follow Frodo. Sauron desired the Ring, yet did not search for it himself and thought more of war than just finding the Ring ("I'll crush the islands of Free Folk then continue the search."). Very unmoved - inactive - and very orderly and structured, respectively.

Gollum, though old, decimated, starving, tortured in mind and body, still goes after the Ring. He plays both sides, good and evil, and even has two personalities, but what joins them is the chaos.

What a show for Eru! It most likely sat on the edge of it's seat, waiting to see how the dice would come up. Frodo could not destroy the Ring; the Wise knew or at least suspected that. Would Sauron be able to get the Ring from Frodo? Surely he would - there's no betting on that outcome. So we have Gollum, who if he gets to Frodo sooner (i.e. with Shelob), the Dark Lord might recover the Ring and all is lost. If he gets to Frodo later, Frodo puts him down before he strikes (and still all is lost). but if Gollum goes after the Ring, like he does, when Frodo is still admiring himself, there's a chance that Gollum will succeed, lose, destroy the Ring (with or without destroying Frodo), etc. The outcome is less certain and therefore more interesting.

Ah chaos. Gollum could play either side, and more likely neither side, as he was neither good nor evil, but somewhat unique. The dice were tumbling, and how will they land?

Afterwards, when Gollum reclaims the Ring yet falls off the edge (chaos makes poor choices as well as better choices - at random), the game is over. Eru, pickled pink by the great show, sends the Eagles as a 'thank you' to the players Frodo and Sam.

Hope that this makes some sense.

Gods who know what will be must get bored.

[Firefoot]

It sure is nice to see the Hobbits coming back to their home, as learned and experienced ones'. But enough of miracles?

I guess I just don't get tired of the miracles. You think it's just going to be all right now - on the slopes of Mt. Doom, Frodo seems to be at peace, his burden is gone, and now the Eagles are coming - that means it's going to be all right, right? But it's not. It makes for that beautiful eucatastrophe which Tolkien brings out so well. And, at least in the view of the Shire hobbits, Frodo and Sam aren't as much the learned and experienced ones - Sam is some (okay, maybe a lot, but still not as much as M & P), but Frodo is mostly ignored. Mostly talking about Frodo here, I was meaning more of his healing process - more internal - than the new perceptions of him, if that makes sense.

This is probably why I've never had a problem with the Eagles. They might not 'fit' quite right in the story, but the miracles for me do not detract from the story, they add to it. This undoubtedly has much to do with my upbringing and faith, but there it is. The prospect that Sam's simple preserverence and hope that brought them out onto the mountain was fulfilled even beyond hope is very right to me. Even if it does take the Eagles to do it.

I haven't quite decided what I think that Gollum's fall is... a simple mistake or an act of Eru, it doesn't really matter to me. As Lalwende so well put it, it is so entirely right that whichever reason is correct (or a mixture of both) does not ultimately matter to me. It is just right.

I guess my point is that I wouldn't consider it so much fatalist as ever hopeful. It's that hope... faith... that everything will turn out right.

[Nogrod]

[

QUOTE=alatar]Isn't the deus ex machina (used in Greek plays) the fall into Sammath Naur, in regards to Gollum? Don't some believe that it's the hand of Eru who gives him the nudge over the edge?

You just cling in to the point! And the question, whether Tolkien was just making a fatalistic decision, or found a way to ease Frodo up, remains...

Gollum, though old, decimated, starving, tortured in mind and body, still goes after the Ring. He plays both sides, good and evil, and even has two personalities, but what joins them is the chaos.

There are enough of mythologies to make this point. Like the Norwegian "Ginnungagap", there is the idea of chaos everywhere, as the starting position. The Babylonians' had the same story...

Ah chaos. Gollum could play either side, and more likely neither side, as he was neither good nor evil, but somewhat unique. The dice were tumbling, and how will they land?

But he really played a part! He was not a chance creature in the story, but an integral part of the whole history. He couldn't play "either side", but was destined to play the role he had to! He had no choice, as well as Frodo had no choice! They were all pawns at a greater play, which Tolkien had in his mind, creating this fatalistic universe of his?

EDIT: Cross-posted with Firefoot

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I guess I just don't get tired of the miracles. You think it's just going to be all right now - on the slopes of Mt. Doom, Frodo seems to be at peace, his burden is gone, and now the Eagles are coming - that means it's going to be all right, right? But it's not. It makes for that beautiful eucatastrophe which Tolkien brings out so well. And, at least in the view of the Shire hobbits, Frodo and Sam aren't as much the learned and experienced ones - Sam is some (okay, maybe a lot, but still not as much as M & P), but Frodo is mostly ignored. Mostly talking about Frodo here, I was meaning more of his healing process - more internal - than the new perceptions of him, if that makes sense.

