Two Frodos

[Child of the 7th Age]

Nar -- That was a beautiful response to the question, and I can certainly see why you dwelt on the image of Sam. I think I would have done something else just because we all look at things from a different perspective. I may sit down and try to write that but I doubt I will get to it till Monday since I have a close friend here from out-of-town

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -- That's an intereting idea about PJ's limitations in depicting goodness.

In my view, PJ can and does show the "goodness" of everyday life through Sam and the Shire and the way Frodo and Bilbo care for each other. I think he has more trouble depicting the kind of goodness which I would call "spiritual goodness"--the kind of magic the Elves are supposed to have; the way Frodo's face is said to shine with light; the feeling of Lorien being part of a long-ago perfect, unfallen world; and the sense that a little piece of Galadriel is a bit like the Virgin Mary.

Over the years, that part of Tolkien has come, for me, to signify the heart of the story. And because PJ can't or doesn't do it, I am left a little disappointed. The black and scary parts of Middle-earth, the evil growing within Frodo's soul--those are there in marvelous detail and sensitivity for all to appreciate.

But I am more interesting in seeing the Elf-friend who dreams of the Tower and the distant sea. I want to understand his visions of a distant green land when the curtain of rain draws back. I want to follow in the path of a very small and ordinary hobbit who becomes filled with light, almost a human reflection of the Phial of Galadriel, and yet at the same time struggles with the Shadow lengthening in his soul. That, to me, is the tragedy and the wonder of it all.

That dichotomy isn't there, and, to me, it's critical as to why Tolkien felt he had discovered rather than merely invented his story. It's what calls to me from distant lands. Perhaps, I am asking for something that simply is not possible in a film, but I wish he would have tried.

So the movie is a fun and fast paced adventure tale but some of the magic is hidden.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Naaramare]

I was disappointed in the Lorien of the movie because it should be a place that embodies sunlight and they chose to show it at night, but I thought that they just misjudged the importance of light and golden-leaved trees rather than that they were unable to do goodness.

Actually, PJ did film quite a bit of footage in Lorien in the sunlight, but it was cut in favour of time limits, focusing on what was necessary solely for plot. Supposedly, the special edition DVD will have that footage put back.

I will admit that was the one place I was disappointed with the movie, but I understood the change. At one point, I saw an interview which pointed out that no sane screenwriter would put the Lorien sequence where it was in trying to make an individual movie.

I don't think PJ was unable to show "goodness", whatever your definition of that may be. Not with a stubbornly determined Sam, who knew very well he couldn't swim and was absolutely terrified of running water, wading right out into the middle of a river (guess what Naaramare's favourite scene was? ^~). Nor with the before-mentioned Shire sequences.

One must also take into account the fact that PJ was trying to make a movie even the uninitiated could enjoy, and the uninitiated would expect someone in Frodo's position to be terrified, unbalanced and so forth.

[Airedae]

I just wanted to respond by first saying that I agree with alot of what you all are saying. I try my best not to blend the two frodos together. But I must admit, since the movie has come out, it's extremely hard not to think of Elizah Woods face as I'm reading the books. I guess that's only because this is the first time we've really had a live screen picture of Frodo Baggins. Though I agree that the two are different in ways, i can't help but think about the emotional part of it all. As I read The Fellowship of the Ring, I saw changes in Frodo. Not quite as fast as Elizah's portrayal but still the changes were there. I really think PJ is the type of director that really wants to get inside the minds of the character. Even if you read their emotions through the book, nothing touches your heart more than to see the pain, to feel it as you watch it. I think thats what PJ was doing. I'm sure he didnt mean anything by what he did. I think he did a great job and picked one great Frodo Baggins. Yes, Elizah Wood is great looking, I'm a fan actually of everything he does but I think he played the part to the max. I wont be surprised if he wins everyone over by the third movie..right now we just see the dilemma of him breaking from the fellowship...i think we need to wait and see how he portrays the worst part of Frodo Baggins journey..the actual carrying the ring to mordor and then being in mordor....I believe that PJ picked the right soul to do it...Elizah has the heart to put into the character...the pain of that burden is right there in his big non secretive eyes. Everything that Frodo felt, I believe will be seen in Elizahs eyes...I have faith and I know in my heart that my image of Frodo Baggins will not be ruined....In a way its actually good to have a face to go with the character..But i do agree with alot of what everyone was saying..I hope i dont get yelled at...I tend to write what i think and i stick to it....thats just how i am.

Frodo Lives!
Valerie

[Bêthberry]

*sits pouting under a large oak, sheltered from the rain which splatters on the Withywindle in myriad small circles*

I have been wanting to join this discussion since it was first posted but all those pesky young Brandybucks sneaking into the Forest for a bit of danger have hindered me.

This development pertaining to PJ's difficulty portraying goodness brings up a crucial accomplishment, IMHO, about Tolkien. He is one of the very few writers who has been able to make goodness dramatically exciting and positive. So often it is evil, particularly a romantic depiction of evil, which garners all the great moments, actions, and splendor, sort of like Milton's Satan taking centre stage in Paradise Lost.

IMHO, it is this ability to make true, pure goodness a credible dramatic, emotional and psychological focus which is one of Tolkien's most stunning achievements--and also an achievement which is much underrated.

*ruminating, chews a piece of long grass with a distracted air*

Bethberry

[mark12_30]

Bethberry,

I wholeheartedly agree. I would go so far (ducking expected flames!), as to call it "holiness". As in purity, depth, ancient-ness, transcendance, and sheer, sheer beauty of an entirely spiritual nature.

