Frodo at Sammath Naur

[davem]

Sharon, Lyta, this is effectively saying that Frodo fails the test that both Galadriel & Faramir are shown as passing. He seeks to preserve the old ways, his old life, even being prepared to gamble the fate of Middle Earth & all its peoples. Galadriel will lose all she loves. Faramir will risk all he loves. Frodo wont/can't. His life in the world, his old life with Bilbo in the Shire has too strong a hold over him. Perhaps he can't imagine any other existence.

Is this down to the 'negative' side of his Elvish qualities, as Sharon says - I think so. The Elves don't change, actively avoid it - as does Sauron (quote from a review of Fleiger's A Question of Time:

Flieger contrasts the differences between human and elvish perspectives on the nature of time. The most telling distinction between the two kindreds is drawn through their view of the future. According to Flieger, Tolkien's elves see the future as a period of decline and decay, the opposite of humanity's hopeful approach. This creates a backwards emphasis in the elvish mentality - "men are proceeding into the future, while Elves are receding into it." In this, the Elves and Sauron are much the same (since they are both bound by fate and the Music of Iluvatar). The Elvish rings stave off time and decay just as the One Ring does (though without the negative side effects); representing similar desires on the parts of their makers. The Elves and Sauron are seeking to prevent change, and therefore development and growth. Both lack humanity's potential.

Full review: http://www.greenmanreview.com/a.question.of.time.htm

A question that springs to mind is does Frodo's decision to leave also involve a feeling that he will hold Sam back, that he has to leave so Sam can be free, & is this the 'positive' side of his Elvishness coming out. Frodo is a kind of missing link between the Elvishness of the Third Age & the Age of Man. Sam is part of the Fourth age. The Elves, & the Elvish, have to leave to liberate the Followers. Frodo has become too Elvish to stay. Perhaps, also, this similarity between the outlooks of Sauron & the Elves (& the 'Elvish' like Frodo) is the cause of his inability to destroy the Ring. Frodo is simly too Elvish in the end.

[mark12_30]

... this is effectively saying that Frodo fails the test that both Galadriel & Faramir are shown as passing. He seeks to preserve the old ways, his old life, even being prepared to gamble the fate of Middle Earth & all its peoples. Galadriel will lose all she loves. Faramir will risk all he loves. Frodo wont/can't.

I don't believe that of Frodo. Yes, the idea of (basically) destroying Lorien must be devastating to him; but he's followed all that logic through. He's seen what Mordor is firsthand, and knows what the Ring produces. And I don't think he'd buy the logic. That is exactly why the "Save the Shire" idea doesn't sit right with me.

That's why I *still* think it's sheer posessiveness. I go back to the argument that all he could see was the wheel of Fire, even with his waking eyes. He went into the Sammath Naur with the express desire to destroy the Ring; and within the Sammath Naur, the Ring took him. As Tolkien states, I can't judge Frodo for what he decided inside the Sammath Naur, because nobody could have prevailed in there. Once through the doors, his fate was sealed; Tolkien makes that clear; he could not refuse the power of the ring inside those doors.

But I don't see that he ever 'failed the test that Galadriel and Faramir passed'. I don't buy that. Tolkien is clear that within the Sammath Naur anyone: ANYONE: would have failed; Galadriel, Faramir, anybody. That's just not the same "test." Galadriel and Faramir never entered the Sammath Naur. Entering the Sammath Naur was like entering the womb of evil.

letter 191:

If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back.

In other words, Tolkien's point is that he wouldn't surrender it. Not that he intended to use it to save the Shire or anything else. Simple surrender of it was impossible. And that points back to posessiveness, and ownership, and to the phrase "The Ring is Mine." What made him claim it within the Sammath Naur was the same inability to toss it into his own fireplace. And that was on the first day he found out what the Ring really was and what it could do. He wasn't thinking about using it to save the Shire; he was thinking:

The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its color, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious. When he took it out he had intended to fling it from him into the very hottest part of the fire. But he found now that he could not do so, not without a great struggle....

And the Ring, as we all know, ends up back in his pocket.

I've no doubt that once he claimed it, his head was filled with grandiose ideas; but I do not believe that those grandiose ideas were with him before he entered the Sammath Naur or that those ideas were what made him claim it within the Sammath Naur. Tolkien said that we should judge by the intentions BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE SAMMATH NAUR (yes, I'm shouting, but don't take it personally.) And **before he entered** the Sammath Naur, Frodo did not have the intention of using the Ring to save Bilbo and the Shire; he had the intention of destroying the Ring.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:12 AM January 19, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

Just as an aside: Consider also the test that Galadriel and Faramir never had to take in the comfort of their own home. The test is this: carry the Ring for thirteen years on a chain in your pocket and never put it on and then after thirteen years of it being "your ring" in your pocket day after day, THEN try and throw it into your fireplace. Would Galadriel or Faramir have passed? No way. And that was exactly Gandalf's point; the ring already had a hold over Frodo even then, and it never let go.

[Finwe]

Bravo, mark12_30! That was a truly admirable post!


I think that what is happening is that many of us are being carried away by the grandiose scheme of Lord of the Rings. True, there are some infinitely complex characters, with some infinitely comlex motives, but Frodo was not one of them. We have to differentiate his simpler motives from the more complex ones. Especially in this case, all he wanted to do was destroy the Ring. Naturally, the Ring would want to prevent that. Perhaps it was Frodo's intentions that caused him to "fail" when he did. Think about it. If saving the Shire had been his primary objective, the Ring would have shown him visions of "Frodo the Brave, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword, and armies flocking to his banner," all to save the Shire. Naturally, that would have made him fail more quickly, since he would want to give in to that temptation so that he could save the Shire. Sam had to withstand that temptation too. It was by the virtue of Frodo's desire to destroy the Ring, NOT use it in any form or manner, that enabled him to get as far as he did.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen,

I'm not sure if we are seeing this differently or there is just a problem with language here. Let me elaborate and you can let me know whether you agree or not.

I agree that Frodo should not be judged for his decision at Sammath Naur, any more than he would be judged for a boulder falling onto his head.

And I also agree that when Frodo first trudged up that slope, he had no plan or intention to use the Ring to save anything. I'm sure he had rejected any tempting thoughts of rule that had ever crept into his mind (but I do believe they had crept in at some point along the trail, only to be rejected.) It was only standing at the very crack that he actually decided to claim the Ring.

But what I was trying to answer was this (a question that was mentioned earlier on the thread): why did Frodo claim the Ring at that particular moment? Was it mere possessiveness for the Ring itself, as seems to have been true with Gollum, or a conscious desire to claim it to do something?

As can be seen from my last post, Tolkien's earlier drafts for the chapter clearly state that Frodo claimed the Ring because he wanted to do something with it: he wanted to rule.....a rule that would be gentle, filled with poetry and feasts. That language does not appear in the final chapter. Yet while the ideas may have disappeared from the chapter, he never contradicted or refuted them (as was true with other scenarios such as Sam pushing in Gollum or Gollum repenting). Frodo's intentions were still there at the back of Tolkien's mind, a fact we can clearly see by studying the Letters.

In my earlier post, I mentioned that Frodo is grieving that he can't be a hero, only an agent of providence: something that Tolkien explicitly mentioned in his earlier draft and his Letters. The statement from the Letters is well known; on Frodo's desire as expressed in JRRT's earlier draft see this:

After all he is a great hero, Hobbits should become lords of men, and he their Lord, King Frodo, Emperor Frodo.

In her last post, Lyta Underhill came up with an even stronger argument than mine. It is based on Letter 246: the reference to the Ringwraiths bowing low and Frodo's dreams of reformed rule.

They (the Ringwraiths) would have greeted Frodo as 'Lord'. With fair speeches they would have induced him to look upon his new kingdom, and behold afar with his new sight the abode of power that he must now claim and turn to his own purposes'. Once outside the chamber while he was gazing some of them would have destroyed the entrance. Frodo would by then probably have been already too enmeshed in great plans of reformed rule--like but far greater and wider than the vision that tempted Sam--to heed this.

My apologies to Lyta for 'stealing' her quote! But it clearly implies what I am trying to say. Based on the Letters and the earlier drafts of the chapter, it's clear Frodo had ideas of "reformed rule" in mind when he claimed the Ring. It was not simply the Ring itself, as was true with Gollum.

This all suggests that Tolkien may have deleted the specific reasons why Frodo claimed the Ring, but that it was more than desire for the thing itself -- he had intentions of claiming power.

