The Road and The Ring

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the ‘meaning’ of The Lord of the Rings…and finding the task to be more than a little overwhelming! The only way I’ve been able to address this weighty topic in a more manageable way is to sidestep the relatively subjective issue of “what does it all mean?” with “what is it all about?” – and not even in the sense of thematic concerns (it’s about war, love, honour, friendship, humility, etc etc etc), but far more simply what sorts of things is the story about? The answer I’ve come up with is that The Lord of the Rings is about the relationship between the images of Road and Ring (or lines and circles).

The whole narrative structure is built around these images. There’s the linear journey along the Road from Bag End to Mount Doom, but then that journey becomes a completed circle with the return to the Shire and its scouring. Even during this journey there is a cyclical movement of departure, danger and refuge as the company, then the Fellowship, and then the separate parties move through each stage of their journey. Frodo’s journey throughout the story demonstrates what I’m talking about:

Depart Bag End
Chased by Nazgûl
Gildor

Depart Gildor
Chased by Nazgûl
Farmer Maggot’s Farm

Depart Farmer Maggot’s Farm
Old Forest
Tom Bombadil

Depart Tom Bombadil
Barrow Downs (very scary place)
Bree/Strider

Depart Bree
Weathertop
Rivendell

Depart Rivendell
Moria
Lothlorien

Depart Lothlorien
Mordor
Minas Tirith

Depart Minas Tirith
The Scouring, and the years of suffering and disillusionment
The Undying Lands

I think this list shows pretty well what I’m talking about – there’s a pretty straight-forward movement from beginning to end (along a linear Road) but at the same time there is the constant cycle of departure, danger and refuge. What’s more, the whole journey is itself a circular journey with Frodo going “there and back again” and then at the very end going to the first and primordial Home.

But this is where things get really tricky. How are we to understand this relation of line and circle, or Road and Ring? The temptation would be to see them as either opposed to one another (Frodo has to travel the Road in order to destroy the Ring) or as happily co-operative (the straight Road, when followed well, becomes a Ring), but there are all kinds of very complicated connections between Roads and Rings that makes untangling this relation fascinatingly tough. Some examples of combinations that I find intriguing:

Bag End is both linear and circular: a round tunnel that runs straight back into a hill; Isengard is both linear and circular: a straight tower that rises into the air and is surrounded by the “ring of Isengard”. Does this mean that Bag End and Isengard are somehow connected to one another? ooooo – Saruman does take over each and make each a seat of his power…

The One Ring of Sauron is circular; Narsil (the sword that cut the Ring from Sauron’s finger) is straight. Are circles associated with “evil” and lines with the “good”? This would seem to work with the next ‘pairing’ of Roads and Rings…

The “straight road” leads to the West and the Undying Lands; The “fallen” shape of Middle-Earth is a circle. But, is it possible to work with a “good/evil” version of the Ring/Road relation given the first example of Bag End/Isengard above? Or, even more disturbing to this notion…

Minas Tirith is built in the form of a circle (it also has a round tower).

In Lothlorien, the forward, linear progression of time (change) is halted and replaced with an eternal circle/cycle in which seasons come and go but time does not. The only way for the evil Ring to be destroyed is for Frodo to resist the temptation to give way to the eternal cycle of rest and ease at Lorien and continue on his straight Road toward Mount Doom.

But these are perhaps relatively simple instances of what I’m working through. More compelling is the very nature of the narrative: is it a linear story that moves from beginning, through the middle, and toward the end? If this is so, then presumably we are working toward some kind of resolution and conclusion. But then, if this is the case, then is it not at the very least ironic that this “straight road” leads back to the very place where it began?

Or is the story circular? But if this is so, then is it in some manner like the Ring in that it closes in on itself and “goes nowhere”?

Help!

[Essex]

What is straight? If you walk in a straight line on this planet or on Arda (post 'bending') you will evntually come back to the same point, and thus have walked on a circular path.

I do not see cirlces as 'evil'. A round (3 dimensional circle) shape is a 'perfect' shape that things form into. Whether we talk of a star, or a planet, or a bubble, these are perfect shapes. The universe itself maybe contained in on itself and therefore circular.

The journeys we see in the book are to me not whether it is a linear or circular story, but that is 'multi dimensional'. ie we have characters and events going off at tangents throughout the book. I love the way when reading LOTR you can see Tolkien's plot from different viewpoints.

This is what helps makes Tolkien's story great. I remember a discussion thread on another site a year or so ago where the question was - Would it have been better if Glorfindel went with the fellowship instead of Pippin. I was chosen to bat for the 'Glorfindel' side, and as valiant as I tried, in the end I was 'defeated' and realised you could not BETTER Tolkien's plot.