I think that was one of the things that Tolkien was showing in his "mythology" and I think he did a great, great job.

Tolkien taught me to fall in love with that, the mystery of goodness that goes deeper than we know, but we hunger for it.

Sharon-- It was because of Tolkien that I sought out truth, beauty, and holiness-- the spirituality, the shining light from within Frodo, the "what-is-it-about-those-elves". Even the wrenching sea-sadness has something holy about it. So as life went on, I was always looking for Lorien or Rivendell or Gildor's campfire, or ... what-is-it-about-those-elves??? ....Holiness.

And yes, I see Frodo as walking deeper and deeper in that holiness as the quest progresses-- definitely battling the inward shadow, do not all mystics do that? And is that not the very essence of the Dark Night of the senses, and Dark Night of the soul?

And I miss that in the film. I'm so glad I can go back to the books and find it again. Book-Frodo's dreams seem to be an instant hook into that for me, as also whenever he mentions the sea or Eressea (even while I'm screaming, No, Don't Go.) So much about Frodo points to that holiness. (Book-Frodo, that is.) Sam senses it frequently, seeing the star above the Ephel Duath, or seeing the light shining through Frodo sometimes.

[akhtene]

Whenever I think of Frodo now, I keep seeing the face of Elija Wood from the film. But when I decided to re-read the book, I found that I still can't vizualise him in any way. I mean the character of the film definitely falls out of the book (as well as other hobbits, by the way). I admire them in the film, with Wood's character being part of their 'team'. But somehow I don't feel like glueing them into the book.

As a non-believer (by some reasons) I'm no expert in holiness and martyrdom, so the screen Frodo, timid, frightened and weak as he is, to me makes more sense as the one chosen to be the Ring-bearer. When the strongest are corrupted by the evil thing, and the wisest shun it, isn't it then for the weakest to set off on such a quest? The weakest, who nevertheless gathers ALL his strength and will-power to fulfill what's been entrusted on him. So he just does what he can, which is more than most were willing to do.

(Am I still here or was I given the BOOT ?)

[mark12_30]

Akhtene,

Glad to say you're still here! I see your point about weakness being a strategically important characteristic under certain circumstances. And i guess it works, too, or time will tell, in Peter Jackson's version... I suspect it will work well enough from a movie-viewers' standpoint. It's just the two-Frodo dichotomy thing... once you've gotten usde to a strong, valiant-but-humble and unassuming Frodo in the book, the movie version takes some getting used to. So keeping them separate helps deal with some of that, for some of us.

Does anyone who listened to the BBC version have a third Frodo (Ian Holmes') also impacting their imagination in addition to the Book-Frodo and Frodolijah?

Peace!

--Helen

[Bêthberry]

Mark12_30, I find it interesting to reflect on the differences between my first, long ago reading of LOTR and my second, last November. The first, I enjoyed LOTR for a fascinatingly done fantasy/ adventure yarn. The second, done by my mother's bedside while she underwent diagnosis of an incurable disease, was profoundly moving.

Profoundly so because of how much effort and clear focus is needed to accomplish what is needful. I remember being physically tensed and tired by Sam's and Frodo's struggles on Mount Doom and being thoroughly humbled by the discipline of Gandalf's efforts. It is a stirring depiction of how much effort is required to fight the good fight. And self-discipline isn't a highly acclaimed commodity these days.

The other feature which stood out for me on the second reading was the interconnectedness of all the characters' efforts. All had a significant part to play. It is a story about community knit together by incredible respect for the free will of individuals within the concept of duty and obligation.

To return more closely to this topic, perhaps I am unusual, but I was not particularly moved by movieFrodo, maternally or otherwise. (There are times when I want to respond to all the Legolaslovers and Frododroolers by starting what another fan suggested, a thread about Gimli as a sex god. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])

The depth of bookFrodo's spiritual journey, to me, is missing in the movie because PJ went for a sense of hurriedness and immediacy to the events rather than the slow, inexorable turn of time. And while acknowledging the value and worth of child-like innocence, it seems to me that the story of LOTR is too solemn and serious to have Frodo played as child-like. To me, that is too much of a carry-over from The Hobbit. I cannot easily see a child comprehending the full nature of the transcendence which Frodo undergoes and that lessens his journey for me. Or might, pending next episodes!

Child, your reasoning about the better sense of Boromir's redemption in the movie is intriguing. I had felt that the film was more successful because Boromir's death was moved into the climax of FOTR, rather than the opening of TTT, so that dramatically it was more centrally placed.

Rushed and tired and suspecting that this does little to forward the discussion,

Bethberry

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Naaramare]

Helen --BBC's Ian Holm is Frodo, in my mind. I've always had an image of Frodo, as well, one that hasn't changed for me since I first got it (when I was nine). He's the one character who's never changed for me. Boromir has to be the one who changed the most, going from a black-haired Viking to my current image, which is our beloved movie!Boromir.

Frodo, however, has always looked like he does in my mind, movie!Frodo notwithstanding, and has sounded like Ian Holm since I first got the BBC tapes.

I think the change in movie!Frodo is similar to the change in movie!Aragorn; can you imagine how insufferable book!Aragorn would be if you couldn't get an insight into how the other characters felt about him? (I read some of his dialogue aloud the other day, and realized that I personally would want to smack him within twenty minutes by virtue of what he says alone) It's the same, for me, as trying to see Tom Bombadil on screen. In the book, through brilliant use of prose, Tolkien makes a serious undertone to all Tom's seeming-capriciousness, but that impression is mostly filtered through the hobbits. So is the impression of book!Aragorn.