I do think Frodo must have run many ideas through his head on the journey, including saving the Shire, and then firmly rejected them. If you had asked Frodo in Lothlorien what he intended to do, he would not have hesitated even a single second to say that he was going to destroy it, in terms that were swifter and more certain than Galadriel's. He was absolutely certain that he wanted to throw away the Ring until he stood on the very steps of Mount Doom. There, in the seat or womb of all evil, other thoughts took over: he desired both the Ring and what that would enable him to do.

As to the question of Bilbo and preserving the Shire....we can never be sure. This is admittedly conjecture based on the nature of Frodo's personality and his 'Elvish' nature. But it sounds likely to me that any reformed rule Frodo envisioned would have surely included Bilbo and a 'preserved' Shire as well.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 11:52 AM January 19, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon, I do think we are seeing it differently... as usual? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

In terms of Tolkien's previous texts: I don't see that they guaranteed what is behind the final text. There is much that between the early sketches and the final version.
In the earlier versions Frodo puts the Ring on outside the Sammath Naur; this was not crossed out, but it was tossed.
"He struggles to take off the Ring and cannot." Tossed.
"Here we will perish together, said the Wizard King. But Frodo draws Sting. He no longer has any fear whatsoever. Frodo is master of the Black Riders. He commands the Black Rider to follow the Ring his master and drives it into the Fire." Tossed.
In the same vein, Frodo's decision about world domination occuring to him outside the Sammath Naur and claiming the Ring outside the Sammath Naur were both also tossed.
Frodo doesn't put on the Ring til he's standing on the edge of the chasm, and the final text says nothing about world domination. It simply says, "I will not do this deed. The Ring is Mine."

Tolkien also writes as a footnote to letter 246:

"Actually, since the events at the Cracks of Doom would obviously be vital to the tale, I made several sketches or trial versions at various stages in the narrative-- but none of them were used, and none of them much resembled what is actually reported in the finished story."

The quotes from the letters look to me like they apply to after he put the Ring on. Before he put it on, I think his struggle was the same as the one he had back beside his own fireplace.

Once he put it on, then yes, its heady, raw power got to him instantaneously and he was overwhelmed; just as Sam was pretty quickly when he wore the Ring near Minas Morgul, imaginng Sam's Great Big Garden. So also with Frodo. Once he put it on, yes; the fantasies multiplied. But in the final version I don't think that's why he put it on in the first place.

We've seen Frodo again and again demonstrate violent posessiveness over the Ring, towards Gollum but also especially towards Sam. Gollum's attack just before they got to the doorway was all about posessiveness again:

This was probably the only thing that could have roused the dying embers of Frodo's heart and will: an attack, an attempt to wrest his treasure from him by force.

Meanwhile, in the Letters, it's precisely the letter that Lyta quotes that convinces me otherwise; that the decision to rule as 'Wise and Gentle Emperor Frodo' took effect AFTER he put on the Ring. I think that's why Tolkien left it out of the final version.

From the same area that Lyta quotes:

They (the Nazgul) would have greeted Frodo as Lord. With fair speeches they would have induced him to leave the Sammath Naur-- for instance 'to look upon his new kingdom, and behold afar with his new sight the abode of power that he must now claim and turn to his own purposes.'

There, I see an echo of the very same sales-pitch that I imagine the Ring gave Frodo the moment he put it on. However, Tolkien continues:

Once outside the chamber wile he was gazing some of them would probably have destroyed the entrance. Frodo would by then probably have been already too enmeshed in great plans of reformed rule-- like but far greater and and wider that the vision that tempted Sam-- to heed this. But if he still preserved some sanity and partly understood the significance of it, so that he refused to go with them to Barad Dur, they would simply have waited.

"Sanity" to me is the key word to that whole passage. "Sanity" points me to the Shadow of the Past, and Gandalf's repeated statements: if anyone tried to take it from you, you would go mad. Posession again.
And just as Sam recovered from his megalomania, Tolkien implies that Frodo would have recovered too, if he had had time-- and if he had not been so desperate not to lose, as Tolkien calls it, "his treasure."

One page previous, Tolkien says this: (letter 246) which begins by talking about Gollum:

Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale.) But 'posession' satisfied, I think he would have then sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and voluntarily cast himself into the abyss.

I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together--and in a flash he may have seen that this would also have been the greatest service to Frodo. Frodo in the tale actually takes the Ring and claims it, and certainly he too would have had a clear vision-- but he was not given any time: he was immediately attacked by Gollum. When Sauron was aware of the siezure of the Ring his one hope was in its power: that the claimant would be unable to relinquish it (my italics, posession again) until Sauron had time to deal with him. Frodo too would then probably, if not attacked, have had to take the same way: cast himself with the Ring into the Abyss. If not he would of course have completely failed.

So Tokien takes the stance that if Frodo had put on the Ring, claimed it, and then had time to *think*, he would have realized the folly of trying to use it to rule (as did Sam). But he had no time. And rather than giving up the Ring, Frodo would have gone into the abyss with it.

Going back to letter 246, Tolkien says this:

however that may be explained, he had not in fact cast away the Ring by a voluntary act: he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still to desire it.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 1:34 PM January 19, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

But Frodo's 'Elvishness' predisposes him to take the Ring in the end. He thinks in terms of 'going back' to the old days with Bilbo in Bag End, of things being that way & never changing - which makes his realisation on the way home that 'There is no real going back' so terrible. Perhaps what we see going on in Frodo after the destruction of the Ring is what also went on in the mind's of the Elves - feelings of overwhelming loss, grief, failure, no option but to go back to Valinor.

Also, it seems Elves & mortals concieve of the Ring(s) differently. For Elves its a means of keeping things as they are, a way of stopping things moving forward, being pushed further & further from the only place they have any desire to be, their ideal past. Men seem to see it as their way forward - use it, get rid of Sauron, then use its power to change things.

I still think Frodo does fail the test Galadriel & Faramir pass, yes, he does suffer more than them, but in terms of a moral choice, a 'consenting' to what the Ring offers, they pass & he fails. 'The Ring is mine' is his surrender to the Elvish vice of 'flirting with Sauron' as Tolkien says the Elves have done in creating the Rings. He becomes more & more 'Elvish' as he goes on, more & more backward looking, till the future holds nothing for him, only a movement away from the place he wants to be. He stands at the Sammath Naur, an Elf in all but physical shape. The future is a horrible, grey nighmare, leading to nothing worth having. The Past is Bilbo & Bag End, woods, fields & little rivers. Destroy the Ring & guarantee that future, save the Ring, claim it & guarantee the past will go on forever. Tolkien says that Frodo expected, hoped even, to die in achieving the Quest. When did that desire arise - certainly not at the outset. I suspect it grew, along with the realisation that the destruction of the Ring would mean the end of the past, a guarantee that it would never return. Whether its Frodo's nostalgic mindset that draws him to the Elves, or the time he spends surrounded by Elvish things which affects him & changes his outlook from a mortal one to an Elvish one is another question. The destruction of the Ring is the destruction of what someone has called the Elven Block, a liberation from the weight of the past, freeing up all but the Elves to move forward - even, in a way, freeing up the Elves (against their will, perhaps) to go home to the only place they could be happy. Frodo tries to stop that. Psychologically Frodo was incapable of giving up the Ring at the end. He claimed it, because he'd already, mentally, 'claimed' the past. Destroying it would be destroying the past & leaving the way open for the future to happen. What Elf would choose the future over the past?

[mark12_30]

davem, the reason that I don't agree with your statement quoted below is that in the Letters, Tolkien said that *nobody* could have resisted the Ring within the Sammath Naur. Frodo passed Faramir's and Galadriel's test all the way from Bag End to the doorway of the Sammath Naur. But Tolkien says that within the Sammath Naur, defeating the Ring was impossible. Comparing Galadriel and Faramir's tests to Frodo's experience within the Sammath Naur is illogical. They are not the same test.

I still think Frodo does fail the test Galadriel & Faramir pass, yes, he does suffer more than them, but in terms of a moral choice, a 'consenting' to what the Ring offers, they pass & he fails.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 8:19 AM January 20, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

Well, he couldn't have resisted the power of the Ring, especially at the end, not physically or mentally, but the question is, did his will assent to claiming the Ring. Did he continue to resist spiritually? He was going to get 'stuck' with the Ring at the end anyway, because it would overwhelm anyone, but Galadriel could not only reject the Ring physically & mentally - which Frodo could not at the end, she could also reject it 'spiritually'. I think the fact that Tolkien can relate the words of the Lord's Prayer to those last moments in the Sammath Naur - 'Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us' & refer them specifically to Frodo's act of mercy to Gollum - ie, Frodo 'forgave' Gollum's trespasses against him, & so Frodo was 'forgiven' by The Authority - implies that Tolkien considers that Frodo was in need of 'forgiveness' for something, that he had 'trespassed', gone where he shouldn't have gone, claimed something he had no right to claim. His mercy to Gollum lead The Authority to show him mercy.

