Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
11-26-2006, 10:57 PM | #1 | |
Delver in the Deep
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 960
|
Failure and Punishment
I found the following, interesting perspective in Tolkien: A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings by Lin Carter (a fairly short treatise, full of unfortunate mistakes of fact, which deals mainly with listing the various epics and fantasies thorughout history which paved the way for LOTR):
Quote:
What do you think of Carter's assertion that Frodo's wounds were inflicted as a sort of punishment for his failures? An argument could be made that his knife wound was only minor because of his bravery in attacking the Witch King, but perhaps he would not have been pinpointed and wounded at all if he had not put the Ring on. Are there any examples in Tolkien's work where others are hurt as a result of some failing of their own? Boromir perhaps is killed while atoning for his assault on Frodo, protecting the hobbit's kinsmen. Fëanor on his return to Middle Earth arrogantly pressed on towards Angband and was destroyed. His sons all come to grisly ends, some as a direct result of the Oath. Saruman and Wormtongue both find their commeupance in the Shire. Thingol is slain by the dwarves when he refuses to pay them their dues. Are there any others? What do you think of this device, which seems ultimately to be the (sometimes capital) punishment of sinners by fate? In contrast to the wounds of Frodo, which Carter seems to indicate are in part deserved, other members of the Fellowship are wounded as a result of bravery, and bear their scars as a token of honour. Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gimli and Gandalf are all wounded in combat. Also, many of the heroes of the Eldar and Edain in the First Age are killed fighting against Morgoth; their deaths are most often heroic and win them great renown. Is this contrast the reason why Frodo is not held in higher esteem among the hobbits on his return to the Shire? Rather than being wounded in victorious combat, he is struck down as a result of "folly, overconfidence and weakness" (to use Carter's words). Your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated!
__________________
But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'. |
|
11-27-2006, 02:10 AM | #2 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
I don't buy it; he was the chief hero of the quest, he received the "highest honours" from the king; his quest itself has sparked in hobbits a strong interest in their history. In a world where even the valar are subject to errors (letter #212), I doubt that we can ascribe faults to someone carrying the ring, since all his judgement will be bent to a certain extent by the evil power. I take his wounds to mean sacrifice rather than punishment; his merit is even higher considering that he actually fulfilled his mandate:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
11-27-2006, 04:46 AM | #3 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Perhaps the difference arises from the contrast between that old warrior code of honour and battle and glory and the code which Tolkien also upholds here, that even the very small and weak can make a significant difference. While it is true that Frodo has to experience the full significance of being a ring-bearer, I don't think it can be said that Frodo is guilty of trespass, violation, or transgression.
Besides, does the word 'sinner' really belong in LotR?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
11-27-2006, 06:33 AM | #4 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
A wild set of assumptions, presumptions, and blind leaps:
If you asked Tokien whether Frodo was guilty of those things-- folly, overconfidence and weakness-- I doubt he would disagree. Gandalf used some of the same words in various places and I think Tolkien also used them in his letters. Consequences happen, and consequences for folly, overconfidence and weakness happen. However, I also doubt that TOlkien would have attatched any emotional, judgemental, or condemnatory importance to them. For Tolkien, Frodo's virtuies so outshone his weaknesses that Frodo's weaknesses are negligible. Consider the phrasing in Tolkien's letter (191) regarding Mount Doom, in which he implies, "judge not": Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
11-27-2006, 07:35 AM | #5 | |
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
I don't buy it either.
Why was it folly that led to Frodo being stabbed on Weathertop? I doubt he could have escaped the Witch-King even if he hadn't used the ring. On the other hand, his behaviour in the Prancing Pony was folly and all the punishments he received for that were some harsh words by Strider. The sting was clearly Frodo's fault, though I'm not sure if overconfidence is the right term. And, as has been stated before, on Orodruin he did all he could, but failed in the end. What I don't understand is how one makes sins out of these. Folly sure isn't a good thing, but a sin? I think that takes it to far. And failing a task that goes beyond one's abilities while giving every effort is a sin? How do you get such an idea? Also, there are faults and misjudgements in LotR that are not punished. (Pippin in Moria f.ex.) Quote:
|
|
11-27-2006, 08:04 AM | #6 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
There is only one referrence in Tolkien's works on sins, that I know of, and even that favors Frodo:
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
11-27-2006, 08:39 AM | #7 |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
Very interesting thread, doug*p. What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.