But it goes beyond LOTR itself. Without mentioning the whole raft of history befre the third age, just taking into account small parts of the story one picks up from Unfinished Tales, etc, and you can see an even MORE interwoven plot, (for example the viewpoint of Rohan and the battle of the Fords of Isen).

So to me I think it is too simple to call the story 'linear' or 'circular'. It is mult-dimensional.

[Bêthberry]

Fordim,

I appears to be my fate that I post a quick, incomplete response at the start of your threads!

One of the traditional claims about the structure of LOTR has always been that it is ... unstructured, the typical picaresque where the heroes just march off to various adventures, without a strongly plotted or planned sense of 'rising' action (the various scenes possibly being interchangeable to some degree), other than the ultimate battle, of course, even as there were several different strands of adventures.

What I like is how you point out that there is a repeated pattern of departure/action/respite. I had seen the three 'major' retreats of Bombadill, Rivendell and Lorien because they are highlighted thematically but not the other examples of resite in Gildor/Farmer Maggot/Bree etc.

Completely irrelevantly, this reminds me of the short action sequences in Star Wars, where Lucas limits each scene to approximately 20 minutes, something akin to the time in American TV shows between commercials. What this has to do with your Ring and Road thesis I'm not sure. Just jumping through some hoops at the moment!

Essex,

ie we have characters and events going off at tangents throughout the book. I love the way when reading LOTR you can see Tolkien's plot from different viewpoints.

Not sure what you mean here. Simply that each of the narrative thread--Sam and Frodo, the hobbits, Aragorn/Gandalf--are split? I don't necessarily see any different points of view. Characters express different opinions, yes, but it seems to me that LOTR is fairly well delimited as a binary point of view, good versus evil, with the evil being "out there".

Anyhow, as I said, I must dash...

Bethberry

[Boromir88]

You bring up two valid points. With the whole "circle" idea as not really being evil. The characters you see (especially the hobbits and Aragorn) go through "circular" patterns to become the people they are today.
For example you have Aragorn who wanted to be king from the very beginning of the journey, but the Aragorn at the beginning is much diferent from the Aragorn at the end. If you look at LOTR, after losing Gandalf, Aragorn was questioning what he had done. He was watching the fellowhips fall apart before his eyes, Boromir had died, Merry and Pip were captured and Frodo was off to Mordor with out telling anyone. Aragorn took the role as the leader after Gandalf died and he questioned himself and saw himself as a failure at the end of FOTR. But his determination and love for Merry and Pip led him on. At the end of the book Aragorn is a confident, loving, and turns out to be a great king, great leader.
The hobbits all went through changes and you see that in the scouring of the shire. Merry and Sam in particular stepped up and became leaders to drive out Saruman. All the fellowship characters had went through a transformation (which you can think of as a circular path, since you need to go off the straight road to go through a transformation) and you see that by the end of the book.

Your other valid point was the way Tolkien wrote it was probably the best way of doing it. You mention Glorfindel replacing Pippin. If pippin wasn't in the fellowship Faramir would of died, end of story. Faramir did a lot of things behind the scenes in LOTR, he was an adored captain of Gondor and his death would of been tragic. Glorfindel is no doubt a better fighter to Pippin, but come on Denethor wouldn't of let Glorfindel stay and keep him company. It had to of been someone like Pippin to tell Denethor about the journey and to warm his heart, for it was written that Pippin brought a slight warm of Denethor's heart. Pippin eased Boromir's death. Glorfindel probably wouldn't of cared about Faramir, no Pippin means Beregond is not warned and means Faramir is dead. Also, Gandalf used Pippin to keep an eye on Denethor. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Boromir hadn't of died. Well if Boromir hadn't of died, probably means the hobbits wouldn't of been captured, which means most likely the company would of gone to Minas Tirith. There would of been no need to go to Rohan, Legolas and Gimli clearly said they would go to Minas Tirith, we know after was Boromir did Merry and Pip would of gone too, of course Boromir, and Aragorn wanted to go with Boromir from the beginning. If they hadn't of travelled to Rohan, Theoden wouldn't of been free and Rohan would be in control of Saruman. You had Gandalf during Amon Hen I believe he was still in Lothlorien, there he fought wtih the dark lord when Frodo put on the ring. Gandalf knew Rohan needed aid and probably would of tracked down the company and told them they needed to go to Rohan, but by then it might of been to late. Who knows this is only speculation. The way Tolkien wrote it, there probably could of been no other way but it is always fun to ponder.

[Essex]

OK, Bethberry, re your reply regarding my post on of the plot seen from different viewpoints.

