Is Sauron Frodo's shadow?

[Pitchwife]

In Stephen Donaldson's essay Epic Fantasy in the Modern World, there's an interesting passage about LotR which I'd like to discuss.
Donaldson begins with giving his own definition of fantasy:

Put simply, fantasy is a form of fiction in which the internal crises or conflicts or processes of the characters are dramatized as if they were external individuals or events. Crudely stated, this means that in fantasy the characters meet themselves - or parts of themselves, their own needs/problems/exigencies - as actors on the stage of the story, and so the internal struggle to deal with those needs/problems/exigencies is played out as an external struggle in the action of the story.

This is obviously a generalization of Donaldson's approach in his Covenant books, which his definition fits perfectly: a character from the 'real' world is transported into a secondary fantasy world, where he confronts his own self-despite in personified form. So far, so good. It gets debatable, in my opinion, when Mr. D. applies this theory to LotR:

Tolkien argued passionately that Lord of the Rings isn't allegorical. Well, his passion is understandable: using the narrative tools of allegory, he was actually writing fiction far more complex than allegory. The essence of allegory is its one-to-one relationship between the metaphor and the meaning. This means that. But in Lord of the Rings the importance of Sauron, personified evil, resides in the fact that he is an expression of Frodo. Seduced by power, Frodo spends the novel in the process of becoming Sauron - and that is only possible because part of him was Sauron to begin with [emphasis mine, Pw.]. Perhaps the most profound perception in the entire story is Tolkien's realization that darkness can come from even the most innocent, simplest, cutest characters.

So let's debate: does Donaldson's definition of fantasy fit LotR or no? In what sense can Sauron (or any other character, for that matter) be said to express, personify, correspond to any part or aspect of Frodo? Did Frodo have a little Dark Lord in a hidden corner of his soul - a potential Sauron which the Ring fed? I have my own thoughts about the matter, of course, but I'd like to hear some of yours first.

[skip spence]

But in Lord of the Rings the importance of Sauron, personified evil, resides in the fact that he is an expression of Frodo. Seduced by power, Frodo spends the novel in the process of becoming Sauron - and that is only possible because part of him was Sauron to begin with. Perhaps the most profound perception in the entire story is Tolkien's realization that darkness can come from even the most innocent, simplest, cutest characters.

Well I think it's a great exaggeration to say that Frodo spends the novel becoming like Sauron, seduced by power. Yes, we know that's how the ring works more or less, but we also get very few insights into Frodo's mind suggesting he's becoming power-crazed, cruel or deceptive. The influence of the ring, I feel, is rather like a force from the outside that Frodo is resisting stoutly, but in the very end gives in to. It's not really a gradual process. If Tolkien's main point was depicting Frodo's inner struggles with the devil inside of him, he was not doing a very good job of it, methinks.

Tolkien was probably well aware that darkness can come from the cute and cuddly, but this is not emphasised at all in LotR, which to my mind is fairly black and white. The bad guys are them, the good guys are us. This is not entirely true of course, but in general you have a clear divide between completely flawless characters and utterly despicable crooks.

Did Frodo have a little Dark Lord in a hidden corner of his soul - a potential Sauron which the Ring fed?

Well, we all do, don't we? What the ring feeds on is lust for power. And power, as we all know, corrupts.

[Boromir88]

In what sense can Sauron (or any other character, for that matter) be said to express, personify, correspond to any part or aspect of Frodo? Did Frodo have a little Dark Lord in a hidden corner of his soul - a potential Sauron which the Ring fed?~Pitchwife

Well, Frodo does claim the ring for himself in Mount Doom, that would seem to be a personification of Sauron:

"I have come," he said. "But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not not do this deed. The Ring is mine!"~Mount Doom

"I do not choose now," is curious word use by Frodo. When Frodo made his claim to the Ring, was it by his own will, or was his will overcome by the One? I think if Frodo has been taken under control of the One, than Donaldson's point that Sauron personifies a part of Frodo is looking weak.

However, I would like to point in Bag End, right after Frodo could not throw the Ring into his fire:

"I do really wish to destroy it!" said Frodo. "Or, well, to have it destroyed..."~The Shadow of the Past

More interesting word choice from Frodo, first he says he really does want to destroy it, but then he weakens his original statement, but merely saying "to have it destroyed."