|
11-27-2006, 08:49 AM | #8 |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
I don't think that Frodo experienced guilt for his errors; any suffering he had after the quest is derrived, in my opinion, from wounds, or the impregnation of the ring. At the entrance of Sammath Naur, Frodo already finds peace after the ring's destruction, and I don't think he fell from that state.
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
11-27-2006, 09:34 AM | #9 | |||
Laconic Loreman
|
I don't know about the Weathertop stab and Shelob's sting...I'll have to go back and look. I certainly don't agree that Frodo was punished for not destroying the Ring. Something we are told that was impossible for anyone's will, and of the time, possibly only Frodo had the strength to get it to Mount Doom.
Quote:
Quote:
There is one failure that comes to the top of my head that is punishable...and that is a failure to fulfill an oath. Oaths have a strong power in Middle-earth. If you make an oath you better be prepared to live up to it or face the consequences. Just ask the Men of Dunharrow or Feanor. A good exchange between Elrond and Gimli happens which I think highlights the good and the bad of oaths. Of course, Gimli sees the positive side of oaths, and Elrond (being the pessimist he is ) sees the negative: Quote:
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
|||
11-27-2006, 09:55 AM | #10 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Does Frodo feel a sense of failure? Why? What causes him to put such a high judgement upon himself? Would that cause be related to what motivated him to accept bearing the Ring? Is there a special psychology to being this kind of Ring bearer? Does Frodo begin with a burden of confidence? As an aside, what specifically are the errors of fact which Carter makes, d*p? Does he list texts which are unrelated or is his conception of "paving the way" for LotR in err? Errors in one area can oftentimes forewarn of errors elsewhere.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
11-27-2006, 11:44 AM | #11 | |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Quote:
What I wanted to illustrate is that we probably are not even fit to judge Frodo, because most of us wouldn't even know he might have saved us if we lived in Middle-Earth. Most of us wouldn't believe in him - but as we all know as readers, he made it. So I don't care where he failed, but do imagine where he succeeded: what all things he had to do (at first - to choose to go down that path although he had the most luxury house, money and a ring that might have made him invisible, for a start - and to point out that he didn't use this ring almost never!) to come to Weathertop, to Cirith Ungol, to Mount Doom. There can't be any punishment for what he showed here. And if it were, then - what about the rewards for everything else?
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
|
11-27-2006, 01:23 PM | #12 |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Great topic!
First, I agree with Mr. Underhill that Frodo would probably have concurred that his personal misfortunes were the result of his own shortcomings: that he somehow deserved the indifference of the Shire and his own physical and mental pain. I've always had the impression that Frodo never confided in anyone, not even Sam, once he came home to the Shire. He acted as if he was eaten up with guilt, feelings that Tolkien confirmed in one of his letters. There are certainly indications in the story that Frodo expected to die at the end of his journey. When that did not occur, he had a hard time dealing with it. Whether part of him actually felt he deserved to die, it's impossible to say with certainty, but I don't think we can rule that out. The larger question in terms of Frodo is whether he ever got over that overwhelming guilt. Did the shores of the Blessed Lands eventually restore his sense of perspective? Was he able to accept the fact that he was a small, imperfect creature with flaws who had done the best that he could? Indeed he had done more than any other being in Arda could have done in bringing the Ring to the summit of Mount Doom where it could be destroyed. Certainly, that is the way Tolkien saw it. And I think his stated views merit more consideration than those of Mr. Carter! However, there is another way of looking at Lin Carter's quote. The first printing of Carter's book was in March 1969. We can sit here and wisely quote the Letters and HoMe because we have access to those things. Like all who first read the book in the 1950's and 1960's, Carter was probably in the dark about a lot of things. It was really, really different then. There was no internet or archival collections. All Carter had were meetings of the Tolkien Society of America, occasional snippets that filtered into the very earliest fanzine publications like the Tolkien Journal, or reports from lucky people who actually managed to