Not sure what you mean here. Simply that each of the narrative thread--Sam and Frodo, the hobbits, Aragorn/Gandalf--are split? I don't necessarily see any different points of view.

Here’s a few for starters.

1/ Witch King's death as discussed by the orcs on the Orc Path.

'I'll give your name and number to the Nazgûl,' said the soldier lowering his voice to a hiss. 'One of _them_'s in charge at the Tower now.'
The other halted, and his voice was full of fear and rage. 'You cursed peaching sneakthief!' he yelled. 'You can't do your job, and you can't even stick by your own folk. Go to your filthy Shriekers, and may they freeze the flesh off you! If the enemy doesn't get them first. They've done in Number One, I've heard, and I hope it's true!'
The big orc, spear in hand, leapt after him. But the tracker, springing behind a stone, put an arrow in his eye as he ran up, and he fell with a crash. The other ran off across the valley and disappeared.
For a while the hobbits sat in silence. At length Sam stirred. 'Well I call that neat as neat,' he said. 'If this nice friendliness would spread about in Mordor, half our trouble would be over.'

We see the WK's death first hand on the Pellenor Fields, but we see a different viewpoint (and more importantly we see cause and effect) with the two orcs arguing on the Orc path that Frodo and Sam overhear. Without his death, Sam and Frodo may well have been discovered, and the game up.

2/ Another, indirect, but beautifully constructed passage finds us at the Cross-roads:

Standing there for a moment filled with dread Frodo became aware that a light was shining; he saw it glowing on Sam's face beside him. Turning towards it, he saw, beyond an arch of boughs, the road to Osgiliath running almost as straight as a stretched ribbon down, down, into the West. There, far away, beyond sad Gondor now overwhelmed in shade, the Sun was sinking, finding at last the hem of the great slow-rolling pall of cloud, and falling in an ominous fire towards the yet unsullied Sea…..[king’s head piece]….. 'They cannot conquer for ever!' said Frodo. And then suddenly the brief glimpse was gone. The Sun dipped and vanished, and as if at the shuttering of a lamp, black night fell.

We can see here the viewpoint of Frodo regarding the Darkness from Mordor. To the people in Minas Tirith it is overbearing, but we see from Frodo’s view that the darkness does not yet encompass all. The lightbeams fall on the fallen King’s head. Light will overcome darkness in the end.

3/ Finally, a direct comparison.

'Look at it, Mr. Frodo!' said Sam. 'Look at it! The wind's changed. Something's happening. He's not having it all his own way. His darkness is breaking up out in the world there. I wish I could see what is going on!'
It was the morning of the fifteenth of March, and over the Vale of Anduin the Sun was rising above the eastern shadow, and the south-west wind was blowing. Théoden lay dying on the Pelennor Fields.

The Wind has changed. Aragorn’s ships are charging up the river Anduin, but Theoden is dying. We can see hope tied together with despair. But together with these events unfolding in Gondor, we see Sam’s spirits are lifted at pretty much exactly when they needed to be. This is the point where Frodo begins his final descent into total control by the Ring, and this is the point where Sam really takes over, and Middle-earth needs his guidance, so that goodness can prevail.

Sorry, I seem to have led this topic off at a tangent. We should get back to Fordim’s points on whether this is a linear or circular composition. But I think my points above, though off topic, go to show that (I think) it is too simple to show this story as linear or circular. Actually, what I wrote above has just come to mind. This book, in its multiple layers, is really abot Cause and Effect. ie how different strands of a tale are totally interwoven. Take one piece out of the equation and all fall, like a line of dominoes. My example of the defeat of the Witch King is a major one. But, for example, what if Sam's dad hadn't told the Black Rider that the hobbit's had already left? They probably would have been captured in Hobbiton before they had travelled a step! Without Mr Gamgee's (unwitting) assistance, all would have been lost.......

[Firefoot]

Fordim, another great thread topic!

I agree with Essex that the story is too complex to call just 'linear' or just 'circular'. I suppose that depending on your perspective it could be either or. But the way I see it is that it is both. It is linear in the fact that the characters go from point A to point B and they take these steps to get there and they change in these ways. However, it is also circular in that points A and B are the same point, for the Hobbits anyway: the Shire (though I suppose for Frodo it is more like a lasso: the Shire.... the Shire, and then the Undying Lands).

Or is the story circular? But if this is so, then is it in some manner like the Ring in that it closes in on itself and “goes nowhere”?