So it's pure aesthetics'?

That is no bad ground to interpret a book, but there are other ways to do it also...

Love you, Firefoot! Making a good point anyways

[alatar]

The eagles were permitted, in my view, to enter the fray as the quest was finished. To show beforehand (excepting the dwarf and wizard airlift to the vales of Anduin, of course) would be breaking the rules. Eru, through Manwë, sends the Istari to counter Sauron. Surely if it wanted a faster result, though with little to no free will input from the ME dwellers, Eru could have permitted the Istari Uncloaked to be delivered to Sauron's porch via the Eagles. Sauron may be the match of one or two wizards, but not five at once, and not as wizened old men but as they are in Aman.

But where's the fun in that? That would be like me pre-chewing all of my children's food. Sure it would be fun, but they'd develop weak jaws, and exactly why would they need teeth? And when I'm gone...

So the Eagles get to show up after the residents of ME, acting together (the feint of Aragorn, the defense of the Mark by the ents, the Galadhrim and Bardings etc etc) along with Frodo, uproot the current big bad weed. They're a bonus. Frodo and Sam could die on Mount Doom, but they're still needed to start the cycle again, as we see in the Scouring, as most likely the Valar aren't sending any more help.

Sauron is defeated and the rules aren't broken.

[Firefoot]

So it's pure aesthetics'?

No, it's completion. If Frodo were to have died at Mt. Doom, his journey would not have been complete. Well, I suppose it would have been within the story, but he still had more learning, growing, to do. Simply killing off the characters even if it might be the most logical thing within the story to happen is not always the solution.

Okay, so maybe some of it is aesthetics. But not wholly - it's not quite that simple. There was more for them to do, further for them to go before the story could end. The problem was that without some kind of Deus ex Machina, there wasn't really a way for that to happen - hence the Eagles.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

You just cling in to the point! And the question, whether Tolkien was just making a fatalistic decision, or found a way to ease Frodo up, remains...

There are enough of mythologies to make this point. Like the Norwegian "Ginnungagap", there is the idea of chaos everywhere, as the starting position. The Babylonians' had the same story...

Sorry, but I'm just not getting your meaning, as sometimes my brain gets scrambled.

But he really played a part! He was not a chance creature in the story, but an integral part of the whole history. He couldn't play "either side", but was destined to play the role he had to! He had no choice, as well as Frodo had no choice! They were all pawns at a greater play, which Tolkien had in his mind, creating this fatalistic universe of his?

Again not exactly sure what you mean. The grass under their feet in Parth Galen, too, played a part, and also wasn't chance creations, I guess, from some perspective. And in regards to fatalism, if I understand you, Tolkien the author can make his marionettes dance higgity-piggity as he wishes (unlike myself who quickly loses control over whatever I start to write...like most of my posts ), but the characters therein, like us, think that they have free will.

Everyone has choices. I'm too tired for a butterfly effect world, as that's a bit silly, but I think that we and Frodo could and can decide our fates. Frodo could have let another stand forth at Rivendell, and then we'd be discussing the Eagles saving Chuck and Tom. Or, as Lush may prefer, Rosie and Daisy.

Or, in another view, Frodo made the choice to throw the Ring away along the journey, and shortly thereafter the Ring is recovered and sometime later, the everlasting Darkness covers all who could not flee. Now, assuming ME is our 'history,' this did not happen as we wouldn't be here. Or, it did, but not in this universe, as again we still have Sam and Frodo.

Have I muddled things enough?

[Nogrod]

Well, what did he really learn, where did he show that growing? I guess, this is just the place were Tolkien has not thought of everything... Frodo is quite lame after the climax: or unbelievably heroish' when coming to the Shire. There is something rotten in the state of the Shire...

I quite agree. J.R.R. had to find a solution, and a solution he did come by!

[Mister Underhill]

Wow, fast moving thread! I still need to catch up on the many interesting posts here, but I thought I'd toss out that there is in fact an old deus ex machina thread started by the long lost doug*platypus. Keep rolling here -- just thought those with spare time and an extra-special interest in deus ex might be interested.

I'll be back here if I can get up to speed and think of something worth adding.