Then we have in Tolkien's letter to Milton Waldman:

"...it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it. So he thought."

Now this certainly seems to suggest that everyone's will (whether they desired to be little Dark Lords or not) would have succumbed to the Ring. But, I think the other question is, is it because the Ring is just that powerful, or does everyone's will have a bit of Sauron in it? As there is also the interesting addition that the Ring was beyond Sauron's will to destroy too!

[Pitchwife]

Thanks for the comments, skip and Boro.

Well I think it's a great exaggeration to say that Frodo spends the novel becoming like Sauron, seduced by power.

My sentiments exactly. However, I think there's a grain of truth in this exaggeration, if you dig deep enough - which is the purpose of this thread.

skip: The influence of the ring, I feel, is rather like a force from the outside that Frodo is resisting stoutly, but in the very end gives in to.

Boro: But, I think the other question is, is it because the Ring is just that powerful, or does everyone's will have a bit of Sauron in it?

The point is, according to Donaldson's theory there's no clear dividing line between inside and outside in fantasy. If Sauron is a part of Frodo, so is the Ring. To quote Hermes Trismegisthos, what's outside is also inside, and vice versa. Maybe the Ring only is so powerful because everyone's will has a bit of Sauron in it.
Boro, I think Donaldson's statement indeed hinges on Frodo's critical failure at Sammath Naur - the closest he ever got to becoming like Sauron (or the little Dark Lord in his soul finally getting the better of him). Sadly, we're never told what went on in his mind at the moment, what visions and promises the Ring evoked to seduce him. Sam saw himself turning Gorgoroth into a garden - what would Frodo have done, if he could have claimed the Ring and got away with it? We'll never know (but feel free to speculate).

[Macalaure]

I don't have the time to read the whole essay at the moment, so I'm just going by the passages you quoted.

The first thing that came to my mind is, that something must be wrong with Donaldson's idea applied to LotR, since Frodo doesn't ever directly struggle with Sauron at all. If at all, the Ring has to be Frodo's shadow (though of course one could make the argument that Sauron and his Ring aren't really separate characters). The Ring, however, definitely is both, an external and an internal force, and thus fits the job description very well. The Ring externalises certain struggles that otherwise take place inside a character. It is (among other things) the permanent availability of an easy way out, whether the character is faced with dangers (Black Riders), or the decision between a hard and an easy way (destroy or use Ring to destroy Sauron), and an ever-increasing mental and physical weight that wants to keep the character from fulfilling his duty.

Then again, it can't really be applied to the whole book. The "philosophy" behind using the ring or not to destroy Sauron (and thus becoming a Dark Lord themselves or not) is an important part of the book and defines many characters to a large degree. However, this struggle does not actually form the whole of the novel. Book 3, for example, is barely concerned with the Ring's effects. Are the parts that tell us about the struggles of Aragorn, Gandalf, Merry and Pippin, Théoden, and Denethor just fancy, but negligible, accessories? This makes me think: Do we really need an explicit second character that the first character can struggle with in order to have an externalised struggle? Maybe Donaldson's idea is valid, but too narrow the way he formulates it.

One thing that Donaldson certainly got wrong is that he says "Frodo spends the novel in the process of becoming Sauron". To the contrary, he spends the novel (successfully) resisting becoming Sauron, and only giving in in the crucial end. Right before entering Sammath Naur, he's clearly still himself. This has me thinking whether there are main characters in Tolkien's works who do struggle between good and evil over a longer course of time and who do become evil (or good again) gradually. Nobody from the LotR, but from the Silm Túrin or Maedhros and Maglor come to mind.

Am I mistaken, or does Donaldson's idea have one interesting consequence:
We've all heard people criticise LotR for its supposed lack of character depth. This looks a lot different in the light of this idea, since the character development is not confined to being inside the characters anymore.

[Boromir88]

Ooh I read the essay, and Donaldson got his masters from Kent St...therefor it is my duty to support whatever he says as undeniable truth

One thing that Donaldson certainly got wrong is that he says "Frodo spends the novel in the process of becoming Sauron".~Mac

Hmm...I don't know if that is completely true, because before he enters the Sammath Naur we do see the Ring really taking it's hold on Frodo. Although, I do think the fact that Frodo did get the Ring into the Sammath Naur does prove your point that Frodo had spent most of the novel successfully resisting becoming Sauron.