Again, to the movie-goer who hasn't seen/adored/become addicted to the books, movie!Frodo and movie!Aragorn need to be characters we can identify with, and quickly, while not getting so bogged down in only the characters that we miss the overall arc of the story. The already much-abbreviated scripts for BBC's radio production--which still missed a good deal of Tolkien's characterization--were thirteen hours long. That's in excess of four hours per volume, and it still had the narration of impressions and vistas, which cut down on the need for extra time in that respect.

I find it hard to imagine that people can't picture Frodo easily; his facial features, right down to the wrinkles around his eyes, have been in my head for a decade. And once a character has solidified in my mind, it stays thusly.

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

ahh Frodo. One of my favorite topics. Ok this is going to get complecated with me. Ok, well my mom first read the whole book to me before I saw the movie and I didn't really have a image of any of the people or places in the book when listening to my mom. I mean I did look at some of the art before I saw the film and got a general idea. Infact I drew these pictures of certain people from the book (what I thought they looked like) and what really creeps me out is the fact that the Frodo I drew looks alomst exactly like the one from the movie, just he has brown eyes and extreamly hairy feet. (I'm not kidding; they looke like animal feet) and slightly different color clothes. LOL oh God I also remember drawing Bilbo and he looked almost like the movie Aragorn just with furry feet (I guess I thought hobbits looked just like humans just with really furry feet, that's probably why I drew Frodo young and shorter) and I drew Gandalf with the classic look every one has for wizards. Anyway then I saw the animated 70's version of it (while reading the book) and was like "what the f*** was that?!?". Then saw the movie and had a clear image in my head of the thing. It's hard now because I'm re-reading it by myself and I kust started TTT and of course I haven't seen the film yet so it's harder to imagine certain parts of it. (I started the whole thing after the seeing movie). But the movies were a big help in seeing the thing in my head.

[Frodo Baggins]

I agree with all of you, well met to you all.
THis is how I make myself. Not drop-dead gorgeous but still rather handsome [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] . I have very light skin (all the fallohide in me) and freckles. I ahve slightly red cheecks that become more red with excitement/nervousness. My eyes are not as big as Wood's but they are still that unfathomable sapphrire-blue. My hair is not nearly as tamed as Wood's. It is a bit bushy and very flyaway, and curly of course. Not brown to the point of blackness but rather red more than brown (if you have ever seen paintings bt Carol Emery Phenix you know what I mean).

And yes, way more happy and "perky", as Gandalf would say, than the EW Frodo.

[AragornsHeir]

I am unfortunate enough to not have read Lord of the Rings before the movie came out. I did read the Hobbit though and I wasn't extremely fond of it. So I wasn't compelled to read the trilogy until I saw the movie and liked it so much. But I love them all more than the movie and always will. but with this kind of situation you get confused not only by two different Frodos but between two different MIDDLE-EARTHS. it's very confusing and I regret not having read the books before hand even though my brother begged me to.

[Child of the 7th Age]

What evidence is there to support Gandalf's description of the book Frodo as a "perky chap."?

This question was posed several days ago, but no one answered. So I decided to play with it.

First, I found a surprising number of references in the first three hundred pages to the "perky" Frodo. (See itemized list given later in this post.) Taken collectively, these references suggest a character who is very different from PJ's.

Most of these examples have to do with laughter, merriment, joy, delight, and even teasing. This is hardly surprising, given the nature of hobbits. Treebeard, for example, described them as "the Hobbit children, the laughing-folk, the little people." IIl, 244

After those first three hundred pages, indeed after Rivendell, happy examples totally cease. There were only two more examples I could find in the remainder of the book. One occurred as Frodo awoke and laughed on the field of Cormallan after the destruction of the Ring. The other was when Frodo and the hobbits first entered the Shire and the sheriff attempted to arrest them. III, 346. Just two pages later, Frodo fell silent and sad. He would not laugh again for the remainder of the story.

Clearly, a hobbit who does not laugh is one who needs healing of soul and spirit. This is true even in a spiritual context. For when Gandalf returned from seeming death and transformation, he was bubbling over with laughter. It is clear that a Frodo who can not laugh must depart to the West for help.

The other "perky" examples in those 300 pages have to do with spirited bravery and what I call "spunkiness".

Anyways, here is my list.

1. The Birthday Party. At the mention of Frodo's birthday, there are "some loud shouts of Frodo! Frodo! Jolly old Frodo! from the juniors." I, 55 After Bilbo's departure, Frodo has "a good many friends, especially among the younger hobbits." I, 71

2. I, 106 A laughing response by Frodo to his friends when they tease him about how he wasn't carrying a heavy load like Sam: "Be kind to a poor, old hobbit," laughed Frodo. I shall be thin as a willow-wand, I'm sure, when I get to Buckland."

3. When Pippin teases Sam about preparing bathwater, Frodo teases back, stripping off his blanket and rolling him over. I, 109

4. The Meeting with Gildor and the Elves.

Frodo sat eating, drinking, and talking with delight....Now and again, he spoke to those that served him and thanked them in their own tongue. They smiled at him and said laughingly, "Here is a jewel among hobbits!" I, 120

5.I, 137 Frodo's defense of his companions in the Barrow-downs as well as the author's description of him: "Frodo was neither very fat nor very timid; indeed, though he did not know it, Gandalf and Bilbo thought him the best hobbit in the Shire."