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alatar

Sorry, but I'm just not getting your meaning, as sometimes my brain gets scrambled.

Everyone has choices. I'm too tired for a butterfly effect world, as that's a bit silly, but I think that we and Frodo could and can decide our fates.

Well, you can think it in many ways! It's not basically an argument to say that you think we can make choices to deal with our lives! You have no grounds on the question, "why", here!

You can put it in two ways; either we have the chance, or then we do not.

The first case can be put in a way, that there is something or someone, that has to choose the actions or whatever it might be. Another way to look at that, is to say, you can justify your choises' (etc.) at the face of a fortune, or a world as such, by which you have to do one thing or another.

Or then one just is a piece in the play we call the world, acting, along the lines one is supposed to act, after the chemical and biological ways we've built with. Or then we are just quantum machines, going about quite randomly, but without a clear pattern. Or then with a one?...

So just saying, I think (therefore I am - what a common sense nonsense!) , is not enough?

Sorry to make this harder as it should be...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

In the end what we think is immaterial. The point is that Tolkien thought that this world is one in which we have the freedom to choose our actions and that we are personally responsible for them. For Tolkien, each decision really does come down to a moral choice for good or ill, and without that structure his mythology and his novels make no sense. Moreover it would be extremely odd for a Christian to believe that we are simply automatons performing predetermined actions in a random and meaningless universe.

However we might view the primary world, Tolkien's sub-created universe is one with a creator, a supreme being who is the source of good. This benificent presence gives meaning to Tolkien's universe, and the presence of evil within that universe introduces the necessity for moral choice and individual moral responsibility. Many of the workings of Arda make no sense whatsoever when divorced from this structure. Now, the supreme being may sometimes intervene, directly or indirectly, but Tolkien always forces his characters to decide their own actions for themselves.

In the case of Frodo, we do actually have Tolkien's word for it that he could never have resisted the temptation of the Ring in the final crisis. Thus the conclusion of his quest presents a moral lesson about his tolerance and mercy toward Gollum. If Frodo and Sam had killed him, as it was only logical and sensible to do, then he would have been unable through his final treachery to save Frodo from the domination of the Ring. Essentially, Frodo has the opportunity to decide whether he is to destroy the Ring and complete his mission or to claim it as his own and be destroyed, but his will has been overcome. He is no longer able to make the decision for himself, but the outcome of his earlier decisions has been to bring the means of his salvation with him. All in all this does not overturn the basic premise that Frodo possesses free will within the context of Tolkien's fiction (which is the only context in which he exists in any case). Perhaps someone who has access to their books will be able to give the location of Tolkien's reflections in his published letters.

Before I was sidetracked down this philosophical path, I meant to point out that the Eagles as a deus ex machina were also discussed in Flaws in Lord of the Rings... Yes in the book., which is also still open. There were some nice reflections there from Kalimac among others. There's also a thread called The Great Eagle Mystery, which immediately sprang to mind when I saw this discussion. These may be of help on this matter, and I certainly make more valuable contributions in the former thread than I have here. If you wanted the lyrics to albums by the Eagles, you should look at this site.

[Raynor]

Now, the supreme being may sometimes intervene, directly or indirectly, but Tolkien always forces his characters to decide their own actions for themselves.

Well, there are some notable exceptions; concerning 'active intervention':

Originally Posted by The shadow of the past, FotR

- Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_to find the Ring, and _not_ by its maker. In which case you also were _meant_to have it
...
- Why did it come to me? Why was I chosen?
- Such questions cannot be answered,’ said Gandalf. ‘You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom, at any rate. But you have been chosen, and you must therefore use such strength and heart and wits as you have

Originally Posted by Three is a company

The Elves have their own labours and their own sorrows, and they are little concerned with the ways of hobbits, or of any other creatures upon earth. Our paths cross theirs seldom, by chance or purpose. In this meeting there may be more than chance; but the purpose is not clear to me, and I fear to say too much

Originally Posted by Council of Elrond

That is the purpose for which you are called hither. Called, I say. though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are here met, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must now find counsel for the peril of the world
...
At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.
- I will take the Ring, he said, though I do not know the way.

Originally Posted by The breaking of the fellowship

- I wonder? said Aragorn. He is the Bearer, and the fate of the Burden is on him. I do not think that it is our part to drive him one way or the other. Nor do I think that we should succeed, if we tried. There are other powers at work far stronger.