I wonder if Donaldson chose the right person...what about Gollum? Because I think if Donaldson's overall point that Sauron was an externalized 'part' of Frodo, than we have to find other characters who represent a part of Frodo. I would think based on the connection Frodo finds between him and Gollum, seeing what the Ring has done to Gollum, and what it is doing to himself, Gollum would be a better person than Sauron.

However, if Sauron (as Donaldson argues) is Tolkien's representation of pure evil in the novel, then he would only represent whatever evil exists within Frodo. Hmm...now I'm wondering if that is making any sense.

We've all heard people criticise LotR for its supposed lack of character depth. This looks a lot different in the light of this idea, since the character development is not confined to being inside the characters anymore.~Mac

I think throughout the story, we do see several layers of internalizing and externalizing. I don't know if there is any part of Boromir within Frodo, because they are two distinctly opposite characters. However, if you look at the Breaking of the Fellowship...

Right before Boromir tries to take the Ring from Frodo he is facing his own internal struggle to resist the Ring. Then when he falls, attempts to take the Ring, he because an external representation to Frodo, because right after Frodo escapes he puts on the Ring on Amon Hen and undergoes his own internal struggle between "the Voice" and "the Eye." So, you could say Boromir externalizes the struggle that Frodo would undergo a few moments later.

[Morsul the Dark]

But the main theory is to say no fantasy is real.... That is to say LOTR only happened in Frodo's head to apply this to all fantasies is false. The "Black Company" series is a story not an inner struggle. as is LOTR... Sauron and Frodo are not connected. Some Stories are this format but openly admit it, "The Cell" the Jennifer Lopez movie(her Only good movie by the way) is all in Vincent D'Onofrios head.

Frodo has a lust for power it's in everyone. However it takes the entire novel for it to wear him down. If he were sauron the struggle would be lost it takes the outside influence of Gollum to rid the world of the ring.

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...offhand, I would say that Frodo did not spend his time becoming Sauron; on the contrary, he did not possess the will or need to dominate. The Ring, more coersive and addictive than any drug, simply took control of him where it was at the zenith of its power, in Orodruin. The Ring certainly played on the vanities and greed of those that possessed it (Gollum and Isildur, for instance), but what allowed Frodo to almost succeed was that he did not wish to have the Ring, he did not seek power. However, Frodo's spirit had ebbed due to sting and stab (an insidious wound by a Morgul blade that never fully healed), and he could not overcome the Ring's influence. If he had not been injured and fatigued beyond endurance, would he have had the will to complete his task? The idea is at least compelling enough for further consideration. Bilbo gave it up (after bearing it far longer), Bombadil played parlor tricks with it, and Gandalf, Galadriel and Faramir refused it, although each in their own way either coveted it or considered using it against Sauron.

Therefore, the fall of Sauron occurred precisely because Frodo lacked the intent to become Sauron personified, and his mercy and compassion -- virtues utterly alien to the Dark Lord -- compensated for his inevitably succumbing to a power greater than his weakened spirit could handle. In any case, a Hobbit such as Frodo seemed to be the perfect carrier for the Ring because Hobbits, for the most part, did not have societal interests in domination, bellicosity or overweaning greed, being a good-natured, peaceable and simple folk.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm...offhand, I would say that Frodo did not spend his time becoming Sauron; on the contrary, he did not possess the will or need to dominate.

I agree - and also with Boromir's point about Smeagol better fitting the role of Frodo's shadow. Sauron doesn't even come into Lord of the Rings as a proper character, and therefore cannot really fit into such a scheme, in my opinion.

It seems as if this isn't the first critic I've seen focus too intently on Sauron's role as the personification of evil in LOTR. He is such a distant and undeveloped figure, and there are so many more fleshed out, less absolute ones: Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, Grima, etc.