speak with the author or get an answer to a letter. Carter's friend de Sprague did this, but I don't think Carter ever met Tolkien. There were no standard biographies, no published letters or HoMe, and perhaps most importantly no Silmarillion. Until you read the Silm and place LotR against the backdrop of that history, you don't have a full sense of how blazing hard it was to pull off the destruction of the Ring. With only a few exceptions, Silm recounts story after story of great and powerful Elves and mighty Numenoreans who fell flat on their faces when they tried to combat the power of the Dark Lord. It took the intervention of the Valar to get rid of Morgoth. Yet somehow in the Third Age, a time when men were "debased" and Elves "fading" from their lofty beginnings, you manage to get the destruction of the Ring and the demise of Sauron, and the only help the Fellowship had was an istar who was instructed not to utilize his full might (two if you count the scatterbrained Radagast). When the situation is seen in that perspective it's downright amazing that Frodo, with the help of Sam, managed to do as well as he did, despite all his very real personal shortdcomings (and there were many). Tolkien was surprised to receive many letters where readers berated Frodo for failing since the author's own perspective was so different. I feel it's in this context that Carter's comments can best be understood.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 11-27-2006 at 04:48 PM. |
11-27-2006, 01:53 PM | #13 | |||||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
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." |
|||||
11-27-2006, 03:57 PM | #14 | |||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Great post, Child. You have a knack for recovering history!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As always, Child, you bring up fascinating ideas. And I'm in a rush, so I've written not very entishly...
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|||
11-27-2006, 04:31 PM | #15 | |||||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Party Tree
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
consequence:an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome. Many people confuse consequence and punishment, I believe Carter is one of them. Quote:
Quote:
Interesting, Macalaure, I think opposite. I agree that Frodo would not have escaped the wraiths on weathertop but perhaps they could've held them off long enough for Strider to come. Certainly, if Frodo hadn't put on the ring, they would not have zeroed in on him. Why do you find Frodo to be at fault with Shelob? Please explain because I still haven't found my books and I only recall that he was delirious and therefore was semi-conscious of his surroundings. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Holby is an actual flesh-and-blood person, right? Not, say a sock-puppet of Nilp’s, by any chance? ~Nerwen, WWCIII |
|||||||
11-27-2006, 11:51 PM | #16 |
Delver in the Deep
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 960
|
Interesting discussion so far, everyone! Thanks to all for your contributions. From the wording in the quote given in Post #1 Carter seemed to have taken it as a given that Frodo did commit wrongs, and was punished as a result. I'm sure he would be interested to see that the majority of posters here disagree with him, and that we are all ready to spring to Frodo's defence!
Frodo was, and still remains, my favourite character in the book, and I personally think that if he did do wrong, it was minor and forgiveable. After all, the quest was fulfilled because of his strong will and remarkable resistance to the Ring, with the help of Samwise, and as a direct result (as has been mentioned earlier) of the pity and mercy with which he treated Sméagol. I had never conceived of Frodo as guilty of any real mistakes until reading the Carter quotation. Bęthberry, the "mistake of fact" which most readily springs to mind is that Carter referred to Éowyn as Théoden's daughter. I can't recall any others, but they were all minor errors in reading that seemed to give the overall impression that Carter may have only read the book once or twice, and not completely soaked in all the details yet. Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision? I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir). What do people think of the other folk that I mentioned: Boromir, Fëanor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Thingol. Did Tolkien dish out "just desserts" to these characters as a consequence (thanks, Holbytlass!) of their ignoble actions?
__________________
But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'. |
11-28-2006, 03:30 AM | #17 | ||
Shady She-Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In a far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 8,093
|
Is it folly that causes Frodo to put the Ring on in Weathertop?