None of this makes Frodo a 'bad' person, or lessens his struggle. Frodo was forgiven, by The Authority. Frodo did break in the end, & in the end he failed, but he failed in not trusting & giving in to despair. He couldn't trust in providence, or believe there was hope in the future. He couldn't, in the end, trust The Authority. He couldn't believe that, as Julian of Norwich put it 'For sin is behovely, but all shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. For Frodo, All had been well, but wouldn't, couldn't, be so any more, because once the Ring had gone, the past would be gone with it. 'The Ring is Mine' - the past is mine, Bilbo, Bag End, the Shire, the Green Dragon, wandering in the woods of the Shire, the innocence of childhood, the comforts of the past, suffused with a golden glow of nostalgia, is mine, & I will keep it forever & ever & ever. The future will never happen. Everything will be preserved for ever, just as I want it. (Just like the Elves. Like Galadriel, wanting to live in a land where the trees & flowers don't die. Like Tolkien himself, perhaps, in the trenches, with his friends dying around him, would have maybe wished to go back to his childhood at Sarehole.)
Its understandable, & not deserving of condemnation - certainly not by us - but it is, in the end, wrong, because it rejects Illuvatar's plan & trust in The Authority. So, Frodo, I think, does 'sin' because he does as the Elves did & 'flirts with Sauron', seeking control & domination, not motivated by malice, but by fear, exhaustion & hopelessness. Galadriel could take the Ring & have everything she'd dreamed of, but is wise enough to know how it would end & humble enough, finally, to trust. Frodo, in the end, did claim it.

Of course, you're right, it was only after he put on the Ring that the fantasies of world dominance surfaced in his mind, but the Ring had taken what was already there, the desires that had tormented him for so long. Those desires were his, not planted by the Ring.

(Isn't this kind of discussion great? I love this [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[mark12_30]

davem,

Yes, I do like these discussions... quite a bit.

Meanwhile, you've caught me without Letters... again. But in Letters if I may paraphrase, Tolkien discusses the difference between a moral failure and a failure that comes from being utterly spent. He says that one cannot judge the two alike.

Let me try an example of my own... let's suppose two men are each supposed to carry a message to a king. The first is twenty-seven miles away from the king. The second is half-a-mile from the king.

The first runs twenty-six miles and drops dead of a heart attack. The second (who only has to run half a mile) just gives up and chooses instead to get a cup of coffee. The half-miler who gave up is a Moral failure. He was able; he had plenty of miles left in him to spend; but he chose to give up.

The first, however, completely spent himself trying to deliver the message. He gave himself over to his mission. The king did not get the message, true; but one can hardly fault the messenger; he did all he was able to do. He was utterly spent.

Tolkien discusses this difference between failing at something you CAN do (the man who chose to give up during his half-mile run) and failing at somthing you CANNOT do (the man who died on Mile 26.)

His point is that Frodo's body AND will had been utterly spent, and he had been placed in an impossible situation. There was no way he could have thrown the Ring in. In both will and body, he was utterly spent.

Tolkien says that Frodo's failure, since he was utterly spent in will and body, was not a moral failure, any more than if he had failed in the quest because for instance he was killed by a large falling rock. We wouldn't call that sin. We'd call that being flattened. Frodo was flattened, and put in a situation completely beyond his ability. He was honored because he got that far, which nobody else would have been able to do.

Tolkien says that Frodo was at peace once the Ring was destroyed. Peace is key. He's neither under conviction nor condemnation (if you understand the Christianese; if not let me know, I'll explain.) Anyway, he was at peace immediately after the experience at the Sammath Naur. Tolkien does qualify that he also expects to die, however. But that doesn't happen-- no glorious martyr's death.

If anything, Tolkien says that his sins come in later.

One of them is pride, in that he wished he could have come home (or die) a hero instead of coming home quietly as a "tool of Providence." The other, was that he was tempted to regret the destruction of the Ring and *still to desire it*. ("It is gone, and now all is dark and empty." )

Pride, regretting the destruction of the Ring and desiring still to posess it, those three things are what Tolkien clearly pinpoints as Frodo's sin, and what he cannot get past. For that, he sails west to what TOlkien describes as a purgatory and a reward both; to understand his true place both "in littleness and greatness."

EDIT:

Rereading your post and seeing this

did his will assent to claiming the Ring

I believe, if I uderstand what I've read, that Tolkien would say, No, he had no will left. I think this is what TOlkien means by saying that his will had been "utterly spent" along with his body. (I wish I could say what letter that was; I'll look it up tonight if nobody beats me to it.)

ANOTHER EDIT:
Sharon, I think I just explained why I don't think Frodo put the ring on intending to rule. Because of that line of Tolkien's: "His will and body were utterly spent." According to Tolkien, he had no will left; he had spent every scrap of it in getting there.

When he says "I do not choose to do what I have come to do. I will not do this thing. The Ring is Mine.", I don't see that as Frodo choosing, *willing*, a new outlook and change of plans. Tolkien says his will is spent, so how could he choose? What he does "choose to do", if choice you call it under such circumstances, is to submit to the Ring and stop resisting it. I see that as an ultimate surrender to the Ring itself. I see that as, he is so spent, he cannot resist the domination of the ring for another moment. He simply surrenders to the Ring because he is utterly spent, and overwhelmed. He obeys it instead of resisting it.

At that point, the Ring owns him. It takes over. All of its' powers are free to work, and they do, like an avalanche. Because his will and body have been "utterly spent", he cannot resist it at all, and he becomes its tool; he belongs to it, and not the other way around.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:35 AM January 20, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

But if The Ring dominates Frodo's mind & Will then 'Sin'/evil is external, not internal, & we go for the Manichean view. Evil is an objectively existing force which can dominate & manipulate the individual against the individual's will, even if the individual does not consent. But this is not traditional Christian teaching, as I uderstand it. This would, in fact, mean that Frodo, or any of us could 'lose our soul' against our will, simply because we suffered too much for too long, & were broken by it. We could be 'damned' simply because we're not superhuman. Doesn't Christianity teach that we have to consent to an act before it can be called a sin? Surely from the Manichean perspective it would be a case of 'I am the Ring's', but Frodo says 'The Ring is mine'. He claims it as his own, as Feanor claimed the Silmarils (& later as did Morgoth). This kind of claim is posessiveness. Frodo can still say 'I' - so he's still 'in there'. If Frodo's 'sin', that for which he requires to be 'forgiven' only follows the destruction of the Ring, how would 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us' apply to the events at the Sammath Naur? He isn't 'giving in' to a piece of jewellery, but to something which the Ring is a physical 'locus' for. I think that is a very 'Elvish' thing - magic, the Machine, control & coercion - for understandable reasons, while in a state physically & pyschologically for which we can only feel absolute sympathy, but he fails because he's too Elvish. If we look back over his story we can see this clinging to the past & avoidance of even thinking about the future. Sam wants to marry, have children & is ultimately fulfilled by that. Frodo has no such desire. He's almost a Galahad figure on an anti Grail Quest, & they both leave the world at the end of it, because they're both born only to undertake that quest. I may have got a bit carried away & overstated my case, but I can't shake the feeling that on some level Frodo knew what he was doing when he claimed the Ring, knew what the Ring was - as far as anyone could, & that on some level he assented to it, & that though he felt at peace immediately after its destruction, the realisation of what he'd assented to, & the resultant guilt began to eat away at him. I think he blamed himself for all the things he saw himself failing at - saving the Shire, saving Gollum, & not only failing to destroy the Ring, but actually trying to save it. If we absolve Frodo of any guilt & present him as helpless victim, merely a kind of automaton, then the shock of the events at the Sammath Naur are lost -'Frodo' is not present, & its just Sam, Gollum & the Ring manipulating the puppet Frodo's body. I can't think of that scene without a Frodo who is conscious & aware & assenting, to some degree. It seems too much of a cop out to 'excuse' what Frodo did by saying he wasn't really there.

[mark12_30]

davem, how else do you explain Tolkien's statement that Frodo's will and body were "utterly spent"? I'll dig up the relevant section of Letters when I get home. But that's the essense of it.