6. I, 132, 140 References to Frodo's escapades as a youngster stealing mushrooms and his laughing reponse to Farmer Maggot when he presents him with a pot of mushrooms as he departs.

7. I, 151 Frodo's surprise on discovering that his friends have "conspired" to help him in his quest.

"You are a set of deceitful scoundrels!....But bless you," he laughed, getting up and waving his arms...."If the danger were not so dark, I should dance for joy."

His friends respond "Three cheers for Captain Frodo and company" and danced and sang about him.

8. I, 159 Frodo sings a song to lift the spirits of his friends in the Old Forest.

9. Tom Bombadil's house. The references to laughter are too numerous to mention. In one place, Frodo sings compliments to Goldberry, who had strangely moved his heart. Then he stammered and was embarassed, almost as a child would hve been. I, 173 In his farewell, Tom says to Frodo: "Farewell, Elf-friend, it was a merry meeting." I, 188

10. I, 216 The well-known scene in the Prancing Pony where Frodo sings about the Man in the Moon, has one too many, dances on the table, and tumbles off as the Ring slips on his finger.

ll. I, 263 Frodo's invocation of Elbereth and stabbing of the wraith at Weathertop.

12. I 276 Laughter by Frodo when he discovered the trolls were made of stone--"Frodo felt his spirts revive."

13. I, 297 Several examples of laughter at Rivendell.

My favorite --As Frodo looks in the mirror after getting up from the sick bed:

"Yes, you have seen a thing or two since you last peeped out of a looking-glass" he said to his reflection. "But now for a merry meeting." He stretched out his arm and whistled a tune.

I, 298 On going to the feast......

"I feel like singing myself," laughed Frodo, "Though at the moment, I feel more like eating and drinking."

That is the last bit of laughter I can find till after the destuction of the Ring. Then we have the two lone examples till the end of the book.

sharon the7th age hobbit

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

Profuse thanks. As I read your lists, I was amazed that I had forgotten all those events.

Joking with his reflection, which always seemed bizarre to me, makes so much more sense now. It fits.

Maril brought up Frodo's sense of humor, which she points out lasted even in Cirith Ungol-- "Have you inquired about Inns along the way?" I'll be on the watch for that next time I reread the trilogy. I had started already, intending to meander leisurely through, but... I stopped to ponder something, I think at Bombadil's, and the bookmark has not moved. (I need a clone, I need a clone....)

...Perky, perky. I like it.

--Helen

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Neverin a thousand years would I describe PJ's Frodo as "perky."

[Bêthberry]

Neverin a thousand years would I describe PJ's Frodo as "perky."

This is the point, I think, when we have to recognize PJ as how Helen has describe him, a fan who produces fanfic. How many of us, in our RPs, have maintained consistent characterization? Or have we been drawn off-tangent by other forces which come into play, forces which did not exist in LOTR or which Tolkien deemed not relevant to his vision?

I deeply regret that PJ chose NOT to include Tom Bombadil or Goldberry in the film. Their omission means to me that this film remains just an interpretation of Tolkien. A very, very good interpretation. But nonetheless, an interpretation which I must recognize as profoundly respectful of Tolkien, but, ultimately, not belonging to "canon." A way into the canon, for sure, but not 'the canon' itself.

Bethberry

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

Well, interesting Child of the 7th age. hmmm:

In one place, Frodo sings compliments to Goldberry, who had strangely moved his heart. Then he stammered and was embarassed, alomst as a child would have been.

hmm well he definitely was happy there. It was a safe place he and the hobbits where in, protected in some way by Tom. And the way it describes how he felt could be looked at as love at first sight. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] .....well she's described as having beauty like that of Elves yet more easily encompassed by hobbtish hearts in the "World of Tolkien from A to Z" book. Some what of a siren to the hobbits, it's easy to see why he was so happy.

..In his farewell, Tom says to Frodo: Farewell, Elf-friend, it was merry meeeting!"..

Actually that was Goldberry that said that to him.

Neverin a thousand years would I describe PJ's Frodo as "perky".

well yes Child that's easy to see, considering pretty much all of those scenes you mentioned in your earlier post were taken out of the movie. If I'm not mistaken. Though he was pretty happy at the very begining.

To me book Frodo's pretty much always looked and acted the same as the Elijah one. just a little different, but both I never saw as "old men". Even at the end of the book, I just saw him as pale tired....and only had nine fingers.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[mark12_30]

Last couple of readings, I have been very struck by the description of Frodo's response to Goldberry-- including singing, blushing, stammering, and all that peircing joy, nearer to mortal hearts-- and secretly wondering if that's one reason that he was a bachelor ever after.

He doesn't respond to Galadriel or Arwen in anywhere near a similar fashion. Who's to know.

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

Finally some one who's thinking the same stuff as me on the topic. Altough I don't remember Frodo talking to Arwen at least in the first book, yet again I haven't read the whole thing so I'm probably missing some thing. Now that I'm think about it the other hobbits didn't really react in any way to Goldberry.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -- You must be claivoyant. Either that, or you have the makings of a real Tolkien scholar!

In the latest issue of Mythlore, the jornal of the Mythopoeic Society, there is an article by Daniel Timmons, "Hobbit Sex and Sensuality in the Lord of the Rings." It is very well done and refutes a lot of the ideas in an older article entitled "No Sex Please--We're Hobbits" by Barbara Partridge. (I kid you not about that name!)