I would say that yes the story is in some respects circular, as I outlined above, but that doesn't mean it "goes nowhere." The characters (I'll stick with the hobbits for now) go on a life-changing journey and come back very different. They have all changed, and grown, from what they were previously. They are not the same hobbits that left a year ago. I don't see how you can call that going nowhere, even if they end at the same spot. If I was to walk around my block, I would end up back at my house. I have gone in a complete circle. Have I gone nowhere? One might argue that I have: I am at the same place I started, and unless something happened on that walk, I have probably not changed a bit. However, the hobbits' journey is not a walk around the block: they have all gone through hardships (some greater than others) and come back stronger from it. Brings to mind the saying "What does not kill us will make us stronger."

is it a linear story that moves from beginning, through the middle, and toward the end? If this is so, then presumably we are working toward some kind of resolution and conclusion. But then, if this is the case, then is it not at the very least ironic that this “straight road” leads back to the very place where it began?

It that way, yes it is linear. You have a beginning, a middle, and an end, each going through several steps to get us there. It does conclude itself with Frodo etc going to the undying lands and Sam returning to the Shire. As you pointed out, the events of the story are also cyclical, so maybe you end up with a figure shaped like a spring? Point A to Point B, but the events in some ways repeating themselves. I suppose you might say that it is ironic that this road goes back to where it started, though perhaps JRRT did that on purpose? In that case, it would be ironic for the characters inside the story, but not necessarily for the story itself.

So in conclusion, I will say that it is impossible to fully describe a complex, 3-dimensional story like LotR with flat figures like circles and lines. There is too much going on, too many characters and events, or "rings and roads" as you so well put it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Yes, Fordim, you've managed to come up with another interesting discussion topic! Firefoot, I like your use of the picture of a spring, a three-dimensional figure which combines both the circular and linear aspects. The lessons we learn in life tend to take repetition before they sink in, so we seem to come back to the same places. I've often compared it to building a brick house - you go around and around, ending up at the same corner repeatedly. However, each time, the wall is one layer higher. There is progress.

That's how I see the LotR. The cycle of departure, danger and refuge may seem similar, but each time, it escalates. Leaving Rivendell is not the same as leaving Bag End, and the shelter of Ithilien is not the same as Lothlórien. So I would also see the movement of the plot as a spiral, showing the depth of the story.

[Bêthberry]

Sorry, just kidding. Couldn't resist. Will go away now and won't come back until I have something serious to contribute.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Hmm…my cogitations seem over simplifying? Oops, not quite what I was after – and here I was congratulating myself on rendering such a confusing idea into an actual post that made some sort of sense.

Firefoot and Essex, I see what you mean about the reductionism of “making” LotR into either a circle or a line, but my point is actually that it seems to be both at the same time. Like Estelyn, I very much like the idea of the spring. The other image that came to mind as I was writing the original post was that of W.B.Yeats’ gyres, particularly in that the spiralling action of LotR does seem to move ‘outward’ into ever expanding circles. In the little plot summa I gave above, there is an expansion in each repetition of the pattern. This expansion is, first, temporal – that is, the cycles take place over the course of days, then of weeks, then of months, and finally years – with Frodo’s trip to the Undying lands, these cycles reach even into the Eternal. But the expansion is also, I think, thematic somehow: as Frodo’s ‘awareness’ or conscience or morality or whatever grows throughout his journey, so too does his journey.

All of this seems to me to reinforce the idea that LotR is perhaps more complicated than even the spring (or the brilliant brick-laying analogy!) do it credit. The Road and the Ring are not attempts on my part to explain the whole work, but structural/organisational motifs/devices that Tolkien has used to organise his story. Every story has ‘shape’ – the western story of “our” own culture/civilisation is very much linear (history moves ‘forward’, cultures ‘advance’, generations ‘succeed’ one another), and this is very different from more traditional stories of historical movement (Native Americans, for instance, very much imagine history as circular, with each generation re-placing the former).

So, given the fact that Roads and Rings, linearity and circularity, are so insistently (and consistently) mixed in Middle-Earth, the stories of the characters become very complex. Boromir88 has said that “the Aragorn at the end is very different from the Aragorn at the beginning” – he is therefore ‘circular’ in a sense. Well, I’m not sure I can go along with that simplification. Aragorn does follow a circular Road from houseless wanderer to King – thus completing the historically circular pattern of his people. But his own personal journey is, I think, very much in a straight line. The conditions of his life may change, but I don’t see much by way of personal development or alteration/realisation. When he meets the hobbits in Bree, for example, he announces from the outset “I am Aragorn son of Arathorn. If by my life or death I can serve you, I will!” – this is, I would suggest, very much the kind of man he is for the duration of his life. Frodo, on the other hand, undergoes a profound and complete alteration (under the influence of the Ring) and thus his journey is entirely circular (he ends up where he began: Frodo leaves Aragorn in Minas Tirith – at the end of their shared Road – and goes back to his round hobbit hole) but this is repetition with a difference (he is not the same person). In the end, Frodo leaves Middle-Earth and takes the “straight Road” into the west.