On the other hand, I don't for a moment think that that would "cost him his salvation"; not for an instant, any more than having a rock land on you. I think that's why Tolkien made it so plain that Frodo's failure was not a moral failure. I think it's also why Frodo was at peace (in the midst of the lava.) If he had sinned, he wouldn't have been at peace; he'd have been drowning in guilt.

It'll be a couple of hours til I can get that quote...

Whether all this is manichean or ... whatever, I don't know (my Christianese doesn't extend that far) but it is Catholic; it is TOlkien's view that he developed as a Catholic.

Anyway... more later.

[doug*platypus]

According to Tolkien, he had no will left; he had spent every scrap of it in getting there.

An important distinction between will and resistance needs to be made at this point. To imply that Frodo had no more will left in the matter gives the situation over entirely to the Ring (an inanimate object?). As davem so eloquently notes (in what I incidentally believe is the finest post of an already fine posting career), this is to take the Manichaen view of a good external power versus an evil external power. This is the overly simplistic belief that many light readers find in The Lord of the Rings, and which has been used frequently in popular fantasy ever since the book was published.

As T.E. Shippey points out in his fantastic book, The Road to Middle-Earth, Tolkien shows us a world delicately balanced between the Boethian and Manichaen views, both of which are too simplified or polarised to provide a comprehensive answer to reality (not that we'll ever know all the answers, hopefully).

Anyway, while it may be true that Frodo loses all resistance to the temptation of the Ring through his arduous physical and emotional journey, this doesn't necessarily mean he has lost his will. That is, if by 'will' you mean "the ability to make your own decision", or the meanings given by Merriam-Webster as:

3: the act, process or experience of willing
or
5: the power or control over one's own actions or emotions

If Frodo no longer had any will in the matter, then you must believe that the voice he was speaking with in the Sammath Naur was not his own, and that he personally did not make the decision to claim the Ring.

I believe that he did make the decision himself (see my earlier post), and that the voice was his own. While he may have had no resistance left, he certainly had the will to make the decision. And thus, as davem says, he did 'fall' and commit that particular sin of claiming It for himself.

[mark12_30]

Letter 191:

If you read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honored because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved-- by Mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.

Corinthians I x.12-13 may not at first sight seem to fit-- unless 'bearing temptation' is taken to mean resisting it while still a free agent in normal command of the will. I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord's Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not 'arrange' the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance at repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge.) In the case of those who now issue from prison 'brainwashed', broken, or insane, praising their torturers, no such deliverance is as a rule to be seen. But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of evil is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

(There follows a paragraph about publishing the Silmarillion, and then the letter ends.)

192:

By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem to even have observed it. But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event. And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere 'fairy-story' ending in which the hero is indomitable? It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome-- in themselves. In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted. .....

Frodo deserved all honor because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said.) See Vol 1 p. 65. A third (the only other) commentator on the point some months ago reviled Frodo as a scoundrel (who should have been hung and not honoured), and me too. It seems sad and strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good will are tortured, 'brainwashed', and broken, anyone could be so fiercely simpleminded and self-righteous.

There follows a paragraph about Walter de la Mare and then the letter ends.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 7:10 PM January 20, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

From the letters quoted above, I would draw attention to several phrases in particular:

not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back

unless 'bearing temptation' is taken to mean resisting it while still a free agent in normal command of the will.

In the case of those who now issue from prison 'brainwashed', broken, or insane, praising their torturers, no such deliverance is as a rule to be seen. But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will.

It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome-- in themselves.
…
Frodo deserved all honor because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further.

These passages indicate to me that Tolkien held Frodo blameless. Phrases like "a free agent in normal command of the will" indicate to me that he did not consider Frodo to be such. A previously quoted passage from letters used the word "sanity".

While I'm at it... Letter 246:

Frodo undertook his quest out of love-- to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try and find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been-- say, by being strangled by Gollum, or being crushed by a rock.

...

But what Frodo himself felt about the events is quite another matter.

He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt (III224-5); he was restored to sanity and peace. But then he thought that he had given his life in sacrifice: he expected to die very soon. But he did not, and we can observe the disquiet growing in him.

Tolkien follows with a discussion of two temptations that Frodo suffered: " a last flicker of pride, a desire to have returned as a 'hero'"... and the second "he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still to desire it." ... "He went {west} both to a purgatory and a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and greatness..."


Sorry, I'd have typed more of it out but I have chores to do... But I think that this much underscores exactly where Tolkien felt that Frodo sinned; and it was afterwards, in the Shire. Not in the "breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment".

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 7:32 PM January 20, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

Y'all move too fast for me! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
davem:

I can't shake the feeling that on some level Frodo knew what he was doing when he claimed the Ring, knew what the Ring was - as far as anyone could, & that on some level he assented to it

from Helen's quote of Letter 246:

I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been-- say, by being strangled by Gollum, or being crushed by a rock.

Perhaps there are two degrees of the same thing being considered here. One asserts that Frodo knew what he was doing when he claimed the Ring, the other that it was the natural result of his being utterly spent and not so much a conscious decision. The part of Letter 246 that I had previously quoted does seem to point to the immediate aftermath of Frodo's claiming the Ring, the "what do I do now?" moment, rather than the "what will I do?" moment where he initially claims the Ring. I'm pretty sure he isn't thinking just as Sam does, of Mordor as a flowering paradise, etc., but undergoing an internal battle. As Tolkien says, the test is too much for any incarnate being. All are broken under this test. But the breaking takes different routes depending on the one broken.

I would not classify Frodo as someone who was in “normal command of the will” at Sammath Naur. Certainly not. But I believe he had a consciousness that could see what was happening to him, even if he could not remember it entirely, nor control it in the end. I would liken the state of mind to a hopeless addict, who is given the final choice of throwing away his last dose of drug so that he can be healed. By himself, that would probably not happen. The addict knows what is the best choice, but he cannot make it, being weakened by extreme physical and mental need. I can’t say this is a perfect analogy—it certainly isn’t. But I think there is an element here that echoes of the inner voice that knows the action is wrong but cannot help taking the action anyway, a human failing. Without the awareness, the person becomes an automaton, a cocaine lever-pressing rat. With the awareness, there is humanity, sentience, the ability to discern.

I would never suggest that Frodo’s failure would make him undeserving of forgiveness. I do agree that he is no more culpable than if he had been crushed by a rock, as noted above. The idea I get at the point of greatest struggle is that of an inability to let go, to trust to the higher power. Rather, as I believe was said earlier in this thread (I can’t remember where at the moment), the Ring was everything. For Frodo, it was either embrace the Ring in its entirety, with all that entails, or embrace nothingness, the realm of Morgoth, the opposite of Light. I would be afraid to take that plunge too! I cannot really speak to the theological aspects and I’d probably sound like an idiot if I tried, and you all seem to have read 100% more critical/analytical works than I. I would agree with Helen that there is no real sin in Frodo’s claiming of the Ring, but I don’t think that he necessarily is unaware of what he is doing. I hope that made sense!

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Firstly, Doug, thanks for what you said, but I find myself undeserving. I am happy if people find anything I post even readable!

Helen,

this failure was adumbrated from far back.... A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning.....No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of evil is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

I think these are central quotes. Frodo does 'fail' - because no one could succeed. The power of evil is not finally resistble by incarnate creatures. Frodo cannot resist it. He fails. Because both Good & evil are external realities (at least as far as Middle Earth prior to the fall of Sauron is concerned) and internal responses/reactions to those realities then for an act to constitute a moral failure or 'sin', there must be an internal consent. Frodo 'fails', he cannot finally resist evil, because it seems to him at that point that the result of that final act of resistance will be so terrible he would not be able to live with it.

" a last flicker of pride, a desire to have returned as a 'hero'"... and the second "he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still to desire it." ... "He went {west} both to a purgatory and a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and greatness..."