Well, the deed is foolish, yes, but not it's not done out of folly. I don't think putting the Ring on in Weathertop was Frodo's folly, after all, it was the terribly strong presence of the nazgűls added to the Ring's natural lure that drove him to it. I would be ready to hold Frodo irresponsible the same way as people with serious mental illnesses or under heavy drugs. Is it overconfidence that causes Frodo to get attacked by Shelob? Overconfidence? Maybe over-delight or over-carelessness could be a better word for it. Anyway, I can't see how Frodo and Sam, or anyone, would have managed to completely fool and flee Shelob. The Hobbits were very lucky and accomplished to get that far and survive that well. If you ask a hobbit to jump three metres to the air, can you really punish him if he jumps 2,5m? Is it weakness that causes Frodo to fail on Mount Doom? Yes it is. But it's not Frodo's personal flaw, it's a general human (hobbit/elf/dwarf/orc/whatever) weakness. So again, why should he be punished? Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer Blood is running deep, some things never sleep Double Fenris
|
||
11-28-2006, 05:59 AM | #18 | |||
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
Quote:
If I follow you correctly, then Frodo's sin was his weakness, his inability to withstand the temptation of the ring at the end. But can you hold somebody morally responsible for something that was outside his ability? Also, it's hard for me to imagine anybody would have had the strength to destroy the ring at that point (Isildur could have, I guess, because Sauron's presence was not present at the time). This could mean, in consequence, that everybody's a sinner because they are unable to entirely resist evil. nah... Quote:
If Tolkien doesn't call the wrongdoings sins, I just see no reason why we should. Quote:
|
|||
11-28-2006, 07:32 AM | #19 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
I don’t think that Frodo can be seen as having ever been guilty of moral wrongdoing, so I would agree that “sin” is an inappropriate word to use in the context of his struggles.
That said, he is not a “perfect” hero. He does succumb to folly and misjudgement on occasion, as indeed do almost all of the characters on the side of good (even the likes of Gandalf and Aragorn). Which, is as it should be, in terms of their believability as characters. And also in terms of the credibility of the story itself. The impact of LotR largely turns on the reader believing in the sheer power of the evil with which the protagonists are faced. Sauron is only indirectly portrayed in the tale, largely by “proxy” through his minions and through the Ring itself. So, it is imperative that the Ring, as the principal evil “character” in the story, is seen and accepted by the reader as a powerful, practically irresistible, force for evil. This is portrayed through the effect that it has on the other characters, notably the likes of Gollum, Boromir and Galadriel, but also directly through its effect on Frodo - in scenes such as those which take place in Bree, on Weathertop and on the final struggle through Mordor towards Orodruin. The most important scene, in this regard, is of course that which takes place at Sammath Naur. I distinctly remember thinking, when I first read the story, what an anticlimax it would be if, when Frodo and Sam finally reached the Crack of Doom, Frodo simply tossed the Ring in. At the same time as being shocked and horrified by Frodo’s “failure” to do so, I was also relieved in a way that this object of great evil and power was not so easily destroyed. It kind of justified the rest of the tale, if you know what I mean. The manner in which the Ring does meet its end is a masterpiece of story-telling, since it manages to avoid anticlimax, while nevertheless achieving a satisfactory resolution of the Quest. Frodo did not sin and nor (in terms of what was, or could be, expected of him) did he fail. But neither, thankfully, was he the perfect, all-conquering hero. Frodo’s frailties are an important aspect of the literary effect of the tale, as they contribute both to his credibility as a character and to the portrayal of the sheer power of the Ring and (by implication) its maker. |
11-28-2006, 08:00 AM | #20 | ||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Another reason why it seems to me that the word 'sin' does not belong in Middle-earth is its connotations. While philosophically it can be argued that the word merely denotes separation from God, it is a word highly marked by extreme connotations of wickedness and depravity. There's something morbid about it which does not seem to me to fit with Middle-earth's sad longing and recognition that evil will always be with us.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||||
11-28-2006, 09:35 AM | #21 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Bethberry,
I think you've hit the nail on the hand when you draw attention to the connotations of the word "sin". It's possible to have a simple definition of sin that only mentions the commission of illegal or immoral actions. But even if we lay aside questions of depravity or deliberate intention, there is another thorny question involved. Most definitions of "sin" have a religious underpining and are inextricably tied to the concept of God. Here are some definitions: Quote:
