"One thief deserves another." Saruman |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
11-29-2006, 04:53 PM | #41 | |||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|||
11-29-2006, 05:45 PM | #42 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
However, going back to the original question, I don't see why the concept of "sin" should not exist in Middle-earth, simply because there was no formalised religion. In a world where good and evil exist not just as concepts, but as well delineated causes, it is perfectly possible for its inhabitants to act in a way which we would describe as "sinful", ie contrary to the cause of good. And it is equally possible for them to judge what is a "sin", whether or not they would use that precise word, and whether or not they have any conception of the deity who is the source of good. So, yes, I would say that, regardless of their state of religious awareness, Hobbits would be able to perceive, and indeed commit, "sin". But, no, I would not say that Frodo "sinned". He may, as I have said, have acted in folly and displayed poor judgement at times (as do almost all of the characters), but he did not sin. Even at Sammath Naur, he had, as Tolkien makes clear in his Letters, achieved all that was, or could ever have been, expected of him. He was overwhelmed by an external, evil force which neither he nor anyone else in Middle-earth (Bombadil excepted) had the power to resist - even Gandalf feared succumbing to the Ring's evil. If it was a "failure", it was a blameless one, but it was not a "sin". Only a cruel, merciless and uncompassionate God could have considered it as such, and Eru is most certainly not portrayed in those terms. It follows that Frodo deserved no punishment for his actions. Such folly as he may have committed is vastly outweighed by his achievement. And, quite rightly in my view, he received no punishment from those on the side of good, whether that be Eru or anyone else. He may have felt grief, regret and loss, but those feelings were self-imposed, and the only other torments that he suffered where inflicted on him by the agents of evil. From the good, he received only compassion and the opportunity to find healing in Aman - a just reward for his efforts. |
|
11-29-2006, 09:06 PM | #43 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
Quote:
As we read this passage, for just the slightest time, there is the possibility that the Ring has called to Frodo and prompted his offer. However much we come to understand that Frodo voluntarily took up the task that is appointed for [him]--as Elrond sententiously describes it--there is this frission of fear that the Ring has already begun to work its will upon Frodo. To dismiss this potential guess and flat out say, no question, this is Eru here is to miss this subtle suggestion of the Ring's sway. It is no more than a passing possibility, but nonetheless it is a possibilty that increases the tension of the text. One of the ways in which Evil is made so powerful and dominant in the story is by means such as this, where we do not always know at the time which way the moral balance falls. btw, SpM, I did point out that philosophically 'sin' would fit. However, I still believe that in our primary world the word is freighted with such weight of, as I said, loathesome depravity and disgusting wickedness, that its tone is out of place in the sub-created world.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
11-29-2006, 11:12 PM | #44 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In hospitals, call rooms and (rarely) my apartment.
Posts: 1,538
|
Well, here are my two cents.
I was going to write something about my perspective on Christianity on LoTR, but it was leaning my whole post far from what I actually wanted to say. It has been proposed so far that Frodo was punished by his shortcomings, that he was punished by his sins, but the way I see it, he was not punished at all. What happened to Frodo IMO (and I think Bethberry has hinted at it already) is not punishment but rather he was marred by his confrontation with evil (Is marred the proper word to use? please someone get back to me on that). That is a common theme that we see all through The Si-il and LoTR. Those who stand up to face evil, come out unharmed. Even when in the end they have grown "greater" and "wiser" it is so through much pain and peril, and I think none of the characters is wholly unmarred after the experience. So, I have to agree with SpM. Frodo's change is not due to the powers of "good"... it is because of the powers of "evil", and their skill to corrupt all that they come in contact with. Even if this 'contact' is fighting against them.