[Boromir88]

It seems as if this isn't the first critic I've seen focus too intently on Sauron's role as the personification of evil in LOTR. He is such a distant and undeveloped figure, and there are so many more fleshed out, less absolute ones: Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, Grima, etc.~Rikae

True and the reason I like Gollum better, also, is because there actually is the external battle between Gollum and Frodo - there is none between Frodo and Sauron.

Even if someone argues that the Ring's will is Sauron's, therefor when Frodo battles with the Ring, he is battling Sauron. I don't agree with that, because there always appeared to be a certain sentience about the Ring. The Ring wasn't just an extension of Sauron's will, it was more than Sauron's will. Sauron created an object that was stronger than him...he couldn't destroy it. And the Ring could survive without Sauron, but Sauron could not survive without the Ring.

Also, if what Gandalf tells Frodo is true, this seems to apply to all the Ring's of Power:

"A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo."~The Shadow of the Past

This makes it sound like The One Ring (and all rings of power) have a seperate "will" than their bearers or creators.

I do agree with Pitchwife though, that just because on the surface there appears to be no relation to Sauron and Frodo, that doesn't mean there isn't anything. Generally Hobbits do not lust for power, and that would make them a good bearer for the One. However, don't forget, just how Hobbit-like was Frodo? I would not call Bilbo the stereotypical hobbit, other hobbits said he was strange, because Bilbo wanted adventure, he wanted to go beyond the borders of the Shire. Frodo, also shows signs of this, when he wants to leave the Shire and follow Bilbo. That doesn't make Frodo evil, but it certainly makes him different from our general assumptions about Hobbits. Also, during the Council of Elrond, Frodo was not forced to take the quest, he volunteered. Why?

[Pitchwife]

More nice comments by everybody. We certainly don't have to keep this focused on Sauron and Frodo exclusively, and I agree that Gollum makes a much better example for D's theory than Sauron - Frodo under the influence of the Ring is in serious danger of becoming Gollum, much more than he is of becoming Sauron; which is precisely what enables him to understand and pity Gollum.
About the character development thing - yes, I think D has a very strong point here. Generally, in the literature of adventure, characters are studied and developed through action rather than introspective analysis, but in fantasy, everything that happens, everything a character does or encounters is, or can become, characterization - even scenery: think of Aragorn under the Argonath, or Gimli and the Glittering Caves.
Boro does a nice job applying the theory to Boromir (as could be expected), and I'm sure this could be done for other characters as well.

Morth, while I agree that Frodo certainly didn't lust for power the way Sauron did, I'm not so sure he utterly lacked a will or need to dominate - nor the capacity, even though in him this was much more limited than in Sauron, or e.g. Gandalf or even Aragorn. There are a few interesting moments in Frodo's interaction with Gollum, starting in Book IV, The Taming of Sméagol:

For a moment it appeared to Sam that his master had grown and Gollum had shrunk: a tall stern shadow, a mighty lord who hid his brightness in grey cloud, and at his feet a little whining dog.

A little later (The Black Gate is Closed):

"In the last need, Sméagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care, Sméagol!"

And finally (Book VI, Mount Doom):

Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire, there spoke a commanding voice.
"Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."

I don't doubt that Frodo, wearing the Ring, could have dominated Gollum in the crucial moment, if he hadn't been taken by surprise. By the way, whose voice is speaking here, out of the fire - Frodo's or the Rings? They have become indistinguishable.

Morsul lays his finger on what I feel to be the main flaw with applying D's theory to LotR (literally, at least):

That is to say LOTR only happened in Frodo's head

This is true for D's Covenant, who is unconscious or dying in the 'real' world every time he's summoned to the Land, so everything that happens to him there may well be 'only in his head' (not that this makes a difference, as he finds out). In LotR, however, the division between a primary and secondary world doesn't enter into the story, so both Frodo and Sauron, as well as all the other characters, are on the same ontological level, denizens of the same world. But I think the theory can be modified to fit.

(This is going on really nicely, thanks to everybody for contributing!)

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Me

Well I think it's a great exaggeration to say that Frodo spends the novel becoming like Sauron, seduced by power.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

My sentiments exactly. However, I think there's a grain of truth in this exaggeration, if you dig deep enough - which is the purpose of this thread.