[I also think that when foretelling is involved, it rules out free will to a certain extent; and some beings have a special doom ahead of them, such Earendil, Tuor, Thingol or Beren; Luthien is also moved by doom to Beren and their union is stated to part of the divine plan (cf letter #153)]

[alatar]

Reading Raynor's post made me think about the fact that as a species (and I would extrapolate this to our elven cousins) we have the ability and desire to see patterns. This ability yields a clear survival advantage.

Three dwarves walk singly into the East-gate of Moria, pre-Balin colony days. Each one walks in, I hear some noise, then I hear "Durin's Bane is upon us!" then "Argh!" The dwarf fails to come back out. By the third one I'm convinced that entering Moria is not warranted at this time.

Also, when one arrogant elf would rise each morning, he would note that shortly thereafter the sun would appear in the eastern sky. He concluded that his rising caused the Sun to rise also. Obviously.

My point (do I have one ?) is that we have no idea if Gildor Inglorion, Elrond and Gandalf, were, shall we say, simply blowing smoke.

I was meant to type this post, and some of you knew that .

[Raynor]

By the third one I'm convinced that entering Moria is not warranted at this time

That is, if you are not a dwarf - they seem to like going in a row into a trap .

when one arrogant elf would rise each morning

I am sure you meant a drunk elf.

we have no idea if Gildor Inglorion, Elrond and Gandalf, were, shall we say, simply blowing smoke.

I would give more credit to the greatest of lore-masters and the wisest of the maiar.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would give more credit to the greatest of lore-masters and the wisest of the maiar.

But they could have an agenda (instilling the 'Eru exists' theory into the hobbits) or simply be delusional.

[Elu Ancalime]

Concerning Eagles: It seems that in terms of literature, everytime the Eagles appear in Tolkiens work it is some kind of Deux ex machina kind of way. Its interesting, because the Eagles are the kind of missionaries of Manwe, in a sense (they dont go around converting people, but they are his sort of representations in mortal lands). Everytime the Eagles show up it seems to modify the plot greatly whearas if they hadnt. The Dwarves might have had to trek endlessly until they made it across the Andunin, and delayed Gandalfs coming to Dol Gulder and the White Council. The Battle of Five Armies might have been a loss, or more Pyrric. Although the Eagles attcked the Nazgul at the Black Gate, we can see this led to Mount Doom. And of course, we might have had a wizards corpse on Orthanc.

Considering Gollum and the Eagles, it brings up that interesting point of fatalism mentioned. I think that in Arda, all things excluding Eru and the Valar for the most part are meant to be. Now, part of this is Mandos. The prophocey of the Dagorath proves he Eru and Manwe and anyone else know of the last battle with Melkor. However, I do not think that they know each and every thing that will happen. The Valar have the Fire, so they make choices; yet the ones that seem the most important come before the Elves. That is mainly which Ainar went with Melko and who stayed with Manwe. After then the choices are mostly one-sided. The War of Wrath is no exception; whenever Morgoth created Mass war that was destroying Middle Earth, the Valar were the only ones who could stop him if no oine else could. So I think, like Gandalf predicted, that the Ring would be destroyed, but the manner of "how" is the unknown. The destruction of the Ring, at least when spoke about the most Wise (Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn, etc) was always hinted at as,"You realize what would happen if Sauron and the RIng wernt destroyed," even though it would mean,"We known that Sauron is fated to be destroyed eventually(couldnt survive the Dagorath if it was that long) so lets take him out before things get any worse."

So I dont think Mandos and Eru knew that Ted Sandyman would be a pain, (doubtless they had the power, but that was not what it was for) but I think they knew that a being named Gandalf would aid Free Peoples including the Little People to bring about the destruction of Sauron, and a sebret Blueprint and DNA sheet of Balrogs and their bodily extremities.
________
MONTANA DISPENSARIES

[Nogrod]

Last night I really seemed to have been carried away beyond my skills in the language I use. Sorry about that. I appreciate Elu's point about the Eagles.

Originally Posted by Elu Ancalime

Concerning Eagles: It seems that in terms of literature, everytime the Eagles appear in Tolkiens work it is some kind of Deux ex machina kind of way. Its interesting, because the Eagles are the kind of missionaries of Manwe, in a sense (they dont go around converting people, but they are his sort of representations in mortal lands). Everytime the Eagles show up it seems to modify the plot greatly whearas if they hadnt.