__________________
I prepared Explosive Runes this morning. |
11-30-2006, 07:41 AM | #45 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Not so in the real world, at least to one such as I with no strong religious conviction. Transgressions, such as theft and even murder, are not necessarily attributable to evil, but have circumstantial causes or contributing factors – poverty, addiction, childhood abuse etc. Although they may be crimes in the legal sense, there may be said to be mitigating factors, from both a legal and a moral perspective. Those who were at one time considered terrorists latterly become labelled as freedom-fighters, world statesman or founding fathers. I therefore, would find it much easier to categorise a transgression as a “sin” in Middle-earth than I would in the real world. That said, acts do occur in Tolkien’s tales which might be regarded as transgressions, but which are committed with good intentions or have a good outcome. I have in mind, for example, Bilbo’s “theft” of the Arkenstone and Eowyn’s disobedience to Theoden. Both of these acts have good, indeed essential, outcomes, yet they might strictly be regarded as “sins”. Both Bilbo and Eowyn are wounded for their troubles (Eowyn almost fatally so). Does this represent “punishment” for their “sins”? If so, it is fleeting, since ultimately, both are rewarded. Bilbo is forgiven by Thorin and gains his fair share of Smaug’s horde. Eowyn’s feelings for Aragorn are replaced with stronger feelings for Faramir, whom she meets while healing from her wound. I am sure that there are a number of other, similar examples. Are these transgressions against “absolute moral truths” or exceptions to them? If the former, do they deserve greater punishment or are the outcomes just? If the latter, how are the peoples of Middle-earth to judge what is acceptable and what is not? By the intentions of those committing them? By the outcome? Or does this introduce an element of moral relativity to Middle-earth? And where does this leave poor old Turin, whose intentions throughout were mostly good, but whose acts generally led only to doom and disaster, both for himself and for any others whose paths he crossed? |
|
11-30-2006, 03:03 PM | #46 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
11-30-2006, 04:06 PM | #47 | |||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|||
12-01-2006, 03:27 AM | #48 | |
Shady She-Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In a far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 8,093
|
Quote:
I previously thought the word "sin" should not be applied to ME, since it's so strongly tied with Christianity and the Christian God. But, yesterday, while reading, I came across this (and I swear it was pure chance): Sam says: "It's a sin to wake you, Mr Frodo." (The Great River, FotR) Now, there's the tiny chance I'm mistaken since my copy was in Finnish and I forgot to check from the English one, but I don't see why any other word than "sin" should have been translated as "synti" (the Finnish word), since "synti" is as biblical as "sin". Now, if the characters in the LotR use the word "sin", is there any reason for us not to use it when describing them and their actions? Yet, I interpret Sam's words not as "it's against God/Eru to wake you" but as "it's a horrible deed to wake you" where the word "sin" is used as a synonym of "horrible deed" rather than as a biblical term. So, what was my point? I'm not sure anymore.
__________________
Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer Blood is running deep, some things never sleep Double Fenris
|
|
12-01-2006, 04:19 AM | #49 |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
My english version reads "it's a shame to wake you"; but even if it were sin, I don't think it would have been relevant to our discussion in this context, as you have pointed out.
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
12-01-2006, 09:24 PM | #50 | ||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
Quote:
The passage has the character of a hard task appointed being reluctantly accepted. In fact, Frodo wishes with all his might to stay at Rivendell, the implication being that someone else can take the Ring to Mount Doom. So no, I don't dismiss your potential reading, Bêthberry; rather, considering the way the context of the passage reads, I just don't buy it. The passage shows that this is not the Ring at all, which, if it could speak, would most likely be trying to get Frodo to flee with the Ring from all these VIPs. The only possibility is that the Ring is, perhaps, trying to get the weak Frodo to go in the general direction of where the Lord is. But that's at the most. And even if one allows for that, there's still the greater will that is pronouncing a doom, appointing a ringbearer, and Frodo is both bound by destiny and free to accept that destiny, and does so. So in my opinion it doesn't so much increase the tension of the text as flout the context. Sorry. |
||
12-02-2006, 01:23 AM | #51 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
I agree with lmp's interpretation. In the Shadow of the Past, Gandalf says that:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
12-02-2006, 10:54 AM | #52 | |
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ Last edited by Lush; 12-02-2006 at 10:57 AM. |
|
12-02-2006, 02:21 PM | #53 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Lush wrote:
Quote:
But, to utter my catch phrase, there's a distinction we ought to make. To say that Tolkien's characters are often morally ambiguous is a very different thing from saying that Tolkien's world is morally ambiguous. Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct. There is never any question of what ends should, morally speaking, be sought, though there is often some question concerning, first, how best to go about achieving those ends, and, second, whether a particular character will in the event seek that end or not. |
|
12-03-2006, 01:23 AM | #54 | |||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|||
12-04-2006, 03:59 AM | #55 | |
Shady She-Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In a far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 8,093
|
Morally ambiguous? What about one of my favourites, Maedhros? When you think of it, there are actually more of these characters than you first think there are.