So the journeys of both Frodo and Aragorn are circular and linear; but each of them follows their own Roads for the sake of their own Rings. So (deep breath) what does this all mean?? Are Roads and Rings somehow compatible in LotR (I’m not happy with that one, frankly, since the Fellowship has to follow their Road to destroy the Ring)? This is well beyond simple questions of good and evil – what do Roads represent as compared to Rings (and vice versa), and how can these help our understanding of the characters’ individual journeys, as well as the history of the War of the Ring?

[Kransha]

Ah, at last I find the courage to post in one of Fordim's fantastic threads. Before, I'd considered myself not scholarly enough, but I think I have something to say on this, so here I go. Wish me luck, fellow meek ones...

Alright, a congruence of road and ring. Both fascinating and deceptive in its course. There was the cited fact that a road, or straight objective has a heading, going somewhere, whereas the circular, ring path leads nowhere but into themselves. Now, on a metaphor, one can't say that the Ring Quest leads into itself (excepting another theory 2 paragrahs below this).

There is also the slightly bizarre deduction of mine found through Road and Ring assumptions. In many of the cordoned off sections of the books, there is a recurring line or circle theme, in more than the land lay. Focal points: Minas Tirith, Shire, Isengard, Orodruin, has those themes within, but the similarity is shared by surroundings. Consider the tree to be a representation of road, bearing many straight branches, a road-like trunk, and often pockmarking roadsides. Then, consider the influence of the ring in, say, a pool, usually implied as circular in shape. Focal points are also effected by such things, ala Old Willow, Treebeard, the Lothlorien Mallorns, the White Tree of Gondor to battle the side of the road and Galadriel's Mirror, the Pool at Henneth Annun, the 'Pool' in Mount Doom, the pool in the courtyard of Ecthelion's Tower at Minas Tirith for the rings. Sensible, though a little crackpot in its stating.

Then again, think about the whole road mentality. Roads inevitable go, but do not always remain level. At a certain point, there is a steady beginning of the ascension/descension theme, which is found in both road and ring (ascent to Minas Tirith is a circular path, descent into Moria is a straight one) but always there are ups and downs. As such, one might assume from my above theory that the theme is more natural than related to Fordim's theory, but I stand by my belief that the two are intertwined. There is a steady course of ring ascent, road descent (there's a thought. Notice that most of the ascension is ring-wise, the descension road-wise). You could say it all comes down to advanced geometry. Is it necessary to delve into the third dimension of Arda here...or even the fourth? Speaking of, I may have botched my ME history lessons, but wasn't Arda a plane before the first age? As in, flat like pre-Galilean Earth? Dimensions could be crucial.

There is, then, the matter of character and the journey. Journeys lead 'somewhere' but the journey of the 4 hobbits takes them eventually back where they were once, the Shire. Unlike other journeys in literature, the story doesn't end with victory, and then some epilogue delving into the future. The journey ends 'when the road is travelled,' and 'when the ring is complete.' The character paths are often ring-ular (i.e. Frodo, Aragorn, etc) but there is a difference. Only one of the Fellowship actually travels in a ring, who is, most interestingly, Samwise Gamgee, who ends up closest in personage to where he began the books, still in love with his gardening and a hobbit of the simple life. All other Fellows of the Fellowship have gone on roads and rings, returning PHYSICALLY to where they began, but not MENTALLY. Frodo has the scar of the Ring (read: circle) on him, Aragorn is of kingly stature, with new duties, Merry and Pippin are revered as heroes with new following in Rohan and Gondor, Gimli and Legolas have found a friendship for each other utterly unexpected before hand. For all those uber-Sam lovers out there, revel in this moment, as Sam has a peculiar uniqueness compared to the other road travellers. Of Gandalf I cannot say. but wizards work in mysterious ways, so I shan't be the one to try and fathom them.

[Boromir88]

I'll bring up some Geometry, ok so you have a circle, ring 360 degrees. Which means a 360 is that you end up back where you started. This is similar to most characters, Sam, Merry, Pippin all returned back to the Shire. Aragorn, if I can still remember correctly, fought alongside Denethor in their early ages then he returns to be the King. Legolas and Gimli I will have to look at more closely to be able to make a decision. Some of the supporting Characters, for instance, Theoden, Eomer, Imrahil, all went out and off their "road" to aid Gondor then they returned back. For Theoden he went back dead, but went back none the less.