But to come to the discussion opened by Squatter of Amon Rhûdh

The point is that Tolkien thought that this world is one in which we have the freedom to choose our actions and that we are personally responsible for them. For Tolkien, each decision really does come down to a moral choice for good or ill, and without that structure his mythology and his novels make no sense. Moreover it would be extremely odd for a Christian to believe that we are simply automatons performing predetermined actions in a random and meaningless universe.

Well, that sure was Tolkien's point - I couldn't dream about arguing over that. But how should we see it? As ingenious truth about the world? As Tolkien's wisdom that outweighted many of his contemporaries, as a foolish hope of a romantic living at a wrong century, or as a fool that would gather followers more fool than he was?

Not wishing to offend anyone...

[Elu Ancalime]

What my beleif on Tolkien is that characters had choice that was moral, and they were given thus chance to make that choice free of supernatural intervention, but Eru and Mandos and who-not knew that choice. So it really is free will, but just they know what will happen and how it will end up; so rather than being omnipresent and omnipotent through time, its rather like a computer playing chess: They can analyze every possible move, and can draw conclusions what will happen vecause of it, but they cant influence the human players' move.
________
Hot penny stocks

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Elu Ancalime

What my beleif on Tolkien is that characters had choice that was moral, and they were given thus chance to make that choice free of supernatural intervention, but Eru and Mandos and who-not knew that choice. So it really is free will, but just they know what will happen and how it will end up; so rather than being omnipresent and omnipotent through time, its rather like a computer playing chess: They can analyze every possible move, and can draw conclusions what will happen vecause of it, but they cant influence the human players' move.

Well. That's always the good question: if someone knows your choice beforehand, is it a real choice anymore? And why would some God let her creations to choose badly anyhow? What would be the point? She would anyhow know beforehand, who would be "guessing" right, and who would not, so predeterming everything anyhow?

[AragornII]

Sorry if this isn't about what you guys are currently discussing, but I've been thinking about the "deus ex machina" thing.

In school we've been studying Shakespeare, and a "deus ex machina" was usually something like an angel or a "savior" figure that comes from the the top of the stage unexpectedly, lowered down by a machine similar to a crane. This event would happen towards the end of the play This fits the meaning of the phrase, which is "god out of machine".

Looking at it in that perspective, I'd say that the Eagles were more of a "deus ex machina" than Gollum was. They were literally saving figures coming from the sky at the end of the story, and to those who hadn't read the books, were totally unexpected. However, they did not help with the main purpose of the story. The main purpose was to destroy the Ring. They didn't really have much to do with the actual act of destroying it. It was good that they came and saved Frodo (and Sam), because it made the story better, but I don't think they meet the full criteria for "deus ex machina".

Gollum, on the other hand, fulfills the other half of the criteria. He comes out of nowhere to help with the main purpose of the story, destroying the Ring. In fact, without him, that would never have happened. But he doesn't come out of the sky, or from above. He is unexpected, though. So the way I see it, Gollum isn't fully a "deus ex machina" either.

This is just what I thought while reading the earlier parts of this thread.

[Essex]

Squatter gets it right for me here:

In the case of Frodo, we do actually have Tolkien's word for it that he could never have resisted the temptation of the Ring in the final crisis. Thus the conclusion of his quest presents a moral lesson about his tolerance and mercy toward Gollum. If Frodo and Sam had killed him, as it was only logical and sensible to do, then he would have been unable through his final treachery to save Frodo from the domination of the Ring. Essentially, Frodo has the opportunity to decide whether he is to destroy the Ring and complete his mission or to claim it as his own and be destroyed, but his will has been overcome. He is no longer able to make the decision for himself, but the outcome of his earlier decisions has been to bring the means of his salvation with him.

In other words, Middle Earth was saved because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. He had the chance a number of times to rid the world of Gollum, but did not do so. In the end, this is what the whole of Lord of the Rings is about to me. REDEMPTION. ME was redeemed from falling into Sauron's hands because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. without this, ME would fall.

A couple of things. On these threads it has been mentioned that Frodo failed at the Sammath Naur and there were no 'heroes' at this point. In my point of view Frodo SUCEEDED. Did he physically throw the Ring into the Fire? NO. But what was the Quest? To destroy the One Ring. Was the One Ring destroyed? YES. Was it destroyed because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum? YES.

Therefore to me, Gollum is about as far away from a D E M as you can get. He is integral to the whole of the LOTR.

Regarding the Eagles. They were servants of Manwe, right? So giving them the Ring to fly into Mordor gives us these problems:

1/ Gwahair could well have kept the Ring for himself, just like Gandalf would have - the temptation would have been too great. These birds aren't the normal flap your wings, eat food, and die variety - They are sentient beings. So, they couldn't give the Ring to the Eagles.