By saying "a great exaggeration" that grain of truth is implied, of course. But this definition of fantasy, while perhaps accurate to D's own work, which I'm not familiar with, can hardly be said to be a close fit for LotR. I also think Morsul hit the nail on the head. I certainly don't think it was Tolkien's conscious or unconscious intention for it to be read this way in any case, but one of the tell-tale signs of a great work of literature are the many possible ways of finding different meanings to it.

Off the top of my head, the Túrin saga would be a better example to use for D. Here you really can see how Morgoth and his curse are as real inside of Túrin's mind, as the Dark Lord is real sitting on his throne in Angband. We readers are never sure whether Morgoth really can change the fate of Túrin for afar, or if his own poor decisions are the real cause of his tragedy. But this story plays out much like a Greek drama where fate's seemingly inevitable, and few would argue that fex. Oedipus belongs to the fantasy genre.

Here's a thread that touches on this:
The curse of Morgoth

[Pitchwife]

few would argue that fex. Oedipus belongs to the fantasy genre.

No, Oedipus was the first whodunit - only the detective discovered himself to be the murderer; quite innovative for the time.

I like your thoughts about Túrin, skip - and they demonstrate that the exteriorization theory (henceforth, for convenience's sake, abbreviated e.th.) can be applied beyond the two-worlds-format. It isn't all in Túrin's head, Morgoth is as real as T. himself, yet at the same time he and his curse serve as an 'objective correlative' to Túrin's hybris, rash temper and bad decision-making. - What part, would you say, does Glaurung play in this scheme (apart from being Morgoth's malice incarnate)?
And thanks for the link to your last year thread on the curse. Interesting read!

[Morthoron]

Having read Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Convenant series, I believe he's mistaking his character's internalizations with Tolkien's externalization. Covenant believes he's dreaming for most of the first book, and that the Land is fictional, brought about by a bump on the noggin in a car accident. In the case of Frodo, the nightmare he experiences is tangible, and he is part of Middle-earth, not a foreigner dropped in from the 'real world' like Covenant. Donaldson is, for the most part, 'externalizing his internalizing', as it were.

[Pitchwife]

Dismantling my own hobby-horse...

The more I think about this matter, and everything that has been said in this thread, the clearer I see the limitations of the e.th. as far as LotR is concerned. Unlike D's own books, LotR is not what me might call a 'character-driven' novel - i.e. it's not about Frodo's (or anybody else's) needs/problems/exigencies the way the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are about TC's. This becomes rather evident when we consider another passage from D's essay:

A somewhat oversimplified way to make the same point is by comparing fantasy to realistic, mainstream fiction. In realistic fiction, the characters are expressions of their world, whereas in fantasy the world is an expression of the characters[emphasis mine, Pw]. Even if you argue that realistic fiction is about the characters, and that the world they live in is just one tool to express them, it remains true that the details which make up their world come from a recognized body of reality – tables, chairs, jobs, stresses which we all acknowledge as being external and real, forceful on their own terms. In fantasy, however, the ultimate justification for all the external details arises from the characters themselves. The characters confer reality on their surroundings.

I think we can all see that this doesn't do justice to Tolkien's subcreation, as Middle-Earth and its history existed (if not in all details) long before Frodo and his companions appeared on the scene. Unlike D, who has insisted time and again that he only invents what he needs for the story (and very probably wouldn't have bothered to invent a back-story for Queen Berúthiel and her cats), Tolkien invented Middle-Earth for its own sake and as a setting for the Elven languages, not as an expression of his characters. In this respect, LotR is more like realistic fiction than fantasy as D defines it - the setting (including its history) confers reality on the characters, not the other way round.
Unfortunately, this deals a heavy blow to the e.th. as applied to LotR. Things may be different with e.g. Children of Húrin (as skip has demonstrated), which is rather more character-driven, though the point about the relation between characters and setting is, of course, valid for the entire Legendarium.

(Morth: The question whether the Land is inside or outside of Covenant's head may be something like Donaldson fandom's version of the Balrog wings debate. IMO, the only valid answer is the one TC himself found at the end of the First Chronicles: it doesn't matter - because, to adapt Aragorn's words to Éomer, good and evil are the same in a dream as in waking.)