God's commandments may be etched in men's hearts as moral law, but men of Arda had little sense of where those commandments were coming from. It would be possible for a Valar or a Maier to sin, or perhaps even a being like an Elf or Balrog who had once lived in the Blessed Lands and had more of an idea who Eru was. But how can we hold men of Middle-earth accountable in terms of deliberate sin when knowledge of God was so limited to them? Men knew more about the Dark Lord and his minions than they did about Eru or the Vala. This isn't surprising since the former regularly showed their faces in the world, while the latter had almost wholly withdrawn by the beginning of the Third Age. Men and women of Arda could actively fight for evil or good, transgress or uphold the innate moral code, or display character flaws, but they could not sin in the way we use that word, even a lowlife like Wormtongue. Just consider this discussion in terms of Frodo. The closest that Frodo came to knowing "God" was seeing the light reflected in the eyes of the Elves or having deep discussions with Gandalf. Most hobbits and men wouldn't even have known that much. When Frodo saw the men of Gondor stand at the table and turn to face Numenor and the West in the manner of a blessing (Eru isn't even mentioned, mind you!), he felt ashamed for his lack of knowledge. How could God hold man accountable for that which he doesn't know? As to what happened to Frodo in the Blessed Lands, whether his understanding and knowledge increased, that is a story that we can only guess at. P.S. If someone wants to hold my feet to the fire and insist I use the term, I'd prefer the Catholic concept of 'venial sin'.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 11-28-2006 at 10:18 AM. |
|
11-28-2006, 12:37 PM | #22 | ||||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Tolkien was in fact "annoyed" by the fact that readers perceived that Middle Earth had no religion:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Moreover, in the Fourth Age that Child mentioned, it is speculated by Tolkien that the worship of Eru will be renewed, in the sense that more than it was so at the end of the third age: Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
||||
11-28-2006, 01:08 PM | #23 | ||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Party Tree
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
What is the role of his bereavement in his psychology?(Bb) One thing we have to keep in mind is that the ring was literally ripped from his hands and destroyed at the peak of his lust for it. At the time when he fully gave himself-heart, mind, body, soul to it by "claiming" it as his own. That certainly will and did leave emotional scarring. Hence Frodo's pining away for the ring even though he knows it was for the greater good of himself and MiddleEarth that it was destroyed. Quote:
Boromir protected Merry and Pippin because Aragorn (in book) told him to go after them and help fix the mischief he caused when everyone was scattering in a panic to find Frodo. As we know he dies fighting for them. His death may be a blessing in disguise because it definitely raises his esteem in everyone's eyes and Boromir being a warrior/protector died in probably the way he has always wished. I think it was ablessing also because I don't think Boromir could really live with himself for succoming to such weakness-bullying and taking away something from some one half his height, third his weight and less fighting skills, a noble warrior would never do that. Now this would be a person who would beat himself up for the rest of his life- a person with my definition of having a "burden of confidence". |
||
11-28-2006, 01:20 PM | #24 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
11-28-2006, 01:46 PM | #25 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Party Tree
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
I agree with you that the ring affected minds but if free will really wasn't involved at all then Frodo would have lived happily after it was destroyed. I can see where Frodo would have been reluctant because of the ring to destroy it and still needed Gollum's intevntion for the deed to be done but since Frodo claimed it whether by punishment or consequence he suffered moreso. |
|
11-28-2006, 01:57 PM | #26 | |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
__________________
"May the wicked become good. May the good obtain peace. May the peaceful be freed from bonds. May the freed set others free." |
|
11-28-2006, 03:13 PM | #27 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Raynor,
Although this is a side road, I wanted to respond since this bears on the discussion of whether "sin" can be legitimately applied to Middle-earth. The whole question of the extent to which Eru was known by Arda's inhabitants has always intrigued me, so please forgive me if I run on a bit. This is as much for myself as you. I also wanted to add that I don't believe there is a simple "right" answer here, although it's valuable to search for one. First, this is a very different question than the one we usually raise: to what degree LotR was "Catholic" in its revisions. I do agree that Tolkien gradually incorporated much Christian and Catholic content and symbolism into the later revisions of his book. Eru's hand and providence stand behind much of the story, but it was generally a hidden hand. The reader, if so inclined, could see it; the characters less so. Tolkien never introduced a clear set of religious or theological beliefs to the men of Middle-earth. We are in a pre-revelation world, although one where men were expected to act according to an innate sense of goodness. We see morals and philosophy but no modes of worship other than Meneltarma, which I'll get to in a moment. The only exception to this pre-revelation rule were the stories by Andreth and Adanel found in Morgoth's Ring written in the last years of Tolkien's life. Eru is consistently portrayed as a distant King who does not