The author interprets Frodo's words concerning Goldberry (and there are other lines in the book besides those listed in this post) as "sensual desire for feminine love." Please don't get me wrong--this article is written in a convincing and, to me, realistic way.

He does see some of that in Frodo's first encounters with other characters. Frodo on Arwen: "Such loveliness in living thing Frodo had never seen before nor imagined in his mind." 298 There is also the scene when Frodo beholds Arwen with Aragorn and is profoundly moved once more: "The light of her eyes fell upon him from afar and pierced his heart."

Timmons also suggests that Frodo's response to Galadriel when she comes into his mind may possibly have some bearing as well: "Whatever came into my mind, that I will keep to myself." (Sam had just commented that when Galadriel examined his mind, "I felt as if I hadn't got nothing on." (Poor Sam!) At the farewell dinner with Galariel, Frodo eats and drinks little, "heeding only the beauty of the Lady and her voice."

Timmons draws a clear line between sex as carnal desire which he sees no evidence of, and sensuality or feminine attraction which he does see. He views this as one more piece of the hobbits' gradual maturing. He also notes that one of the insidious influences of the Ring is to isolate an individual from the community, which invariably includes females and families. Timmons suggests that Frodo may have been well aware that the love and contentment with a female which he sees in Aragorn will sadly never be his own.

Anyways, it's interesting you picked up on this!

Additionally, if you put these two images together--the perky Frodo and the Frodo who is at least aware of feminine beauty--the Frodo of the books initially looks even more distant from that of PJ.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

THis is how I make myself. Not drop-dead gorgeous but still rather handsome . I have very light skin (all the fallohide in me) and freckles. I ahve slightly red cheecks that become more red with excitement/nervousness. My eyes are not as big as Wood's but they are still that unfathomable sapphrire-blue. My hair is not nearly as tamed as Wood's. It is a bit bushy and very flyaway, and curly of course. Not brown to the point of blackness but rather red more than brown (if you have ever seen paintings bt Carol Emery Phenix you know what I mean).
And yes, way more happy and "perky", as Gandalf would say, than the EW Frodo.

Oh my God, Frodo Baggins, your description so closely resembles the image of Frodo that I have in my head, it's amazing!
With the exception of blue eyes (make that grey), and curly hair (more like wavy), I picture him the exact same way. Oh, and the freckles- "my" Frodo has none, but that's a minor detail, really. Still, it's a neat coincidence, not many people view Frodo that way.
And I absolutely love Carol Emery Phenix's illustrations, these are actually the only ones that appeal to my taste.

[stone of vision]

Greetings Frodo's friends

I admit i'm a bit lost and impressed by the myriad of ideas and thoughts in that thread.

I just can be in awe and try to share some of my musings inspired by the initial question: the two Frodo.

Two Frodos? Yes and no ( that's an normand answer, i'm normand [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img])
I ' ve ruminated it a long time and finally i think that there are, not one or two Frodo, but many of them.
As many as many of us who have read the book, or seen the movie and have decided that somewhere in a place called ME, in other time a hobbit called Frodo is living.
Frodo in the movie is PJ and EW 's imagination and ideas of his portrayal.
Frodo in the book is Tolkien's one.
Both of them are one version of "Frodo" the character , a side of the complexe personality Tolkien may have outlined with words and let the reader's mind achieve it, making its own personal vision of him.
So i guess, PJ's Frodo, is different, from mine, from Tolkien's or yours, according to our sensitiveness,likes or dislikes, in some details we want to skip or to keep.

I read the book before watching the movie, and the idea to confront an other opinion of what my mind has created, inspired by Tolkien's text amused me a lot. It was interesting to notice what i agreed, what was new and different for me and nevertheless valid or what was laughable and unlikely.

From the movie, from the book, from your various opinions , the psyche i have of Frodo is growing, improving and will keep on as long as new lights will be shed on that beautiful and fascinating character.

I like the movie very much and admire PJ's work but what i reproach the movie is, indeed that lack of free minding and imagination. Pictures and images will necessary influenced the people who had seen them as if the characters were prisonners of thoses images. Elijah's eyes will haunt some of us for a long time...
But i also believe,that, if the movie leads to read the book, then one could still find "his/her own Frodo" not totally the same and not totally different...

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

Fascinating stuff. I do remember Frodo's awestruck silence regarding both Arwen and Galadriel. But he never sang, stammered, blushed. I wonder if Frodo wisely became more cautious after his first singing, stammering, and blushing experience.

So, perhaps his initial embarassment(perhaps something along the lines of, you fool, just keep your mouth shut, and don't embarass yourself again next time) later evolves into, "whatever came into my mind then I will keep there." Interesting. I had always assumed that Frodo was just denying Sam-- and Boromir-- access to the weaknesses and temptations that Galadriel's interrogation had brought up-- desires to ditch the quest and go home, and the like.

Geez, Sharon, the interrogations! Osanwe-kenta! I had forgotten them. They sound a whole lot scarier now than they did before that last thread on O-K came out. Poor Boromir!!! And poor Sam-- did she find his private daydreams about Rosie, or what?? Geez. I shudder to think. No wonder Frodo clammed up!!

--Helen

[Rose Cotton]

I was reading the books while the movie was being made but since I didn't know about it for awhile I was able to get a clear picture of Frodo before I first saw Elijah.
My Frodo looks more like the Frodo from the 70's movie but not that much. He has straight hair and blue eyes. Alittle fat but not like a beachball or somthing like that. He is alittle different then the movie Frodo but the most noticable difference is just that the book Frodo seems more older then the movie Frodo. The other charicters have the same maturity. Even Pippin. Other then that though the differences to me are subtle and the two different people seem to murge together. But anyway, that's my two cents.