I left out Frodo since someone mentioned his Journey was more of a lasso, which makes sense. I would like to talk about Frodo's "spiritual" change. It's like he did a 180, he's not the same anymore. If you read "The Scouring" it just seems like Frodo, doesn't love the shire that he once did. Frodo, sought healing and was a ring-bearer, but it just didn't seem like he loved the Shire as he once did. Sort of like Celebrian after she was wounded she didn't care for Middle-Earth like she did and went to Valinor to seek healing. Frodo didn't do to much to help save the Shire, Sam, Farmer Cotton, and Merry were really the one's who rallied the Halflings. Frodo still had love for his hobbits and fellow companions but as for the Shire I can't decide. Frodo suffered a wound (many) and when returning home after all this time of wanting to he seems to have lost his love. I will have to get back to you on some clues from the book that I noticed for this. I compare Frodo's journey similar but much more difficult then Celebrian.

Kransha tree trunks are straight but they are also circular, which if I understand you correctly that will only help support your theories.

[tar-ancalime]

I really like the gyre analogy. It seems to work better than roads and rings as separate ideas--the gyre allows for, as Boromir88 said, characters returning to their homes but still being changed.

Also, I think you were right on in bringing up Yeats, Fordim. The Second Coming is very like the Lord of the Rings in a way--it's about the end of an age. Just as at the end of the Third Age the situation for Middle Earth seemed desperate and many people lost hope, so in the poem "the falcon cannot hear the falconer." And what's more, is Sauron the "rough beast"? (Sorry, I'm quoting from memory, always a dangerous proposition and especially in the morning--I apologize if I'm getting it wrong.) I think he wanted to be. I think he would have been at the (new) center of things if the Ring had not been destroyed.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Since we're all doing moving or structure metaphors for the for the path of Frodo's journey, perhaps I can throw in another odd one--a magnetic flow. This allows for an angular flow of electrons, either clockwise or counterclockwise in a circular path, creating either an upwards direction of electronic flow or a downwards direction of electronic flow. Thus, also, the tie-in with the clockwise path taken by Frodo from Hobbiton to Mordor to Minas Tirith and back (positive flow-the upright path) and also his pretty much clockwise path inside the Land of Shadow, starting at the entrance road to Minas Morgul, to Cirith Ungol, the Morgai, around to Udun, through the Plain of Gorgoroth and thence to Mount Doom (then out of the realm through the air). How's that for crackpot theories? The Road can be either upwards or downwards, metaphorically, towards the Light and positive flow or towards the Darkness and negative flow. I'm sure this metaphor doesn't hold with everyone for everything, but the spring theory made me think of it.

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Don't know if its relevant, but all this talk of roads & rings & gyres & spirals made me think of:

http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/maze/cretan.htm

[Lhundulinwen]

I agree with Boromir88. In a way, I believe that Frodo didn't know what he actually wanted when he left Bag End. It may just have been the ring that was restless, but I think it was deeper than that. He felt that he needed to go and travel, but once he was actually having to leave, he missed the Shire. But did he really? I think he actually had the "Why me?" problem when he left the Shire, much like Bilbo in the Hobbit. I'm sure he did love the Shire, even by the time of the scouring he still loved his homeland, just for the nostalgia, and maybe he still loved it becuase it remind him of his loss of innocence and ignorance and who he once was.
I think the actual wound that sent him off to the Undying Lands was his loss of innocence. Frodo didn't have the blind hope like Sam, or the natural easy-goingness of Merry and Pippin. He couldn't make it through the adventure and come out the same way as the other hobbits, especially with the realization that it was a big bad world. So, yes, Frodo didn't really come full circle in the spiritual sense. He was completely changed.
Aragorn, on the other hand, made a much larger circle. From Isildur all the way down to his father Arathorn, the circle hadn't been completed. Aragorn did complete it. The sword that was made whole, finally destroying Isildur's bane, asscending the throne, all these elements came together to complete what had been started long before the third age. Of course, he did have a little help.
The other hobbits came full circle in both the physical and spirtual sense. Each grew-up, and took responsibilites far beyond what they would have experienced in the Shire. Gimli and Legolas did too, in a way. They became friends, despite what their ancestors had started. So, I guess they broke a circle and started a new one. Faramir didn't come full circle. He never got to come to terms with his brother or father.
The journey in general was a lot like a spring. The linear journey shaped the depth of the circles, so the length of the journey determined the size of the cirlcles.