2/ It would have set alarm bells ringing throughout Mordor if they attempted to fly into Mordor and Mount Doom WHILST SAURON WAS ALIVE AND THE RING NOT DESTROYED. So they couldn't do that either.

3/ Did the Eagles really save the day at the Morannon? I can't see where it says this. They assisted, no doubt, but once the Ring was cast into the Fire (which happened fairly quickly after they arrived, I surmise), then the forces of Sauron at the Black Gates did a runner anyway, didn't they?

4/ Therefore why are the Eagles a D E M? Why aren't they entitled to fight against Sauron. They faught in the battle of the 5 armies? - were they seen as a D E M there? I admit they were a way of retrieving Frodo and Sam quickly from Mount Doom. But the Eagles here are a veichle to quickly move the characters back to their friends, rather than having to have Gandalf srping after them on Shadowfax (for example) - they were a handy veichle for Tolkien to use to get his heroes back ASAP and keep the story moving.

5/ Gwahair has already been in the LOTR assisting Gandalf a couple of times, as was his wont. Again, this seems to disprove the theory that the Eagles were a D E M.

anyway, that's my 2 cents worth....

[Raynor]

These birds aren't the normal flap your wings, eat food, and die variety - They are sentient beings.

I disagree:

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed, HoME X

I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fea. The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted / converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellious critical words — he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots), in The Lord of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them.

The same sort of thing may be said of Huan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no fear.

[Essex]

fair point (haven't read that book yet, so not sure if it's tolkien's point or his son Christopher - if its the latter it's just another opinion....)

but it adds to my point that you definately don't give them the eagles the Ring then!

PS Gwahair sounded like a pretty sentient being to me......

[Raynor]

not sure if it's tolkien's point or his son Christopher - if its the latter it's just another opinion.

It is made by Tolkien, in the Orcs essay of the Myths.

Gwahair sounded like a pretty sentient being to me

Yeah, what about a soulless dog bringing Sauron down, or a soulles eagle marring Melkor's face... can't argue with the professor though

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Raynor

can't argue with the professor though

Except that you can, Raynor.

In the time that you've been on the 'Downs, it has become immediately clear that you know your Letters and HoME backwards and forwards. You ought, however, realize better than most the flip-flopping of opinion that Tolkien experienced on many, many of his topics.

For example, with regards to this quotes on Eagles et al, Tolkien was looking for a viable way of explaining their apparent sentience. There is no conclusive proof (which I would define as multiple texts from later or contemporary dates giving the same opinion) that he ultimately decided that this new idea of his was correct. As I recall from that particular passage, there is a very clear air of SUGGESTION to all the texts in that section of Morgoth's Ring.

In other words, although Tolkien puts forward this as an idea, I would say that to quote it as definitively decided by him would be rather foolhardy.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by AragornII

So the way I see it, Gollum isn't fully a "deus ex machina" either.

I think the reason Gollum is associated with D E M is not the character, per se, but the 'push.' Gollum reclaims the Ring, his only goal and desire for the whole trilogy, and just when he does...whoops! Into the lava he falls. That is the D E M moment, as I understand it.

By the by, nice post Essex.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

For example, with regards to this quotes on Eagles et al, Tolkien was looking for a viable way of explaining their apparent sentience. There is no conclusive proof (which I would define as multiple texts from later or contemporary dates giving the same opinion) that he ultimately decided that this new idea of his was correct. As I recall from that particular passage, there is a very clear air of SUGGESTION to all the texts in that section of Morgoth's Ring.

In other words, although Tolkien puts forward this as an idea, I would say that to quote it as definitively decided by him would be rather foolhardy.

We're clearly dealing with two Tolkiens - the 'translator' & the 'commentator'. The 'translator' gives us the texts, the 'commentator' attempts to understand them (for himself as much as for any potential readers). The texts are primary the comments are secondary.

Unfortunately, the 'texts' do contradict each other, so that doesn't take us much further forward.

CT comments (in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait) that towards the end of his life his father had become somewhat 'detatched' from the Legendarium & approached it in the same way as he would have approached any ancient mythology. It had taken on a life of its own & he was free to analyse it & attempt to understand its meaning & implications. He did this as an Orthodox Catholic & his analysis was not free from bias. In Catholicism animals do not have 'souls', they are not 'sentient' in the human sense. Hence Tolkien the commentator attempts to rationalise the Legendarium in line with his own worldview.