[Ivriniel]

Hi there Pitwife - it's an interesting and cerebral topic, which I'm not shy of and it's interesting, very.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

In Stephen Donaldson's essay Epic Fantasy in the Modern World, there's an interesting passage about LotR which I'd like to discuss.
Donaldson begins with giving his own definition of fantasy:

This is obviously a generalization of Donaldson's approach in his Covenant books, which his definition fits perfectly: a character from the 'real' world is transported into a secondary fantasy world, where he confronts his own self-despite in personified form. So far, so good. It gets debatable, in my opinion, when Mr. D. applies this theory to LotR:

I've read that basic stance of him in a prior reading, some 20 years ago. It stayed with me. I recall pondering long, Donaldson's placement of the 'externalisation' of the inner realm, of those from the 'Earth' where 'we' (Thomas Covenant's world?) are from. So, Earthpower, Subane, The Insequent, The Gorgons, The Ravers, Lord Foul. Perhaps two more powers - Colossus of the Fall (Rock Sentinel of the Land - yet Elohim imbued). And - The Forestals, for their great protective might. Seven Wards of Lore. Earthblood. Staff of Law.

Expressions - of the inner world, so he does say. And so, manifest then his inversions of Frodo's realm.

I see what Donaldson meant. It was hard to bear with Frodo, at times, on my first read so long ago. Away I turned from him, for many years as well. So unwell after his travails, and it was confronting to read as a young teenager.

And so - the 'sauron-ising' that Donaldson is almost mechanical about in an analysis, was, I think, Tolkien's point about the Rings of Power, indeed. But, I do not see 'Frodo' as creating something that 'we' read. It must be Donaldson naming a process through a characterisation, musn't it? And therefore, responsibility for 'making Sauron', must of course, fall to how the author interacts with his readership. So - in my latter years - I am not so hard on 'Frodo' at all.

He bore too much responsibility for Arda, and that also was the point of Tolkien's allowance of Frodo's journey into Valinor's Realm. There - somebody would have been able to spare Frodo and Bilbo their dire inner calamity. No doubt, in a world where Wraiths did, indeed exist, and where such Spectres and Necromantics - not of 'Frodo' - it has to be reasonable for Frodo to have been left with terrible scars.

I'm not so harsh of Frodo anymore.

Donaldsonian 'lore' - I recall of his fantasy that there is a greater place for Despite and for the realm of Inner conflict - and the hidden lies told to the self, of its baser spectral lines. Pieten comes to mind. As does Lord Foul's emphases in how he - more than warps. The Illearth Stone, the Sunbane - they're really very perverse in effect. The three Giant triplets that were 'raver-ised' and got all really creepy and blew off the heads of the Giants at Coercri - man - that one!!! Ravers though imbued - still really very different to Tolkien.[/quote]

Yet - do any Donadsonian characters 'create' Foul?

No - I do not think so either. So, running the Donaldsonian analysis of Frodo upon it's author's works - seems to clarify why I resist speaking 'so' of Frodo - as a perpetual curse.

Perhaps

[Pitchwife]

Hey Ivriniel, thanks for throwing your kindling thoughts on these grey embers!

Yep, I think your younger self was a bit harsh on poor Frodo, but I think I see how you got there. We see the whole journey to and through Mordor mostly through Sam's eyes and are thus 'once removed' from Frodo, so to say, maybe even estranged. We pity him and fear and hope for him because Sam does, but it's Sam we identify with. Of Frodo's inner struggles we see only glimpses - the fiery wheel, his memories of the Shire fading - , until at last we get hit on the head with "The ring is mine". (Not quite unlike, I'd say, the way Donaldson passes the camera from Covenant to Linden at times, e.g. when C. was Silenced by the Elohim, so we don't know what's going on inside him, and then hits us on the head with "Nom." - another mindblowing moment!

You know, I think I have an idea how Donaldson came up with all this externalisation stuff. In his foreword to, I think it was Gap into Conflict - The Real Story, he explains that every book he writes is born from the combination of two ideas - one familiar, one strange. In the case of the Chronicles the two ideas were (obviously) leprosy and fantasy, with leprosy being the familiar one (because as a kid he watched his dad working with lepers as a doctor in India), fantasy the strange one. Maybe this was the only way he felt he could tackle writing a fantasy world: by treating it as exteriorization of inner conflict?