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

Sharon, hmm some good stuff. but still I find some fault, no offence ment.
hmm I forgot some of that stuff, but may I point out something, about the elves, it's suggested in the book that they are a beautiful race of people, many "fall" in some way for them...how can I say this....they have a serene thing to them. Um well a good example was in chapter 7 when Frodo looked upon Goldberry:

..., feeling his heart moved with a joy that he did not understand. He stood as he did at times stood enchanted by fair elven-voices; but the spell was now laid upon him was different: less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer to mortal heart; marvellous and yet not strange.

Basicly what I'm saying is that there seems to be a difference. And that the elves are just a more attractive race.
Any one else find it a little weird that I just love the cartoon version of Frodo? I know people hated the animation in that movie. Come to think of it now, I don't think i've ever really had my own image of Frodo in my head. While reading it (or right when mom fist started reading it to me) I saw that cartoon movie and saw some pictures from FOTR of Elijah as Frodo,
so I guess I've had other people's views of Frodo in my head instead all this time. hmmmmm Have to think about that....urrr I better get off the computer now My eyes and back starting to hert. [img]smilies/redface.gif[/img]

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[Bêthberry]

Child of the 7th Age,

This is an aside to the discussion of Frodo, but it is related to that Timmons article you mention.

Does Timmons restrict his article to hobbits or does he discuss Eowyn? It strikes me that Eowyn's first view of Aragorn in "The King of the Golden Hall" is one part which disproves the argument that there is no "sex" in Tolkien. To me, it is a stunningly understated depiction of the first, awakening experience of sexual attraction, in a healthy, positive sense, not in a pornographic sense, "hiding a power that she yet felt."

Mark12_30,

There is a woman with this kind of power in each of the refuges the Fellowship finds--the House of Bombadil, Rivendell, Lothlorien. I wonder if the "less keen and lofty" delight can be related to the particular nature of the Bombadil household rather than to Frodo's interest in Goldberry herself, though. Is the House of Bombadil a kind of pre-lapsarian place?

I'm not so sure I would take Frodo's bachelorhood as evidence of his unswerving fealty to Goldberry. (I take it this is what you meant; if I have misunderstood, please excuse and enlighten me!) In "The Shadow of the Past", after Bilbo has left, there is lots of evidence that Frodo is called to other things than those available through the usual domestic routines of the hobbits. He's got 'itchy feet' you might say. Then, after he has returned from the Quest, he is so changed that he in effect lives on another plane. Hence his journey West.

I have always regreted that Goldberry disappears so completely from the picture. When Gandalf refuses to return to the Shire, he expresses his desire to find companionship with Tom, but there is no mention of Goldberry. Does this suggest something--the loss of female voice--in the scoured Shire and the age of Man?

Regards,
Bethberry

[mark12_30]

Bethberry,
"lapsarian?" I couldn't find it in Webster's New World...?

I don't think Goldberry's effect was different (From Arwen, Galadriel) because of the house. I think the house was different because of Goldberry. She's not an elf. She's a river-daughter-- not that I have a clue what that means, except that Tom found her in the river, she's a lot peppier, her dress rustles a lot, and she likes to sit surrounded by tubs of water-lilies. Anybody??

Peace, --Helen

[Bêthberry]

Hi Helen,

I think the house was different because of Goldberry.

This is really interesting, for you are ascribing more influence to Goldberry than to Tom! I, too, don't know for sure who or what she is--an enigma like Tom--but because of her washing day I relate her to seasonal changes. Perhaps a form of mythic Persephone without the abduction from the mother?

Sorry about the prelapsarian. I was spinning it off 'postlapsarian' which I learnt studying Milton and the Fall. Here's a link to an online dictionary.

postlapsarian

Bethberry

PS. I'm not sure how I should address you. I hope 'Helen' is okay.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry and Helen --

I agree with you that Goldberry possesses special significance for the book Frodo, even when compared with Arwen and Galadriel. Perhaps, it is because she is the first truly beautiful woman he has seen and spoken with face-to-face. And the first of anything is always very special. On checking back in Timons, I see he says something quite similar about the initial scene with Golberry: "This scene may reflect the awakening of the male adolescent desire for the feminine. All the words resonate with the sudden and arresting "first love" that most everyone has experienced." (Mythlore, #89, 76)

I also see something unique in Goldberry's nature, at least when compared with the Elven women. I know there is one point in the Letters where Tolkien states, way back in 1937, that Bombadil is the spirit of the vanishing Oxford and Berkshire countryside, in effect a nature spirit. And Goldberry, of course, is the daughter of the River. In a 1958 Letter, Tolkien says she "represents the actual seasonal changes in the land." Putting all that together, we certainly get a sense of Tom and Goldberry's tie to nature and the land. (I will set aside any discussion of these two as part of the Valar or the Maiar which is another question.)

If there is any magic that the kuduk possess, it is that of the earth itself, the ability to nurture and appreciate the land and to move quietly and deftly over it. So it makes a great deal of sense that Goldberry, who represents nature itself, would be more accessible to their hearts than an Elven figure--even for Frodo with his Elvish longings.