This is central, though, isn't it? Pride & desire - pride the great sin, & desire. The fact he is sent not simply to a reward, but to a purgatory, to be purified of his 'sin' implies that he had something to deal with, to take responsibility for. Lyta's point about the addict stands, in that Frodo is not addicted to the Ring as a piece of jewelery, as something with sentimental value, but to what it offers - control, the 'Luciferic' sin - pride, desire, to usurp The Authority, to re-make the world in his own image, to 'put right' what he feels The Authority has got wrong, to stop The Authority doing what he has planned. There is also fear, which comes ultimately from a lack of trust, which comes from a sense of seperation ('My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?). So, Frodo feels alone, deserted & desperate to get back to a time & place when he was happy & things made sense, but this is, harsh as it may sound, not 'the escape of the prisoner' but the 'flight of the deserter'. He is broken, exhausted, desperate for it all to stop. He wants to run away, run back to safety, & at the last moment, he deserts, fails, sins, but cannot be blamed, must be forgiven, because he has done what no-one else could. Only, as we find Tolkien stating in the Athrabeth, can The Authority Him/Her/Itself go the whole way, & not be broken in the end. Frodo sins, finally, because we are all sinners. Frodo cannot be free of sin, because if he was he wouldn't need to be saved. For Tolkien the Catholic we all need to be saved. The Authority must enter into the world He has given being to, because it cannot save itself, because however hard anyone in that world tries, however much they sacrifice, at the end, they will fail, because they're fallen, & cannot stand by themselves.

David (thought I'd give my real name finally!)

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:03 AM January 21, 2004: Message edited by: davem ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

David,

You have said this far better than I could have done. I do see it as pride and desire both for the Ring itself and for what that Ring represents: Frodo's unwillingness to surrender fully to the Authority, his choice to assert his own will. And he continues to question his place in the scheme of things even after the Ring has been destroyed, and he returns to the Shire.

As seen through the prism of Tolkien's Catholic faith, the nature of man is such that Frodo simply could not have thrown the Ring away. In that one sense he can not be "blamed" for his act. Yet the 'failure' is still there, within Frodo's mind and heart, extending even beyond the life of the Ring. Therefore, it must be dealt with. And so Tolkien speaks of "sin" and the need for a place of purgatory.

The thing that confirms Frodo's "failure" is that Tolkien was not sure whether the hobbit would ever find healing within the circles of the world, even within the white shores of Tol Eressea. I've never been able to comprehend that fully and find myself inserting a "happier" ending by painting a mental picture of Frodo's possible "redemption" in the West, just how and when that coming to terms with guilt and sin might happen. (I wonder if I am the only one to do this?) Yet, given the nature of Man, sometimes the images from the Sea Bell comes wafting into my head, and I question whether any healing was really possible within the bounds of Arda, no matter how much I would like to will it to be so.

Perhaps, those critics who berate Tolkien for "happy endings" haven't actually taken time to read the book. Like much of life, the ending of the story is bittersweet, filled with a solemn joy but also uncertainty and loss. I think we read these final chapters again and again because they touch a raw cord in each of our hearts, and remind us of what it is like to be human.

sharon

[davem]

Sharon,

I think Tolkien is saying there is hope, at the end, beyond the circles of the world - even if all we have here is 'hope without guarantees'. But the Sea Bell does echo(!) & Tolkien only offers hope & speculation about Frodo's ultimate fate. Does he eventually learn to accept his 'littleness'? As 'The Sea Bell' its a haunting poem. As 'Frodo's Dreme' its devastating. Its entirely possible that Frodo never does achive happiness in the world. Perhaps happiness is one of the things that Frodo mentions some people having to give up so that others may keep them. Who says happiness is something any of us will end up with - I'm not sure its the same thing as 'Joy', but thats getting too far into semantics. He learns wisdom, but wisdom can be about suffering as much as about joy. In the end, we aren't given enough information about what's going on in Frodo's head & heart to be able to truly know.

The problem with the idea that Frodo does not give in at the end, & 'desert his post' (accepting all the while that all the rest of us would have fled long before), & basing that on the argument that he was not physically strong enough, or that his will was not strong enough is that it implies that if he had been a little stronger in body or will he would have succeeded. Its the Nietzschian view - God is dead, & the Superman will save us. Lets strengthen our bodies & our wills, & we will conquer. But Tolkien says we are fallen beings & we will always fail. Its like Peter denying Christ at the end, through fear, & a desperate desire to escape bad experiences. Survival instinct cuts in, perhaps. But its still desertion, because of a lack of trust.

I'm reminded of one of Charles Williams Arthurian poems, where Taliesin, the King's poet, while Arthur is leading the main battle to gain Kingship, goes to Camelot with a small force to depose Cradlemas, the dictator. There is a combat & Taliesin deals Cradlemas a mortal blow & stands watching him die. There's a line, that Taliesin felt 'Righted by earth, but from Heaven displighted', & that 'Cain & he had one immingled brain'. Taliesin has done the 'right' thing - killed a dictator, a monster, helped liberate the people & make way for the peace & justice of Arthur's rule. But at the same time he's taken a life, broken God's law. But what was the alternative? To stand by, be 'Righted by Heaven, but from earth displighted'? Reject his human responsibility & go live in an Ivory Tower & write poetry? Basically, Taliesin is a fallen being in a fallen world & will fail in one way or another, & can only be saved by 'Grace'.

Frodo 'fails' at the end because failure is our destiny, we will give in at the end because we're not strong enough to stand alone. So The Authority has to intervene to lift us up, even if we fell in betraying 'Him', because His only alternative would be to leave us on the ground. Its not to condemn Frodo to say he deserted at the end - as I said elsewhere, I tend to idealise Frodo - its merely to acknowledge his humanity.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 4:12 AM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: davem ]

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:36 AM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: davem ]

[Essex]

In all these eloquent and interesting posts, I believe it all boils down to one simple thing.

Whether Frodo claimed the ring of his own accord or via another power forcing him to do so, to me he did not fail at the end because of his compassion to let Gollum live. He, and Middle-earth were redeemed because of this one act.

Sorry if I've gone off tangent, but this is surely what Tolkien meant when you look at the plot of the book.

Frodo, no doubt helped with guidance from Gandalf at Bag End, does not kill or let Gollum be killed. Because of this Middle-earth is saved.

Whether he MEANT to claim the Ring or not at the Cracks of Doom is immaterial. He did not fail.

He may have THOUGHT in his own mind that he DID fail, but that is different. Is not the pain of bite, sting and blade enough to go to the West to seek healing, and not because of any failure or sin on his part?

[Evisse the Blue]

This is a wonderful discussion which I have followed for many days, and not dared to interrupt.

I basically agree with Helen, because everything that Tolkien said seems to back up her point of view, but I think that Sharon and David have argued eloquently some very interesting ideas.

Right now I want to point out something. Helen, you said that Tolkien believed that Frodo's real sins were made later on: namely, his pride and his temptation to still desire the ring:

It has gone and now all is dark and empty.

But if his temptation and desire for the Ring still lived on, even after the Ring was destroyed and his power was quenched, how can Frodo still desired for it, if all he desired was the Ring itself, as you argued. If in his choosing to claim the Ring, Frodo was simply obeying the demonical influence of the Ring over his mind in Sammath Naur, why would he still desire it in the peaceful Shire, years after it has been destroyed. Moreover, his choice of words "and now all is dark and empty' speaks precisely in favour of that Elvish nostalgia for the things that passed along with the passing of the Ring, the preserving of which, as David had argued, represented Frodo's motivation when he claimed the Ring.

[mark12_30]

Elvisse, because the same held true for Bilbo, even after the Ring was destroyed. He still desired it. And he never ha any plans for world domination either. "What has become of my old ring, Frodo?" "I lost it, uncle." "Pity..."

I've been mulling all this over the past several days, and I think it is finally coalescing into something summarizable. I'll see what I can put together... more later.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:21 AM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

Essex, The question of failure is complex. How & why he did or didn't fail goes to the heart of the story. I can only repeat that if he succeeded then we have Tolkien saying we fallen creatures can save ourselves & have no need of any outside intervention, which as a Catholic he would never have even thought, let alone written & put his name to. He does fail at last, because the task is too big for him. He claims the Ring for himself, with all that entails, because he cannot bear the thought of a future without it, or any 'future' at all, if his cri de coeur 'There is no real going back' is anything to go by. He can't go back so as far as he's concerned there's no point. He can't have the past back, so he feels all is pointless.

He succeeds up to a point, & gets farther than any of us would have done, but in the end he fails. He doesn't destroy the Ring. He claims it for his own. Moral failure - a stark, harsh, thing to say but a fact, & inevitable. Frodo knows it, & he blames himself for it, because at the end, back in the Shire, he still believes he should have succeeded. As Tolkien says, one of the reasons he has to go into the West is to learn that, like Bilbo, he is only a little person in a wide world, & his desire to be a hero & save the world was beyond him. Even at the end he can say to Sam 'I tried to save the world', but he can then add 'and it has been saved' (implication: but I failed to do it all by myself, so I have to leave).