interfere after the music is laid down. There are exceptions. Tolkien stated that Manwe did consult Eru and very rarely Eru would decide to bend the rules of the natural world such as he did for Beren and Luthien. The author also wrote that "the cases of Luthien (and Tuor) and the position of their descendents was a direct act of God." (When Tolkien wanted to be direct, he certainly could!) Rather, it's the Valar who maintain all contact with the peoples of Middle-earth, although they had drastically cut back on this by the Third Age. Moreover, Tolkien was in a dicey spot. He didn't want to suggest that the peoples of Arda were "worshipping" the Valar. Even the "prayers" offered by the men of Gondor were not diected at Eru or the Valar, but were simply a moment to face west and remember Numenor and the lands of Elvenhome that lay beyond. The real question to me is what did "men" know of Eru? How often did He enter into their mind? Just how big was that gulf? The Elves would have known who Eru was through the tales of the Silmarillion even if they had not been present in Valinor; the "good" men of Numenor and Beleriand might also know something if only because they came in contact with Elves. I assume this kind of information and belief would have been passed down in families into the Third Age. But such families were a minority. I'm not comfortable using colloquial expressions as "proof" that God was part of the life of the average hobbit. The book also contains a reference to an express train but no one would say that this was a literal fact in the Shire. Rather I get the feeling that the author uses such off-beat "archaic" references to convey a particular feeling to the reader. These quotations in the Letters may be helpful. It suggests that at least the "good" men knew of the existence of God but that he was a very remote presence even in their lives: Quote:
That to me is poignant. The "very best" hobbit knows enough to grieve for the great gulf that stands between him and the light, but he can not bridge that gap on his own without the support of his community. As good and decent as hobbits are, that kind of support does not exist for Frodo. It's surely one of the reasons why he's eventually compelled to leave for the Havens. On one level Frodo needs healing; on the other he has outgrown the Shire. And if the gulf is wide for Frodo, it's much wider for the average hobbit. And of course even this limited knowledge was not available to the Men of the east and others who followed Sauron. Good and evil definitely existed in Arda and people chose sides but the word "sin" doesn't apply. In a pre-revelation world, Eru is too distant a figure: the gulf between man and deity is fixed. There's so much that these men and hobbits do not know or understand. In a religious sense, "sin" can only exist when there is a willful rejection of God. In my mind, there can be no true rejection until God chooses to reveal himself in a more direct manner. Tolkien surely sensed this when he chose to write out the Athrabeth in the final years of his life. It was a personal testament to his desire to somehow bridge that gap, written in terms familiar to him in the "real" world.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 11-28-2006 at 03:23 PM. |
|
11-28-2006, 04:51 PM | #28 | |||||||||||||||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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." |
|||||||||||||||
11-28-2006, 05:22 PM | #29 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Quote:
They could simply be colloquialisms that were picked up from travellers and fell into common use in The Shire without any real knowledge on the part of those using them of what it was they referred to. I think that it is Bilbo, in The Hobbit, who refers to the king while heading into the wilderness, despite the fact that there had been no king in those parts for many, many years. Bilbo would have had little conception of who the king was or what he stood for. "Lor'" and "Lawks" could even refer to an earthly lord, rather than Eru. And even if they did originally refer to Eru, there is nothing to suggest that the Hobbits using these phrases knew that. Many people today use phrases like "bloody" and "blimey", and even "lawks", without actually knowing how they originated or what they originally meant. |
||
11-28-2006, 05:29 PM | #30 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
As to this discussion between Child and Raynor, I think it shows the difficulty in agreeing what texts are applicable. doug*p's original post began with LotR and Frodo and then considered ifThe Silm provided characters who were treated differently than Frodo is. Using The Silm to explain LotR is a different matter. We can quote the Letters and HoMe and the Silm 'till the entwives come home, but how relevant are those texts in terms of elucidating Lord of the Rings? Either that story stands on its own, and we consider just the evidence given there, or it becomes an incomplete story which makes sense only by recourse to these other undeclared texts. This is the perennial conundrum in Tolkien. EDIT: oops, cross posted with the Pan Man
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
11-28-2006, 07:13 PM | #31 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Party Tree
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
Do we know how young Frodo was? I can't help but think that if Frodo was 1-3 years old there may not be much psychological impact compared to if he was 4 years on up with him not having any or very very few independant memories. Did Frodo have a 'death wish'? |
|
11-28-2006, 07:31 PM | #32 |
Fair and Cold
|
I adore this thread.