Quote:
__________________
Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer Blood is running deep, some things never sleep Double Fenris
|
|
12-04-2006, 06:46 AM | #56 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Gollum is an interesting case in point, since his motives are mixed at one and the same time. He acts both in the cause of good (by guiding Frodo and Sam towards Mordor) and in the cause of evil (by luring them to Shelob’s lair). His intentions are both good (he willingly serves Frodo) and evil (he wants the Ring for himself). He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions? It was, of course, his final act which brought about the destruction of the Ring, albeit unwittingly so. In my earlier post, however, I was particularly interested in the actions of those characters who are not generally considered to be morally ambiguous. Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good. Where do these acts fit within the moral framework of Tolkien’s world? Quote:
Quote:
However, there is a problem. If wrongful acts may be committed, provided that they are committed with the intention of furthering the cause of good, does this not open up the scope for a philosophy whereby the end may be seen as justifying the means? And is that not how Saruman started off down his wrongful path? He genuinely considered what he was doing was for the greater good and that that end was justified by the means that he used. It might even be said that he did his best as he saw it with the conscious intent of fulfilling his mission to defeat Sauron and thereby serving Eru. Yet, he was misguided. |
|||
12-04-2006, 12:40 PM | #57 | ||||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
||||
12-04-2006, 08:02 PM | #58 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
Bilbo's case could be considered equivalent to a small army at war in which a spy or burglar is considered to be held to his contract to the side he is allied with rather than to the moral code that war sets aside by virtue of its nature. |
|
12-14-2006, 04:47 PM | #59 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halls of Mandos
Posts: 332
|
This is a phenomenal discussion, among the best I've seen on the Downs, which is saying a lot.
Quote:
__________________
"If you're referring to the incident with the dragon, I was barely involved. All I did was give your uncle a little nudge out of the door." THE HOBBIT - IT'S COMING |
|
04-05-2014, 07:36 AM | #60 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 265
|
Frodo, punchbag of the quest? I do not feel he was a punchbag because he was attacked by his enemies, for anyone else bearing the One Ring would be worse. As for Mr. Carter's statement(s), I disagree with him. I had heard somewhere else too that "Frodo's Weathertop wound was kinda his fault," and that he deserved it. His wound on Weathertop, more than a punishment, to me, is a process of him and his companions becoming something else. Yes, he was weak, and not strong enough to resist the Evil; but without that "folly" would the quest have been achieved? I doubt very much. After this wound he resisted all Nine alone and proved himself to be the best Ring-bearer. This also helped his friends to understand the real weight of the quest.
Shelob thingy-- how is that over-confidence? His trust in Gollum is what Mr. Carter considers his over-confidence? Or his decision to go into her lair? If I remember correctly, Gollum had told them there was no other way, did the hobbits have to go another way without knowing anything and getting lost in the Enemy's land? How? His failure on Mount Doom and later his suffering is a punishment? I always saw it differently. I felt Frodo was rewarded with the most precious gift by going into the West. Souron and Gollum suffer terribly because of the Ring, unlike Frodo who suffered least as compared to the other two. If he were weak, he'd be punished, not rewarded. Reward and punishment is respective thing. What I see as reward, in this case, someone else may see as punishment. His wounds and sufferings, like everyone else's were the sign of his bravery and self-sacrifice, instead of deserving.