I'm not saying Frodo failed in a condemnatory way, as if to imply that someone else would have succeeded. I'm just saying that in the end he failed, because he gave in & claimed the Ring, which everyone else would have done, & most a lot sooner. I'm saying we are all fallen, & will all fail in the end, because the task is too big for us to succeed at alone - whatever certain writers may say about building a 'republic of heaven'!

[mark12_30]

EDIT: Whoa! Many more posts since I began this one: Apologies to those in between!

Original post (book):

Why do I feel so strongly that the answer to the question "Why did Frodo claim the Ring" isn't to rule the world, to save the Shire, or even to save Bilbo, but simply that he wanted to possess it? And why do I feel that Tolkien does not hold Frodo responsible for his "failure" at the Sammath Naur?
Since I've already gone over it before, I'll put my arguments in favor of "posession" into italics so you can skip it if you like:

(begin posessiveness section)

For one thing, Tolkien says that Frodo's failure was adumbrated from far back. " to foreshadow vaguely; to give a sketchy representation or outline of, to suggest or disclose partially; overshadow, obscure". Tolkien then refers to the fact that Frodo couldn't even toss it into his own fireplace. So for starters, even if Frodo had been airlifted at that moment from Bag End to the Cracks of Doom, he would have failed. Why? Frodo had posessed the Ring for (50 - 33 = ) 17 years before Gandalf informed him the thing was deadly. It was something Bilbo had given him, that few knew about. No doubt he and Bilbo had many secrets; this was one of them, one that he touhed every day. For those seventeen years, he carried it in his pocket on a chain. That meant that every time he changed breeches, he re-chained the ring into his breeches pocket. We know from his gaffe at the Prancing Pony that he had the habit of playing with the things in his pocket, fingering them, whenever he was nervous. The Ring was always there when he was nervous. (along with other items such as coins or a pocket-knife.) Now look at his response when Gandalf challenges him to toss it into the fireplace:

The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its color, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious.

Remember Gandalf told Frodo that a Ring of power looks after itself; that the owner never loses it or gives it away; he may toy with the idea at first, but he won't be able to do it; and to Gandalf's knowledge, Bilbo was the first person ever to freely (with prodding!) give the Ring away. The Ring itself enforces the idea of posession. Gandalf said Frodo would be and indeed demonstrated that he was very posessive of it at the Fireplace. Throughout his journey, Frodo makes two serious efforts to give the Ring away: once to Gandalf; once to Galadriel. Other than that, book-Frodo keeps the Ring close and hidden (as he is directed to do.)

THe language that Frodo uses whenever his posession of the Ring is challenged, by Sam, or by Gollum, is language of posession. Sometimes it's that he posesses the quest; sometimes it's that he posesses the burden; when aroused to anger or self-defense, however, the language is that of posessing the Ring. "No, you won't, you thief!" he tells Sam. He is always reluctant to let anyone else, including Gandalf at his fireside or Bilbo at Rivendell, to handle or touch the Ring. We are told frequently that he grasps at it, that his hand reaches for it, sometimes uncontrollably. Whenever there is Nazgul-pressure that reaching-for-the-ring is more difficult to resist.

So... from The Shadow of the Past onward, Frodo's posessiveness of the Ring is foretold, implied, described, discussed, and both subtly and overtly displayed. It's not like Tolkien hinted a few times. He repeatedly hammered the subject home that Frodo was jealously posessive of the Ring.

The outlines and drafts that he wrote saying that Frodo had prior intentions of world-rule, or perhaps ordering Elrond or Galadriel to preserve the Shire for him, or Bilbo, are not in the final version. There is nothing in Frodo's statement in the final version to imply ambition. There is only language implying relationship between him and the Ring. "I have come; but I do not now choose to do what I came to do. I will not do this thing. The Ring is mine." Nothing else is mentioned besides the Ring, Frodo, the thing he came to do (destroy the Ring) and his choice. The old posessiveness which has been there all lalong is still there; and Tolkien gives no indication in the final version that any new sin has occurred. (Of course the sin of posessiveness is still there, as it has been all along. But there is no indication that ambition to rule has been added to it.)

(end posessiveness section)


Tolkien discusses the Sammath Naur in his letters in terms of insanity and demonic opression ("Sanity restored"; "the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment".) In addition, he compares Frodo to those recently released from torture and prison: "In the case of those who now issue from prison 'brainwashed', broken, or insane, praising their torturers, no such deliverance is as a rule to be seen. But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur."
Clearly, Tolkien considers Frodo claiming the Ring as
(a) under demonic opression "the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment".
(b) insane: "if he still preserved some sanity" and "He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt (III224-5); he was restored to sanity and peace." (Tolkein's italics, not mine, BTW)
(c) not a free decision, from the statement "a free agent in normal command of the will"
To me these statements by Tolkien sound like a legal defense: "Not guilty due to demonic opression and torment, insanity, and unbearable coercion of the will."

Reconsidering the references to " those who now issue from prison 'brainwashed', broken, or insane, praising their torturers", I believe Tolkien spent time considering the results of World War II. Now it's my turn to guess, but looking at TOlkein's statements about prison camps and torture, I think he was affected by the prison camps of WWII and the horror stories of what had happened to the inmates of the prison camps. While he may have begun the tale with plans of having Frodo decide to "defect", he was mailing the final Mordor chapters to Christopher throughout the war, and the outlines came before then. I think that WWII changed him and that he felt that "defection" was no longer neccessary; that Frodo had been through such torment that he was broken, and defeated, and changed inwardly by the torment, like a prison-camp inmate. "It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome-- in themselves."

Further, Tolkien discusses Frodo's temptations later, from the perspective of having returned to the Shire. He discusses pride (the desire to have returned a hero: as maril once said, to walk up and casually toss the Ring into the Chasm) and he discusses the temptation to still desire the Ring and to regret its destruction "It is gone, and now all is dark and empty": no more wheel of fire. Tolkien does not discuss in the letters that Frodo felt guilty over his decision to save the Shire by force, or to order Galadriel or Elrond (or Gandalf) to preserve the Shire, or anything similar to that.

So, to sum up what I see as Frodo's sin in all of this: Posessiveness (which he had had all along, and which he was unable to resist in the end) ; pride (wishing he had returned a hero and not an instrument of Providence) and the temptation to regret the destruction of the Ring and still to desire it (possessiveness again.) Was he imperfect? Certainly. Did he fall? Yes; before the quest by his Fireplace, if not before; and again, once he returned to The Shire, he was tempted by pride, and regret. Do I count The Sammath Naur as another fall? Not separate from his fall at The Fireplace; I see it as one and the same; and in terms of "falling" at the Cracks of Doom, like Tolkien I hold him not guilty (demonic opression, insanity, and coercion of the will.)

Does he need salvation? Yes. He did at his Fireplace, too. He needed salvation all along (just like the rest of us; all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.) There was nothing about his decision at the Cracks of Doom that changed that in any way.

Tolkien stated in Letters that Frodo was a study of a hobbit broken by long torment. Does he need healing? Of course; that's made apparent by his pride and his desire to still posess the Ring that he can't free himself of, but his need is also due to the torment and breaking and opression that he went through.
***********

Good Grief, this was supposed to be a summary??? [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 12:18 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

davem, your last post I can heartily assent to except the single part that calls Frodo's failure a "moral failure." Tolkien expressly states that the Sammath Naur wasn't a moral failure on Frodo's part any more than being killed by a falling rock. (See the demonic opression/ sanity/ free will argument above.) Other than that, I heartily agree with all you say; I guess I see that Frodo's salvation (from his own sin of posessiveness and pride) was always needed, and not just at the Sammath Naur. It was the World that needed saving at the Sammath Naur, and for that, Frodo himself according to Tolkien was placed in a sacrificial position.

And in that, Essex, what you say (also) is true: although Frodo's freedom, free will, and sanity were (at the Sammath Naur) sacrificed, nevertheless at that moment, the pity and mercy that Frodo had shown to Gollum were used by Providence to save Middle-Earth.

Also, Essex, I believe that the sting, tooth, blade, and long burden drove him west, but also so did his own pride, and longing for the ring that was gone forever. Tolkien indicates that he needed to understand his position in littleness and greatness; that is a pride issue... So it was both sin and injury; his pride and posessiveness, and also his emotional and physical pain.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 3:56 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Essex]

Dave,

I can only repeat that if he succeeded then we have Tolkien saying we fallen creatures can save ourselves & have no need of any outside intervention

and

He succeeds up to a point, & gets farther than any of us would have done, but in the end he fails. He doesn't destroy the Ring.