[Firefoot]

Boromir, I do not think Frodo lost his love for the Shire. Rather, I think he 'grew out of it'. He grew too much from his journey to still be able to enjoy the Shire, but enjoying and loving are two different things. That is part of the reason that he went on the Quest in the first place: his love for the Shire and his desire to save it.

Now back to what all this has to do with 'the Road and the Ring." Both parts are essential to understanding the characters, especially Frodo. Frodo's road was long and hard, made all the more difficult by having to bear the Ring. Both changed him; the Ring in obvious ways - it was an awful burden, pure evil - but also the Road. How would Frodo's Road have been different if it had been shorter? Longer? If it had been longer perhaps he would not have lasted. So is the Road good or evil? Certainly many of the things that happened to him were evil (carrying the Ring, being stabbed by the Morgul blade, Shelob) and the Road itself is Ring-shaped. Does this make the Road evil? However, Frodo was also changed, and grew into something better, so does that mean the Road was good for him? If the Road is evil, it is mostly because of the Ring. If it had not been for the Ring, the Road would not have been necessary, and Frodo would not have taken it, thus avoiding himself much suffering. If it hadn't been for the Road, the Ring would not have been destroyed. This puts the Road in a different light. The Road becomes a means to the destruction of the Ring, however in being that it also becomes the means to Frodo's brokenness. It gave him the need to go to the Undying Lands. The necessity of going was evil, but the Road to Valinor (and the healing I believe he received there) was good. So in Frodo's case I will say that the circle part of his Road was evil, but the straight part (to Valinor) was good (And so you come back to the lasso). The point I mean to make with this is that understanding the nature of the Ring and the Road is essential to understanding Frodo's character.

But what about a character like Aragorn? Certainly his Road was good. He went from being a Ranger to the King of all Gondor and Arnor. His road was not circular in that it did not begin and end at the same location. It was more linear in this sense, unlike Frodo's road. How does the Road and the Ring then help us to understand Aragorn's character? His continued resistence to the Ring shows us his nobility and strength of character (though I have heard others say it makes him too perfect). Much of the same is shown in his Road (for example at The Paths of the Dead and his choice to look into the Palantir). We see his kingliness and such as shown by the roads he takes and his choices.

One final and third character: Boromir. His Road comes almost full circle, and with the exception of the beginning and end, I would say that much of his Road was evil: his desire for the Ring and ultimately his attempt to take it. The Ring brings out some qualities in Boromir: his want for the Ring shows his pride for Gondor and Minas Tirith in that he wants it as weapon to save it. His death speech to Aragorn shows his strength of character and honor, and again his pride for Gondor. Interesting how his journey (the part we see) is all but a circle where he is greatly desiring the Ring but when he repents and saves Merry and Pippin and he drifts down Anduin on a Road that is straight. Maybe there is something in "circular journeys=bad, straight journeys=good (obviously some exceptions - the other hobbits did not go on "evil" journeys). Understanding the nature of the Ring and his relationship with it is essential to understanding Boromir's character.

Edit: Cross-posting with Lhundulinwen. I didn't take your comments into account when I wrote this.

[Lush]

Fordim,

This thread reminds me of the old difference between the epic and the novel, the epic traditionally representing a cycle, whilst the novel, in its conception, is a straight line of progress (at least it was around the time of Goethe, I believe).

Though the evolution of literature since then might have led, in some cases, to a certain congruence of these two elements, no?

Something to think about, perhaps?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Greetings Lush – seen your posts all over this place, but our paths have never really crossed until now.

You raise a really good point, and one that I think I agree with. I think, though, that I would tweak what you’re suggesting just a bit. Rather than a model of narrative like epic=circular/Ring, and novel=linear/road (and I know that you are not really being this simplistic) I think that what’s at work is two different narrative forms that have developed in response to different kinds of hero.

The epic hero (Aragorn, Achilles, James Bond) moves very much in a straight line as he fulfills or brings about his identity. He is who he is at the beginning of the narrative, and the purpose of the story is to see that he brings recognition of that identity to others (Aragorn is Aragorn all along, it’s just that other people recognise him as Aragorn/Elessar/King/hero). The circularity of this narrative is a rather closed one, I think, insofar as we end where we begin (with Aragon as Aragorn). The fairy-tale hero (Frodo, Odysseus, Luke Skywalker) moves in a circle as he goes out of his safe place, changes/learns/grows and then returns to his safe place in order to transform it/change it/save in turn. In the modern world we don’t have much use for fairy-tale heroes so our modern narratives tend to celebrate the epic hero and the Road that he must take; but Tolkien presents us with both kinds of heroes and does so in a manner that shows us how they are completely interdependent: Aragorn’s Road to Minas Tirith cannot be successfully traversed without the commensurate success of Frodo’s circular journey to and from Mount Doom to destroy the Ring. Minas Tirith is saved by Aragorn’s epic journey to it; the Shire is saved by Frodo’s fairy-tale return to it.