The next serious problem we have is that he still claimed ownership of the Legendarium. Eventually his 'analysis' confronted him with a major difficulty - it was not 'Catholic'. Or at least it was not sufficiently Catholic for his own comfort. One has only to read the letters from correspondents which question such things as the apparent display of pity on the part of the Trolls in TH. Tolkien's initial response was to claim it was only an 'impression' the reader had picked up & that the truth was different (he proceeds to construct a very convoluted & not very convincing theory as to how the reader is mistaken in this 'impression'). So far the translator & the commentator are obeying the rules & sticking to the strict dividing line between them. Then it all starts to go snafu. He starts his project of rewriting the Legendarium & we get the 'Myths Transformed' mess, which, if he'd pursued it, would have unravelled the whole thing. Luckily, he didn't get very far.

[Raynor]

Kelvars with souls presents a host of problems; their fea must come from Eru also (no vala is capable of creating spirits); now animals arrived in Arda before even the elves (creatures "old and strong") - so incarnate fear would be allowed to awaken before the elves, but dwarves can't? And we are also told the Children of Eru (men and elves) are the creator's own addition to the music - if animals have souls, then they too are an addition, but no one is looking forward to/over them (only poor Radagast ), no one is seeking rule over them and there is no mention of them in the Ainulindale.

Originally Posted by Letter #212

Elves and Men were called the 'children of God', because they were, so to speak, a private addition to the Design, by the Creator, and one in which the Valar had no part. (Their 'themes' were introduced into the Music by the One, when the discords of Melkor arose.)

Would these animals have free will? If so, why don't the valar marvel at them, as they to at the Eruhini? Where would their souls go, to Mandos or beyond the world? If they go beyond the world, that would mean that the valar and the elves should envy even the animals. Would the animals participate in the second Ainulindale?

It is worth noting that Elves differentiate between incarnates (beings with both fea and hrondo) and animals:

Originally Posted by Quendi and Eldar, appendix B, Elvish names for the dwarves

The Eldar did not at first recognize these [the petty dwarves] as Incarnates, for they seldom caught sight of them in clear light. They only became aware of their existence indeed when they attacked the Eldar by stealth at night, or if they caught them alone in wild places. The Eldar therefore thought that they were a kind of cunning two-legged animals living in caves, and they called them Levain tad-dail, or simply Tad-dail, and they hunted them.

Would all living beings have a soul? Even the tinniest? And if not, where is the line drawn? If the animals do have souls, I am sure that there should have been a lot about them in the elvish lore, seeing how eager the elves were to learn as much as they could about their place in the world, and their relation to the valar and Men.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Essex

In other words, Middle Earth was saved because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. He had the chance a number of times to rid the world of Gollum, but did not do so. In the end, this is what the whole of Lord of the Rings is about to me. REDEMPTION. ME was redeemed from falling into Sauron's hands because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. without this, ME would fall.

A couple of things. On these threads it has been mentioned that Frodo failed at the Sammath Naur and there were no 'heroes' at this point. In my point of view Frodo SUCEEDED. Did he physically throw the Ring into the Fire? NO. But what was the Quest? To destroy the One Ring. Was the One Ring destroyed? YES. Was it destroyed because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum? YES.

Therefore to me, Gollum is about as far away from a D E M as you can get. He is integral to the whole of the LOTR.

This is very interesting. My usual take on Frodo's heroism is always that it was the getting to Mount Doom that was the truly heroic part, but I think that we might often overlook his heroism in offering compassion to Gollum. I'm not sure at what point he decides in his heart not to hurt or kill Gollum, but at some stage an 'epiphany' of understanding takes place within Frodo.

This may be what Gandalf was hinting at all the way way back in Bag End when he asked Frdod if he really could kill a creature such as Gollum. I think Gandalf too may have had this moment of realisation, or even had it from the beginning. It may have taken deep understanding of the true nature of The Ring to appreciate what Gollum was and what he was motivated by, something Gandalf would perhaps have known, but maybe only another Ring Bearer could truly understand? Even so, Sam, despite being a Ring Bearer, still does not appreciate Gollum in the same way that Frodo does.

If Frodo's compassion was leading up to the moment of confrontation at the Sammath Naur then this makes this different take on Frodo's heroism all the more interesting; it is only at the point where possession of The Ring is truly at stake that compassion turns to anger. Gollum of course has been almost (but not necessarily completely) possessed by The Ring, whereas Frodo has to this point remained relatively unpossessed. Right at the end, both are suddenly utterly possessed and the compassion that has got them there flies out of the window as they fight for The Ring. So it's fascinating that at this point Sauron's influence is so strong and yet it is overcome, by fate or just chance?