Let’s see what his task actually WAS. Elrond’s last words to Frodo are:

The Ring-bearer is setting out on the Quest of Mount Doom. On him alone is any charge laid: neither to cast away the Ring, nor to deliver it to any servant of the Enemy nor indeed to let any handle it, save members of the Company and the Council, and only then in gravest need.

Yes, the Quest was to destroy the Ring. Does it say anywhere, you Frodo, must throw the Ring into the Cracks of Doom. No (not anywhere I can see). Frodo did not fail, because the Quest was for the Ring to be destroyed. It was. Frodo did his work by getting the Ring to the Cracks of Doom. Then Redemption, because of Frodo’s (and Sam’s at the end) Mercy towards Gollum took over. (This is the outside intervention you mentioned, Dave. It does not mean he failed, it just assisted Frodo in getting the job done)

In my opinion, Frodo's success or failure is NOT complex. The Quest was to destroy the Ring. The Ring was destroyed. Just because he himself did not through the ring in the Fire is not failure. Indeed, in a previous post, it has been mentioned that Tolkien himself stated in a Letter that no-one could have thrown the ring into the fire at Mount Doom. So it was impossible for Frodo to do this on his own, he required assistance and got it because of his Mercy.

Frodo knows it, & he blames himself for it, because at the end, back in the Shire, he still believes he should have succeeded.

I Agree. Frodo thinks he HAS failed, but he is incorrect, due to his great modesty. This is what makes his leaving even more of a bitter pill to swallow. I say that Frodo has modesty because I’m struggling to find Frodo’s pride that Tolkien himself has spoken about (?) I can see that Sam himself is sad that the people of the Shire do not see Frodo as a hero, but I do not see Frodo being bothered by this.

[davem]

Ok, this is a bit of an awkward post, because as I still haven't got around to setting up my new ibook, I'm posting from work, & I'm being blocked from accessing the whole of p2 for some reason, so I can't see any posts from yesterday, but a few things have come to me that I want to throw in.

It seems that a lot of people 'blank' out Frodo's behaviour at the Sammath Naur, & jump mentally from him entering to the destruction of the Ring, or they decide he wasn't really aware of what he was doing, like some tacky SF movie where the hero seems to do something bad, but it turns out to have been his 'evil' twin, or a clone or a robot. To think Frodo wasn't really conscious, or aware of his actions: his 'betrayal' is like that, I think. But Tolkien doesn't allow that. It [i]was[i] Frodo, we can't escape it. The 'saintly', self sacrificing Frodo, who we have suffered with for so long, who we want so desperately to be the Hero. It is disturbing, horrific, but true. He did give in. But Tolkien doesn't blame him, or make him into a villain. Tolkien forgives him, & asks that we also forgive him, while still acknowledgeing that forgiveness is required, because there is something that needs to be forgiven.

Imagine the end of Return of the Jedi, if Lucas had done the same thing - had Luke turn to the Dark Side. Another Darth Vader. And we'd have left the cinema feeling, what? Depressed, cheated, angry? Its too easy to let the 'glamour' of Middle Earth get in the way, the Elves & Wizards, Rivendell & Lorien, to just jump to the Ring falling into the Fire, & forget what Frodo did. Its almost too distressing to contemplate the implications of his act, so too many don't, because they care too much about him, but that misses one of Tolkien's esential points, I think. Forgiveness is not only possible, but even sometimes essential, even for the greatest 'sins'.

[Evisse the Blue]

It seems that a lot of people 'blank' out Frodo's behaviour at the Sammath Naur, & jump mentally from him entering to the destruction of the Ring, or they decide he wasn't really aware of what he was doing, like some tacky SF movie where the hero seems to do something bad, but it turns out to have been his 'evil' twin, or a clone or a robot.

Although I wouldn't phrase it like that, it does look like the Frodo who claimed the Ring was not the exact same person as the Frodo who started on the quest. He was so changed by all the pains he had undergone, by the Ring most of all that we can call him 'a shadow of his former self'. This expression implies more than just his being 'thinned' by pain, it implies a change in personality: the shadow is the hidden side, the evil side that resides in us all an waits to be awakened. The parallel that Helen made with a prisoner in a war camp is believable. The doom that comes with the gift of free will leaves our mind to be a battlefield between the devil and the angel in us. Maybe this is a tad dramatic, but I think this describes adequately what happens to Frodo. The Ring is the great deceiver. When one is wielding it, you feel at your strongest, but in reality you've never been more vulnerable. The illusion of strength and control is by definition evil because it opposes the desired state of 'humility' and modesty.

So, to come more to the point - I believe that when Frodo claimed the Ring - the angel in him colapsed under the burden, so his control was relinquished. His goodness, his core, everything that defined him as the Frodo we knew and loved, fell in the line of duty. Can he not be held responsible then? In Tolkien's view, no, he is to be forgiven, because the burden was too great for any to have withstood it: it is not necessary to succeed, all we have to do is try our best; and then the Writer of the Story will take care of us. Frodo's good nature came back to life, only to face the bitter responsability of his inevitable failure.

So why can't Frodo forgive himself? he can't grasp his alter ego's motivation. he never can. In the words of Faust: "Two souls, alas, are kept within my breast." (translation not entirely accurate). There are two opposite forces that still coexist within him: the one who wishes to be a hero, and the one who still desires the Ring. the first cannot understand why he had failed at the last moment, the second feels bitter pain that the quest had eventually succeded. Feeling himself so torn between the two, between holding himself responsible for an act that he felt not to be his own and bitterly regreting his last moment salvation must be a horrible torture.

[Essex]

the one who wishes to be a hero

When does Frodo believe or wish himself to be a hero? I cannot see this. I only see modesty.

But

the second feels bitter pain that the quest had eventually succeded.

I agree totally. This, to me, is why he feels so much pain after the ring is destroyed. ie He did not give it up volantarily, so it was wrenched from his body and mind. I do not believe he felt so bad because he thought he was a failure, but because the Ring has gone.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 12:08 PM January 23, 2004: Message edited by: Essex ]

[davem]

This is my first posting with my new imac, & I hope everyone feels as excited by that as I do!
Anyway,

I think it does count as a 'moral failure' on Frodo's part at the end, because of the surrender involved on his part, however small it may have been. He has achieved numerous moral victories, all along, & that, perhaps is why his failure at the end is so shocking to us, & so sobering. To be shown that even Frodo would fail, at the last is shocking to us, & should make us think.

As for him almost being too people, so that he can be 'shocked ' at his own alter-ego's failure, this, for me, is too close to the 'evil clone' scenario. Frodo's failure & 'sin' is his own, & is the reason he finds it so difficult to live with himself.

I think this is one area of the story which has never been sufficiently dealt with, There is a betrayal of self, & of personal values, which is in a way worse than betrayal of others, & harder to live with, as it is harder to tell a convincing lie to oneself, & make oneself believe it, And if there is also the knowledge that someone we care about, someone who has suffered & sacrificed for us, has witnessed our failure, that makes it so much the worse. I woulldn't rule outfeelings of shame & embarrassment on Frodo's part, with regards to Sam.

Frodo couldn't live with the idea of himself that he had come to have, a hero, a saviour, & needed to be taught how small he really was. He couldn't do that in the world, & certainly not in the Shire, so he had to go where he could do that, with the Elves he'd come to identify himself so strongly with.

[mark12_30]

davem, congratulations on the new imac!

You wrote:

I think it does count as a 'moral failure' on Frodo's part at the end, because of the surrender involved on his part, however small it may have been.

Rather gutsy of you to directly contradict with the professor!

Concerning the rest of your post, especially from Frodo's perspective, I think most of us are in agreement. Tolkien made it clear in Letters that Frodo did see himself as a broken failure.

Briefly off-topic: how are those two books coming along? (I'm waiting for reviews.)

Grace and peace, --mark12_30

[davem]

OK, let me be clear, its not Frodo's inability to destroy the Ring that constitutes a 'moral failure. that was obviously impossible. His moral failure comes in claiming the Ring. Basically, he decides 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

This is effectively Saruman's sin - he decides Sauron cannot be beaten, so he changes sides. My own feeling is that it is this which enables his subsequent ability to understand & offer forgiveness to him. Without Frodo's own moral failure at the Sammath Naur, Saruman's final chance of redemption would have been lost. Tolkien seems almost to be saying that we have to go through experiences ourselves, be put through what other's go through, in order to truly understand them.