[Lush]

I think that what’s at work is two different narrative forms that have developed in response to different kinds of hero.

Hi there, fellow Barrowdowner and resident of beyond cloud nine.

How do you fit The Lord of the Rings into the above idea?

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts before I post mine.

Also, the epic did precede the novel, and the novel's conception was due partly to the fact that society was beginning to evolve in a different direction. Um, in case you didn't realize that...Who am I kidding? Of course you do. But perhaps the history of both should be taken into account when addressing the LotR?

Also, is a novel necessarily a fairy-tale and a fairy-tale necessarily a novel? And are you sure about the fact that in our modern world we tend to celebrate the epic hero more? I would agree with that if we were talking about the realm of cinema, but literature? I am not entirely sure.

Also, are you positive that Odysseus is a fairy-tale hero?

Per your suggestion that Tolkien's work has different types of heroes living under one roof, I agree wholeheartedly. Hence my original post.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

How do you fit The Lord of the Rings into the above idea?

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts before I post mine.

Also, the epic did precede the novel, and the novel's conception was due partly to the fact that society was beginning to evolve in a different direction. Um, in case you didn't realize that...Who am I kidding? Of course you do. But perhaps the history of both should be taken into account when addressing the LotR?

Also, is a novel necessarily a fairy-tale and a fairy-tale necessarily a novel? And are you sure about the fact that in our modern world we tend to celebrate the epic hero more? I would agree with that if we were talking about the realm of cinema, but literature? I am not entirely sure.

Also, are you positive that Odysseus is a fairy-tale hero?

Gracious! That’s a lot of questions – and all of them really really good questions too…hmm – I shall attempt inasmuch as possible to give them the attention they deserve!

I fit LotR into the idea of different heroes/different narratives in the sense that there are, very broadly speaking, two stories going on at once in the book, and that each is centered on a different hero: there’s the circular story of Frodo going about his fairy-tale transformation from Nobody to Somebody (Bag Eng – Mordor – Bag Eng); and the linear story of Aragorn coming into his own by becoming the Somebody he was always meant to be (Bree – Minas Tirith). To this extent, it makes perfect sense that the Fellowship is broken at the end of Book Two: for a time, the paths of the fairy-tale Frodo and the epic Aragorn lay parallel, but only for a time. The remarkable thing about the book, though, is the fact that the fairy-tale hero is given precedence in a very real way over the epic hero. This does not happen often. This is why I would agree that the history of the epic, the fairy-tale and the novel should all be very much part of our approach to LotR.

Next, I don’t think that the fairy-tale narrative is synonymous with the novel, but I would argue that there is congruence between the two, inasmuch as contemporary novels are almost uniformly concerned with the “growth” or “development” or “triumph” or whatever of the “ordinary person” (generalizations, generalizations, generalizations! Bear with me). I think that the split you point to between ‘good novels’ and ‘popular culture’ is also relevant – in movies and pulp fiction the relatively flat epic hero is always more celebrated than the limited fairy-tale hero. Unfortunately, the moral fiber of the epic hero, the sense of moral (divine) purpose is all too often left out and all we have left is the militaristic shell of violence and physical ability.

And finally (whew) I take it back about Odysseus as a fairy-tale hero. He’s very much a reluctant hero (like Sam), though, bringing the heroic types to three. Actually, I would peg the heroic types of the book at four with Gollum coming in as the Modern hero (or the anti-hero). Interestingly, for each type of hero I’ve identified there is a different narrative pattern isn’t there… Frodo and Sam on a circular journey (Ring) with Frodo arriving back changed and Sam not; Aragorn and Gollum on a linear journey (Road) with Aragorn finding success and fulfillment…I was going to say that Gollum does not, but he does succeed and have a ‘happy’ ending doesn’t he! Just as Aragorn gets his precious Arwen, so too does Gollum get his Precious and die happily – not just happily for him, but for the whole of Middle-Earth.

Hmm…I sense a whole new thread topic coming on…

[Lush]

Hmm…I sense a whole new thread topic coming on…

Indeed.

Though perhaps we let this one go, I have always felt that Frodo's quest is more epic, perhaps, than meets the eye. Maybe this more has to do with Tolkien's style than what actually happens to Frodo in the book, particularly the way in which his interactions with Sam are described.

Anyway, I have got a migraine, and should be able to post more decisively after my brain has stopped feeling as if someone super-glued it to the inside of my skull and is now tearing it off slowly.