Oh, dear, I'm afraid we've hit another "clairvoyant" moment here. Both Timmons and Bethberry refer to Bombadil's house in pre-lapsarian terms. Glorfindel, of course, called Tom the "First". Timmons doesn't say this, but I know Tom was even supposed to be born before the entry of the Dark Lord into the world, another possible allusion to the Eden theme. In any case, Timmons takes this and ties it in to a Letter Tolkien wrote to his son where he briefly contrasts love in a fallen and unfallen world. Some of those words about "unfallen" love almost seem applicable to Frodo (if you tone them down several notches!):

In such a great inevitable love, often love at first sight, we catch a vision, I suppose, of marriage as it should have been in an unfallen world.

Another point, I don't think it is coincidence that each of the places of refuge have a significant female figure--and I don't even think any critics have picked up on that: Tom's--Goldberry, Rivendell --Arwen, Lorien--Galadriel, and to that I would add, Rosie in the Shire, which is also a place of rest. By a stretch, you could even identify Eowyn with the House of Healing, since this is where her feminine nature truly emerges.

No, Timmons doesn't deal with Faramir and Eowyn, but he does mention Merry's response to her on the battlefield where he determines that she shall not die alone--another example of hobbit sensuality. III,142

Even after the Ring quest, Frodo is able to see and admire the beauty in Arwen:

And Frodo when he saw her (i.e. Arwen) come glimmering in the evening, with stars on her brow ad a sweet frangrance about her, was moved with great wonder, and he said to Gandalf: 'At last I understand why we have waited! This is the ending! Not only day shall be beloved, but night too shall be beautiful and blessed and all its fear pass away!'

All of this underlines how much Frodo lost when he departed to the West. As Timmons say:

As Frodo bids farewell to Sam, Merry and Pippin, he leaves behind not only dear companions and loving friends, but mature males who will go on to marry, raise families, and solidfy ther communties. One of Frodo's wounds from his experiences, a sort of metaphorical castration, is that he will never experience such joys available to mortals in Middle-earth.

[img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Naaramare]

I would agree that the difference in Frodo's reaction to Goldberry as opposed to Arwen and Galadriel is more because of Goldberry herself than the evirons in which they're found.

For example, the first time I remember being read LotR, I remember thinking that both Arwen and Galadriel were some sort of angel--not actually elven, but just having elven shape and being something holy. Things to be revered and loved from a distance.

Whereas Goldberry was a good deal more human (the irony that she was most likely entirely spiritual of nature and Arwen was heritage-wise part human is not lost on me). She was a woman; a very powerful and wise one, yes, but still a person who belonged walking on the Earth. She cooked, cleaned, danced, made small mocking jokes, reprimanded her husband for being discourteous . . .she wasn't an angel, she was a person in my five-year-old head.

Now, twelve years later, my views on Galadriel and Arwen have changed slightly so far as intellectual thought goes--Galadriel is hardly an angel, after all--but that first impression, that bone-deep image of them in contrast to Goldberry remains.

My point being that Goldberry was alwasy more accessible, but that it was inherent in her own person.

< edit> Or one could just sum up everything I said in what Sharon said, much more eloquently. ^~ < /edit>

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Naaramare ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

Which letter, and was it to Michael or Christopher? (His letter to Michael about communion blew me away!)
<edit:> Think I found it-- letter 43, page 48, on the subject of marriage and relations between the sexes"? To Michael. "Mick." Huh, cute...

Regarding Frodo's farewell to Sam, Merry, Pippin-- golly, Sharon, shoot me now. You almost had me convinced that communal Osanwe-Kenta was worth going to Aman for.... I was just begining to cheer up and think that Lone Frodo in Tol Eressea would not have it so bad. And now this. Poor Frodo?!?!?!?

Bwaaaaah-hah-hah....!!!! (borrowing Bilbo's embroidered pocket hankerchief)

Bethberry-- Don't worry. Like I told Gandalf the Grey, I'm not sure what to call me. Once upon a time, my e-name was Elijah. As in, prophetic type, long beard, Mount Carmel, etc. BUT for obvious reasons that wouldn't work here! So... Helen, Mark, or hey-you will do just fine. And I'll still answer to Elijah, but make sure you add something about "old-bearded-prophet" or something like that. I'd hate to be deluged by deluded delirious dazed ElWood hounds. Wouldn't be fair at all.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry -- On the possible loss of female voice at the end of the Third Age vis a vis Goldberry.

I don't think that the female voice is less at the end of the Third Age. In fact, I actually think that it is highlighted, but the nature of that voice has changed. There are three significant marriages at the end of the book--Arwen and Aragorn, Faramir and Eowyn, and Rose and Sam. The emphasis then is on fruitful unions--in all three cases, I believe, leading to the general revitalization of Middle-earth. Indeed, except for the Shire, one gets the impression in the late Third Age that a lot of cities and areas are underpopulated and are due for lots of marriage and babies, especially since the Elves seem to have been winding down in preparation for their departure.

Goldberry is really in a different category. Her "fruitfullness" is associated with nature and the earth rather than with the traditional childbearing role. So her role becomes less signifcant. The same with Galadriel who departs Middle-earth since her "childbearing role" is long over.

Helen -- Yes, you've got the right letter. There is much that is interesting in this letter. I find myself in agreement with many of the ideas in here, especially his words about the choice of a mate in a fallen world and how "the 'real soul mate' is the one you are actually married to." p. 51

I don't agree, however, with Tolkien's contention that "the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman" in a "fallen" world. p. 49 Difficult perhaps, but not impossible, I would say. The whole question of Tolkien's depiction of such friendships in the legendarium would make an interesting thread, I think.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

I saw the movie before I read the book, so when I read the book, I automatically se Elijah Wood. I would of loved to read the book first and give Frodo my own description, but it seems too late for that....