In short, Frodo knows what Saruman has been through, He knows he failed in exactly the way Saruman did. He knows that even one of the great can fall. Of course, this realisation will also help Frodo to eventually forgive himself. A lot of people seem to think that Frodo's state at the end is one of acceptance - like in the movie, where we see on Frodo's face a smile of calm, regretful 'acceptance'. But for me Frodo is still struggling & suffering. Frodo's story is left incomplete & we can only speculate on where he will end up. His struggle is in a way just beginning when he departs for the West.

As for my reviews - well you're partly responsible for the delay - you posted such a good review of Tolkien in the Land of Heroes that I've ordered that & I'm expecting delivery. I've also been re-reading, or skimming a couple of volumes -- including Tolkien's Legendarium, which someone, Bethberry? said they would be interested in. As an aside, I've met one of the writer's of one of the essays in the collection, Charles Noad - who proof read some/all? of the volumes of HoME. We had a conversation at last year's Oxonmoot, about such things as why Elves don't make up stories, & whether the One Ring is really just like the Elven Rings, only more so, where he wanders around with his camera as the Tolkien Society's official photographer, in his black leather jacket, with grey hair & beard, looking like Gandalf dressed as Aragorn.[

I will get around to the reviews asap.

[mark12_30]

In short, Frodo knows what Saruman has been through, He knows he failed in exactly the way Saruman did.

But I don't see that he did. Saruman didn't carry the Ring; he plotted how to get the Ring; he built an army; he spent years scheming. Frodo, on the other hand, entered the Sammath Naur intending to destroy the Ring, and ended up insanely claiming it under demonic pressure. Frodo's demonized "bad attitude" lasted somewhere between a few minutes and an hour, as opposed to Saruman's entire years of subjugating neighbors, imprisoning fellow wizards, spying, breeding armies, and wantonly destroying trees...

Two completely different things.

I think Frodo pitied Saruman because he had learned the value of pity well before the Sammath Naur, mostly in dealing with Gollum. Perhaps he had also considered what would have happened if Gandalf had ever accepted Frodo's offer of the Ring (but it doesn't say that either.)

If one has to go through exactly the same thing in oder to pity another person, then Gandalf would never have pitied Gollum.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 12:33 PM January 26, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

Ah, but how long would Saruman's decision to go over, take? A moment, because there would have been a point of saying yes, finallly & incontrovertably. And if Frodo hadn't been saved by providence, how long would he have taken to fall,, & imagining for a moment that he hadn't been taken, how bad would his behaviour have become? For me, Frodo sees in Saruman a kindred spirit. Frodo knows what that surrender was like. Frodo in his moment of claiming the Ring committed himself just as totally as Saruman did. Frodo began to find a way back, & offered one to Saruman, who wouldn't, or couldn't take it. Its like Illuvatar makes use of Frodo's fall to give Saruman one last chance to repent.

Oh, I've done a 'book report' - if you ever finish it you may wish you'd never asked [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[mark12_30]

Oh, the Legendarium review is fabulous. Many thanks! I didn't want to reply and knock your post off of "Today's Active Topics."

[ArathorofBarahir]

I like the concept of how Frodo did not have a choice in the matter. The decision was made for him, not by himself.

[ArathorofBarahir]

I never noticed that! I bet they put that in there to see if we would notice it.

[Sleeping Beauty]

Wow, I don't even know if I want to post here. I feel so small and insignificant. x_x But this has been an interesting thread. Too many thoughts have now been added to my pysche. Thanks, you've know added an extra 30 or 40 minutes to my falling asleep time. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

they achieved what no one else has done in the entire Legendarium -- for a short time at least, incarnate evil in the form of Sauron is beaten back. And Frodo is a very important piece of that puzzle. Indeed I would argue that he is the most important piece.

That is so true. In a world where men falter and fall, the light prevails. Frodo allows for the light to be spread for a short while. I know it's so not true, but I always felt like the light and hope he was always given to help on the quest i.e. encouragement, Sam, the phial, and his inner strength that shown through in that one 'bite' is relased into the world. And that unshakeable hope is what rocks the world and allows for the evil to be suppressed.

I guess I'm still struggling with the idea that Frodo would have fallen for that deception. He's brighter than that.

So-- for preservation of The Shire (and Bilbo)-- I see that he would want those things, yes, but I'm just not convinced he'd buy the Rings' offer to do it. He knew better, and I think his "good hobbit sense" would have told him (as it told Sam) that such things would not be.

As for the question why he bought it, I do sincerely believe he just wanted to go back to his simple life. The way things were. He was in such a state, he would have taken anything, just to go back to living a simple life. As someone pointed out earlier, he kept asking Why me? Why this? Why now? We ask the same questions in our own lives when we are handed things in life. Why do I have to deal with this diease? Why did they have to die? Why does life have to be so complicated? I think someone mentioned that he knew his life was going to end as he knew it. He had been wounded, hurt, and mentally abused. The only thing that seemed to make sense of his life was the ring. The Ring had been always around him. Bilbo had always had it. A small trinket of his adventures. Frodo came to live with Bilbo and saw it even more. Then Bilbo came up and left and he now was in possesion. Somewhere in his mind, he found solace in the ring. It reminded him of his life. It sounds so twisted, but it was a comfort. Actually, I do believe somewhere it mentions Gollum saying something along the lines of 'The ring has always existed. There was nothing before the precious.' I must find that.....

And I do believe in his mind somewhere he wanted to protect the Shire, and the ring played off of that. It took the Shire away from him. Sort of 'If you take me, I can give you back your Shire.' And towards the end he craved it so much. He knew the ring 'had' the memory and it was always on his mind. It's not that he didn't have Hobbit sense enough, I don't think in that moment he may have really remembered what it was like to be a hobbit.

Sorry, when I started this post, I didn't realize there was already a second page. Sorry to be so off-topic...

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 7:47 PM January 26, 2004: Message edited by: Sleeping Beauty ]

[davem]

Firstly, Helen, thanks for the positive review. I didn't intend for it to be that long. I wonder how many people will read it through.

Charles williams wrote: 'Sin is the preference of an immediately satisfying experience to the declared pattern of the Universe'. So, Frodo 'sins'. He chooses an 'immediately satisfying experience' claiming the Ring & all it offers & symbolises to him, in preference to the 'declared pattern of the Universe', & while he may not know exactly what form & shape that declared pattern has, he at least knows it isn't Ring-shaped.

Frodo makes a choice, claims the ring. Will, consent, assent, must be involved, Hence Frodo is not free from 'sin'. The problem is that too many people want him to be, or need him to be. It seems to be a result of our 'good guys' versus 'bad guys' culture. I can't see that Tolkien would have had any problem with the statement that Frodo was a sinner - he considered us all to be sinners. Frodo's was a moral failure, a 'sin', but it was an inevitable sin. 'For sin is behovely' as Julian of Norwich put it. This idea of sin as behovely - useful, profitable, or at least, necessary is central to medieval thinking - if man hadn't sinned, Christ would never have come, & for the medieval Church at least, the 'redeemed' world was believed to be better than the unfallen world would have been.

Frodo sins, & is therefore like all of us. Imagine him not falling at the end, would we have believed in his 'reality'? Wouldn't he have been essentially uncnnvincing, a Hollywood Hero, who beats the bad guys with his .44 magnum & a sharp one liner? Frodo doesn't. He falls at the end, reminding us of who we are & what we're really like. That we're not the cool hero, always unflappable who will win out in the end. Sadly, the fact iis, we wont. We'll go through life failing, ''sinning' in William's sense. Tolkien says that's a fact of life. But that there is something 'more' going on, which we're a part of. Hope without guarantees, but still hope.

[Essex]

We’re going round in circles here.

The Quest was for the Ring to be destroyed. The Quest was not for Frodo to destroy the Ring. The Ring was destroyed, through Frodo’s Mercy.

Yes, you could say that Frodo ‘sinned’, and he can be forgiven for this, but he did not fail. If he had killed Gollum, and claimed the Ring (and Sauron no doubt would then have won it back, but that’s probably another Topic) then he, and the rest of the Fellowship, would have failed.

Does Frodo HIMSELF think he failed? Possibly, but I read by his thoughts and feelings one of LOSS not Failure. The Ring was wrenched from his body and mind, and then destroyed. He did not give it up willingly. He still craves for the ring. On a similar line, Gandalf says that if he had taken the ring by force from Bilbo it would have driven him mad (or something like this).

Yes, it might have been silly to see Frodo get to the cracks and throw the Ring in. I can see that this would have been pure Hollywood. But HE DID NOT. Frodo’s mercy is what won the day, and why the Quest succeeded.

The Quest succeeded. Frodo did not fail.