__________________
A short saying oft contains much wisdom. ~Sophocles Last edited by Lotrelf; 04-05-2014 at 07:51 AM. |
04-05-2014, 09:11 AM | #61 |
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,411
|
I was almost finished typing my awesome post when the computer decided to delete it. ><
Firstly, I want to say that I did not read all the posts, but I agree with Lotrelf. I say that there's a huge difference between a punishment and a consequence. Even on a basic level - a punishment is done purposefully (!) by someone or something (who? Eru? fate? some little angel on your shoulder with a checklist of sins?) with the intention to either restore justice (BS) or teach a lesson (like Frodo doesn't actually know). Secondly, one is punished for something wrong. What has Frodo done wrong? What is he punished for? For being a human being? His faults are not sins. His faults are not even faults. For one thing, folly was never one of his qualities. Ever. It was not folly ("let's put on the Ring and see what happens! Oooh, shiny!") that made him put on the Ring, but a lack of wisdom and experience. The act could be considered folly from an objective or retrospective point of view, but not the same folly as that which drives Pippin to throw the rock in Moria. It it a fault to be susceptible to the Ring? It wouldn't be the Ring if it was. Frodo putting on the Ring was a consequence of universal susceptibility to the Ring and the pressure of being surrounded by the Nazgul. Being stabbed was a consequence of that. I see no fault and no punishment. Considering that he was the strongest person in ME in terms of resisting the Ring (the discussion about Gollum aside), the whole of Middle-earth would have to be punished. Since when is being overjoyed to see an opening out of Shelob's lair and rushing to get out a sin? If you think it is, I dare you to spend a day or two wandering in sme pitch-black musky caves, and se if you don't rush for the first opening or light that you see. And overconfidence? "I can openly run all the way thrugh Mordor completely unharmed!" was the last thing one could expect to be in Frodo's mind at that time. He was blinded by the joy of getting out of Shelob's lair - a completely normal and human emtion. As a consequence he did not look behind him, and as a consequence was stabbed by Shelob. The whole reasoning of Lin Carter is flawed from the start: there is no fault, there is no overconfidence, there is no punishment. Finally, the last scene she addresses, when Frodo does not throw the Ring away at Sammath Naur. Number one. It is not weakness that makes him hesitate. If he was weak, he would not have been on this quest, or he would have given in a long time ago. He is not weak, he is just not strong enough, and no one in Middle-earth is. Number two. The fight between him and Gollum is a climax of the whole story, and the climax of their relationship. Both begin with greed and desire for the Ring, but when Frodo snaps out of his trance does he only fight for the Ring's sake? or maybe he recalls his greater purpose and fights for ME? or he remembers his former connection with Gollum, and fights for Gollum's sake as well? Whatever you think the significance of the scene is, it is not a punishment. It does not happen because it is willed by someone due to Frodo's hesitation. Yes, it comes about as a consequence of his hesitation - Gollum has time to catch up - but not as a punishment. The build up to this scene from all perspectives begins back in the Shire, when Frodo learns of both the Ring and of Gollum. How can it be a punishment of something that occurs much later? Number three. The loss of a finger is only Frodo's most gruesome consequence in physical terms. If Lin Carter thinks this is his most severe wound, she's missed the whole point of the book. Nuff said. I don't see any of these as a punishment, and I don't see any of these as a fault. The whole concept implies that either Frodo is expected to turn into a saint, or everyone in ME is watched over constantly and punished for stepping out of line even in the slightest. Moreover, things do not happen because they come about, but because some omnipotent creature (Eru) or concept (fate) sits up there somewhere and makes them happen. By that logic, Saruman gets killed necessarily, as a punishment and not a consequence of his deeds, and Wormtongue is killed necessarily for the same reason. Boromir dies necessarily and purposefully. Everything loses its beauty and its meaning - all the subtle but overwhelming emotions in all these people, and their choice to act the way they did that lead up to their end. I prefer to think that Saruman dies as a consequence of his cruelty, not as a punishment for it. I prefer to think that Wormtongue dies as a consequence of the war-like attitude of the hobbits, who unlike Frodo do not have as much empahy or pity for "enemies". I prefer to think that Boromir sacrifices himself to absolve his guilt. What is the point of all of this, and so many other beautiful stories, with Lin Carter's philosophy? I just can't accept it.