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

oh my, this thread is long and complicated. You know there is probablems with this...now.... I don't see why everyone has to talk like philosophers or those kids from dawsons creek. All smart sounding. But how 'bout simplifying your talk and maybe you'll find your anwers? I'm sorry it's just...well...how can I say this?....it's like I'm an Aaron Lewis among not-so jaded popstars that are well educated, or a tired, jaded younger person among older "wiser" people. It's hard for me to talk to people and not well get a little frustrated. Plus Tolkien's work is very complicated and (please think a little before you argue this point) out-of-date. All us Tolkein fans try to interpret the book and rest of his works but there's one or two probablems with that. For one like I said the books are in a way are out of date....we look at them with the mind state of today, but the books are in a different state of older times. It's kinda like trying to play a long boring complicated movie on beta in a DVD player (somethin' like that). Also all fans have a different view of the book, we all look at it differently. We figure it out in our own way and own time. So it's nearly impossible to figure out the ture meaning of lets say how Frodo felt about Goldberry and the other females, and what he really looks like and so on, because well Tolkien's dead and it's not like all us fans are going to completely agree on it any time soon.
Ok, I tried my best to sound all smart and talk like most every one else on this. So please if your going to argue any thing I say please be sure to read all of what I've said.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Dear Amarantha,
This discussion is posted on the Books forum, which is designated for in-depth, advanced discussions of Tolkien's works. For lighter-hearted discussions, try the Novices and Newcomers forum! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Amarantha -- Actually, I thought you made several interesting points in your earlier posts. Your idea about the Elves having a real attraction for Man is a good one. And the fact this could have influenced Frodo as well, so he somehow felt more comfortable with Goldberry because she wasn't way "above" his head. She was a bit more like the women he'd seen before in his own life.

Even today that attraction of the Elves is true--and I'm not kiddin here. Just look how many young women dream and fantasize about Elves, especially Legolas. You don't see as many attracted by the figures of hobbits or men. It would actually be interesting to take a poll on that down in the non-books section and see what most people said, i.e. not tying it in to one character, but what "race" as a whole is most attractive to you, etc. etc. I think the Elves would win!

About threads of this type, i.e. long winded and literary. I don't think you have to worry. Most threads in the Downs aren't like this --only in Books I and II, and even most of those are less involved.

Believe me, there are some threads in these sections I don't post on because they are above my head--too philosophical for me to fee comfortable with, or requiring lots of information from the Silmarillion or HoMe which I'm just learning myself. All the other sections--novices and newcomers, movies, the trivia sections, RPG, are pretty straightforward and not so complex. So if you aren't comfortable with one section just try another!

But, in any case, I thought your earlier contributions were fine. The tough thing is when you get a long thread like this it's hard to get back and respond to everyone, and that may have been my mistake since I startd the thread.

So hopefully, there are no bad feelings here. Anyways, keep hacking away, and don't apologize for what you do because it is just fine.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[mark12_30]

Bethberry,

I gave it a few days, and I still do think that Goldberry would set the tone of the house. I'm not sure why I think that. Maybe because of things that my husband has said about me. I think of it as his house, but he says I set the tone.

I think Galadriel sets the tone of Lothlorien-- obviously, because she's preserving it with her ring.

But I don't think Arwen sets the tone of Rivendell. I think Elrond does that. I suppose, his ring comes into play, although that wasn't particularly what I had i nmind, but it must now that I think of it. Other elves contribute too, I think. Glorfindel for instance; Elladan and Elrohir. Rivendell seems to me more like a community- tone- setting kind of thing, with Elrond at the head, and Arwen off visiting her grandmother half the time. (?)

But Goldberry-- she does the dishes, prepares the food, sings along, is always there, rustling and bustling and laughing and making rain. I think she's made the house her own, and Tom likes it that way, and rather gleefully accepts her gentle reminders (doesn't she ask Tom if the guests had had a bath, or something to that affect?).

How's that for complete projection of one's own experience?

So anyway... I'll have to think further about what effect Arwen really has (in my mind) on Rivendell, because I'm minimizing her quite a bit. Powerful Galadriel, powerful River-Daughter, far-off-and-often-absent Arwen. Probably unfair to Arwen, especially since she does so much for him as the story goes on.

Peace, --Helen

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

well I see not every one read every thing I said in that last post beofore talking, oh well I'm used to being ignored. Like I said everyone veiws of are differnet, and certinitly where not all going to agree on what it really meant and what the characters look like and so on any time soon. Everyone can that do that "well I think" "But your wrong" thing as much as they want. But it's really not me. I'm person who dosen't beat around the bush and just for the most part deals with it, I'm also some one who likes to be left alone and not have every singe thing I do and every thing I think juged by everyone, 'sigh' I suppose I should just crall back in my hole and be by myself. I have nothing against any one here 'aheam' but I'm just plain not a people person. I guess because I was rased to belive a lot more things out of the ordinary (i. e. ghosts, faries, and so much more) when I read the book it just came natuaraly to me and I don't need explaining on every single thing in it. Just leave it be most of the time it my thinking (not that I'm saying what you should do....)

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[Calencoire]

Well, I see the two Frodo's pretty much the same, but then again I read the books two weeks before I saw the movie, and I had seen the commercials for it. I have the newer version of the books, and the actors and actresses are on it. But even so, I think that the personalities are very accurate from book to movie, but that is just my opinion.