To me the fact that Gollum came back at this stage is not only integral to the story, but perfectly fits with Gollum's character and personality, and I agree, Gollum cannot be called a Deus ex machina.

Originally Posted by Essex

1/ Gwahair could well have kept the Ring for himself, just like Gandalf would have - the temptation would have been too great. These birds aren't the normal flap your wings, eat food, and die variety - They are sentient beings. So, they couldn't give the Ring to the Eagles.

This is another very interesting idea worth exploring. I suppose it depends upon whether the Eagles are sentient or even if they can be counted as Maiar. Either way, I think it's right that for them to take The Ring would have been incredibly risky. Could we imagine Gandalf marching into Mordor with The Ring? Not only would that have attracted attention and all hell would have been unleashed, but for him to have the Ring would have been almost as bad as Saruman or Sauron having it. I honestly think that the only way to get The Ring there was to have it sneaked in.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Kelvars with souls presents a host of problems; their fea must come from Eru also (no vala is capable of creating spirits); now animals arrived in Arda before even the elves (creatures "old and strong") - so incarnate fear would be allowed to awaken before the elves, but dwarves can't? And we are also told the Children of Eru (men and elves) are the creator's own addition to the music - if animals have souls, then they too are an addition, but no one is looking forward to/over them (only poor Radagast ), no one is seeking rule over them and there is no mention of them in the Ainulindale.

This problem only arises if the Great Eagles, Huan, et al are 'simply' animals. If they are incarnate Maiar it doesn't. It seems to me that it is perhaps a question not of whether they possess fea (a 'spirit'), which it would seem they do, as they are technically sentient (they are conscious, can think, suffer, feel pain, etc), but whether they possess sana (mind) ie, whether they are self conscious & have a 'soul'. In M-e a rational being seems to be tri-partite (a division into three again!) - fea-sana-hroa.

The idea that the Great Eagles, Huan, Shadowfax, Roac, etc have no sana doesn't stand up. The idea that along with Orcs & Trolls they are merely 'machines' doesn't work. If Morgoth (& later Sauron?) is simply supplying their motivating force simply begs the question 'Who is supplying the motivating force of the Eagles, Huan, Shadowfax (& why does Gandalf refer to Shadowfax as his 'friend', or Legolas refer to Arod in the same way?. A Wizard & an Elf would not refer to a 'robot' as a friend).

I think the simplest explanation is that (in M-e at least) most animals are made up of fea & hroa, but some also have sana as well. Whether sana is gifted to certain animals by Eru is another question.

[Elu Ancalime]

[QUOTE]=Nogrod
Well. That's always the good question: if someone knows your choice beforehand, is it a real choice anymore? And why would some God let her creations to choose badly anyhow? What would be the point? She would anyhow know beforehand, who would be "guessing" right, and who would not, so predeterming everything anyhow?[/QUOTE]


Well, even if they knew the choice, they didnt have to influence it. Like, we all (should have known) that Kuru would do what he did at the end of Survivor: The Hobbit but nobody really made him do it.

Also thats what I think. ITs just a mix. Because what does it matter to Eru anyhow? Arda will become Healed in the End, so when you know the Beginning and you know the End, does what happen in the Middle really matter to him?
________
Yamaha xv250

[AragornII]

Originally posted by alatar

I think the reason Gollum is associated with D E M is not the character, per se, but the 'push.' Gollum reclaims the Ring, his only goal and desire for the whole trilogy, and just when he does...whoops! Into the lava he falls. That is the D E M moment, as I understand it.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome; a person or thing that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and contrives a solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

Looking at this defintion, and the one I used, both of us are right, in my opinion. Gollum was a person that was sudden and unexpected and solved the problem of destorying the Ring, so by this defintion, he is a D E M.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Essex

Gwahair sounded like a pretty sentient being to me......

But so do Shagrat and Gorbag. And Ugluk. And Grishnakh.

I can't agree with Tolkien about his own work here, if it's actually his idea. It doesn't seem to fit his understanding of evil. Beasts raised to a higher level? Maybe. But the language of the above named orcs strike me as being more akin to human sentience that has become extremely evil and cunning, especially in the case of Grishnakh (best orc Tolkien ever wrote!).