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
04-06-2014, 01:47 AM | #62 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
|
Quote:
|
|
04-06-2014, 08:13 AM | #63 |
Loremaster of Annúminas
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,322
|
A sort of mechanistic hyper-Calvinism Tolkien would never have considered. So, was Theodred a bad man? Were all those soldiers of Gondor and Rohan and Lorien and Mirkwood and Erebor who died in the war sinners, while their sinless companions survived? Ah doan thank so.
Tolkien is unambiguous (in his Letters) that Gollum's fall into the Fire was the finger of God, a divine intervention which could be seen as a "reward" for Frodo's total sacrifice. But he's also clear that this is a singular exception - a miracle, if you will - and not the sort of thing that happens except in matters of great Doom (cf. Beren & Luthien)
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it. |
04-06-2014, 10:35 PM | #64 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 265
|
Quote:
__________________
A short saying oft contains much wisdom. ~Sophocles |
|
04-07-2014, 07:21 AM | #65 | |
Gruesome Spectre
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Heaven's doorstep
Posts: 8,037
|
Quote:
It was a burden too great for him, as indeed for any in Middle-earth, or any whose innate spiritual power was inferior to Sauron's. Frodo's "failure" was really in his own mind, and no guilt was ever laid on him by anyone in the books: least of all Gandalf, surely the spokesman for for the Valar (and by proxy, the One). Gandalf, in Rivendell, did not judge Frodo for using the Ring on Weathertop, and nothing was ever said about his refusal to throw away the Ring into the Fire. Gandalf understood. If Frodo's "failure" really was due to his own moral weakness, and he had not utterly expended his body and will in resisting the Ring's power, then surely his sojourn into the West would have been disallowed.
__________________
Music alone proves the existence of God. |
|
04-07-2014, 09:06 AM | #66 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lonely Isle
Posts: 706
|
Bilbo did not steal the Arkenstone
The Saucepan Man earlier talked about Bilbo's theft of the Arkenstone. One could strongly argue that he did not steal it; he was just taking his promised reward.
In the original contact with Thorin and Company, Bilbo was promised one fourteenth share of the profits, in return for his services. Later, after surviving a second encounter with Smaug, he was given the option of picking his own fourteenth share. Therefore, Bilbo, having fulfilled his part of the contract, picked his reward by taking the Arkenstone as his fourteenth. When discussing matters with Bard and the Elvenking, he showed them his copy of the contract before handing over the Arkenstone, making it clear that he was entitled to it, and therefore entitled to give it away as he saw fit. Later, once Thorin found out, and was persuaded not to kill Bilbo, he publicly accepted this state of affairs, saying that he would, for the Arkenstone's return, give a fourteenth share of the silver and gold part of the treasure. |
04-07-2014, 09:28 AM | #67 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 276
|
Quote:
|
|
04-07-2014, 10:35 AM | #68 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 265
|
Quote:
__________________
A short saying oft contains much wisdom. ~Sophocles |
|
04-07-2014, 08:03 PM | #69 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Henneth Annûn, Ithilien
Posts: 462
|
Man it sucks when that happens.
__________________
"For believe me: the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is - to live dangerously!" - G.S.; F. Nietzsche |
|
|