Per Frodo - I think Tolkien does a good job of highlighting, within the character, some common symptoms of PTSD, found in survivors of great catastrophes, retired soliders, etc. It strikes me that everything that happens to Frodo is a kind of "reality check" that comes when one envisions a great epic - people can still get damaged and traumatised in great epics. It's not all waving banners and grandiose speeches. As for whether or not Frodo is being punished - well, the very nature of these ordeals is punishing; perhaps this is the point that Tolkien is making. No one can go through something like that with perfect composure and zero mistakes. I think that perhaps the reason why one might think that Frodo is at fault is because the story is so heavily Hobbit-centered. The Hobbits are very fleshed out, very real, and they are shown to us close-up in almost all their dealings. Hence the cracks are more apparent. It may be wise to explore the character of Sam further. Does he endure less "damage" because he is ultimately more resilient? Or is it because he bears less responsibility (i.e., he's not carrying the Ring all this time)? It fascinates me - how alike and yet different Sam and Frodo are, and what that may mean. What's also interesting to me is whether or not Frodo's negative experiences ultimately outweigh his positive ones... He really does seem to hit a wall when he comes back to the Shire. In a weird way, his departure almost reminds me of Celebrian, even though it is seen as a gift, what happens to him at the end.
__________________
~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; 11-28-2006 at 07:35 PM. |
11-29-2006, 01:16 AM | #33 | ||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
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." |
||
11-29-2006, 04:52 AM | #34 | |
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
Quote:
I think, though I can't give quotes or anything to back it up, that to Tolkien, God and Christianity were so natural that he made them peek out everywhere in the book, but nothing more. It was evident enough for him, and he didn't see the need to put it in there with a heavier hammer. Unfortunately, this results in the possibility for even an attentive reader to completely miss the existance of it, because though it is underlying most of the time, it is of no pivotal importance to the tale itself. I think it's an interesting question whether Tolkien would have made it more clear if he had foreseen this, or if he still would have shyed away from it for fear of allegory and "parody", as he put it. |
|
11-29-2006, 05:04 AM | #35 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It’s not a question of denying or downplaying the author’s intentions, but rather of being given the freedom to react to the work in a way that is appropriate and relevant to me. Having since read the Silmarillion and the other available materials, I am obviously aware of, and understand, Eru’s place in the story. But it does not follow from this that this fictional God has any particular relevance to me outside the fictional world that he presides over. And nor does it incline me to alter my view that the Hobbits of the Third Age were not particularly religious beings. Edit: Cross-posted with Macalaure, whose thoughts are along similar lines to my own. Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 11-29-2006 at 05:07 AM. |
|||
11-29-2006, 06:59 AM | #36 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Party Tree
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
Wow, twelve. That does make a huge difference on his bereavement psychology(Bb). It may not be a direct cause of his loner-ness, certainly a factor because it sets him apart. And that would definitely be a sobering experience the death of ones parents in an already taboo situation (being on the water) with some suspicions of murder (one pushed the other in). Maybe he did feel like (at that age) there would be more to his life than that of hobbits in general. Of course, there's Bilbo and Gandalf feeding into him how special he is so by the time the council comes around he does feel like he could and should be the one to take it. I don't mean that in a cocky sort of way but an affirmation sort of way. Would agnostic be more appropriate describing the hobbits in general than atheist? Quote:
I don't see Frodo as being punished by Eru. To be punished by a deity would take an act by that deity, all his suffering is in consequence of his behavior, decisions and things beyond his control that he experienced-punished in the way Lush suggests because of the ordeal being punishing in nature. Quote:
|
|||
11-29-2006, 11:51 AM | #37 | ||||||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Quote:
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." |
||||||
11-29-2006, 01:38 PM | #38 | |||
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
Quote:
Quote:
Neither does the knowledge of Saruman and Denethor lead to good, nor does the ignorance of the hobbits lead to evil. They can have a feeling for good and evil nevertheless, just like Child put it. Frodo's above average knowledge (hobbit-wise) of things makes him a wiser person, but not necessarily a better one. Quote:
|
|||
11-29-2006, 03:11 PM | #39 | ||||
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." Last edited by Raynor; 11-29-2006 at 03:18 PM. |
||||
11-29-2006, 03:32 PM | #40 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
There are a couple of good points that have already been made here. Firstly, as SpM said, had Frodo 'succeeded' and thrown the Ring into the fire then the whole story would have ended in an anti-climax. Instead, Tolkien chooses to end the core tale on a knife edge, and succeeds in adding incredible tension at that point, through the three (four?) way conflict which was going on. By choosing to have the core tale end up in this way he also deals with the end of Gollum in a masterly way; could Gollum really have gone on without the Ring?
Something else that Tolkien does by having Frodo claim the Ring is to show us that in his world, there are no perfect heroes. Tolkien did not write Mary-Sues; his characters are human. Note that his characters are usually at some point shown to have failings, even Aragorn displays arrogance at Edoras, Gandalf is sarcastic, Sam has a bad temper, Galadriel has a lust for power.... Had Tolkien not given his characters failings they would have been insufferable. So having Frodo 'fail' in fact elevates him. Again, SpM brings up the point that Hobbits are none of the following things: Christians, Eruists, Atheists, Agnostics. They are just Hobbits. Remember that even if Hobbits do use words like Lawks, it means little in the context of the wider Middle-earth. In the opening chapters of LotR there are plenty of what we might think are anachronisms. I think rather than trying to express religious concepts, Tolkien in fact included words such as Lawks to represent dialect. I think that Tolkien said somewhere that he had his ordinary Hobbits use the dialect of English rural farmers in the general area of the old West Midlands counties of Worcestershire and Shropshire. Indeed, talk to any British person with a dialect for long enough and they will use words like Lawks without ever having any conception of what those words might mean. And just to round that one off, there's no evidence that Lawks comes from Lord in the sense of God anyway; it can just as easily come from lord in the sense of the Squire, the local Lord, who serfs would have had to swear allegiance to. Anyway, anachronisms. The world of The Shire can be seen to form a kind of 'bridge' or 'step' from the recognisable into the wholly unrecognisable. I read about Bag End and think of comfortable suburban bungalows, I know what a Mayor is, and I instantly recognise the social status of Frodo and Sam and all that this implies on a silent level. I know what cases of silver spoons are, and I use umbrellas. But I have (or had!) no idea what Elves where, why they live so long, nor had I ever encountered a demon of shadow and flame or anything quite so freaky as a Palantir. Words like Lawks are used as the peoples in this Shire, this bridging point, are like us, they use language which reflects ours, unlike the other peoples who speak in high and formal ways, and who never use the word Lawks; in fact it could be as much a comment on (or signifier towards) the social status of Hobbits in comparison to 'noble' Elves and Numenorean descendents as much as anything else. Anyway, Tolkien says (in a letter to his publisher): Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
|
|