In many ways the Land is reminiscent of Middle-earth: sentient forests, Ents and Forestals, Elves/Dwarves and Giants, Revelstone and Rivendell, a Dark Lord and his minions (Ravers for Ringwraiths), but making it all an exteriorization or 'objective correlative' of Covenant's (and later Linden's) struggle against self-despite turns it all into something totally different and unique.

So, does anybody create Lord Foul? Covenant, as a writer, is a creator himself, and if the Land is his dream, he creates it, and everything in it, in his subconscious mind - but is it? The same Land that other people can enter - Linden, Tom, Joan, Jeremiah, it can't just be in his head, can it? Or are we looking at a metaphor for the writer-creator's power to draw others into a world of his imagination?

But this, and thinking about Aule, Sauron and craftsmen in the context of your riddle over in the Quiz Room, takes me to quite another question: Why is it that it's always the makers, artisans and (sub-)creators who are most vulnerable to the lies of Morgoth and his minions - from Sauron to Fëanor to the Gwaith-i-Mirdain to Saruman, and I'm sure I've missed a few? And where does Tolkien, as a mythopoetic subcreator, situate himself in this context - or, to vary the title of this thread a bit: Is Sauron the author's shadow?

[Ivriniel]

Yes - I also recall at a lecture I attended where Donaldson spoke once, way back - in 1987, where he spoke of his 'two theme' thing. Leprosy was big, and probably the biggest theme, tho the sexual violation of Lena and the incest with, then Elena the offspring! MAN - Donaldon is very - um - direct about his heroic characters and makes no shame of working with that position. A hero was our Thomas Covenant, and so much so for the readership. How he could take people on that journey so also about redemption. In The Gap series - Thermopile ( therm-opoly hahaha not thermo-pile hahaha) was also a sexual violator - and that Nick Succorso zone implant sex stuff - oh....my......god!!!!!!!

After reading your post, earlier today, I was thinking about whether or not Dolaldsonian characters create Foul. I found at least three examples, actually, through his main characters, after my quick 'no' yesterday.

At Ridject Thome, did we not have Saltheart's Caamora - in the great lavas protecting Foul's home. So, then, the Giant walks through the defence and is burned clean of the banes of battling and Giantish pain. He then, of course, delivered a very dire blow to Foul. Laughter, actually. To unmake Foul for three thousand years. A very deep effect upon Foul as well.

Then, of course, our Linden Avery in Mount Thunder when she re-crafted the Staff of Lore. Runeless, and not yet blackwood. She surpassed Foul whilst bearing Staff and Ring in the final conflagration after breaking the Raver's hold. (Oh god, ya gotta love Linden Avery. I dunno tho - I haven't finished series three. I don't know what Elena fate yet is, in that She Who Has No Name thing. Not fun to date that one

Frodo - tho - as 'creating Sauron'. Receptive was Frodo's legacy, not invasive. It's not like Frodo was going to get far with any 'mine' confrontation with Sauron. My god, what would have happened had the Nazgul made it to Orodruin any more quickly?

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

But this, and thinking about Aule, Sauron and craftsmen in the context of your riddle over in the Quiz Room, takes me to quite another question: Why is it that it's always the makers, artisans and (sub-)creators who are most vulnerable to the lies of Morgoth and his minions - from Sauron to Fëanor to the Gwaith-i-Mirdain to Saruman, and I'm sure I've missed a few? And where does Tolkien, as a mythopoetic subcreator, situate himself in this context - or, to vary the title of this thread a bit: Is Sauron the author's shadow?

I've wondered what the heck happened during the Music of the Ainur before Eru in the Making, how some of them schitzed out and made rebel music. I read in a Letter written by Tolkie, that Aule had a 'domain' comprised of Maia and many of other forms. I recall Sauron was a renegade from Aule's domain. A craftsman who, ultimately, was chief of Morgoth's and wrought many designs, many of which were never realised.

'Why' Morgoth's call is so pervasive?

Eol, Maeglin. Boromir. Celebrimbor. Perhaps Galadriel. Lines of the echoes of sexuality in themes of deviation, but not as pervasively directly said as Thomas Covenant's double Lena Elena thing. Elena - my god - she didn't have much of a chance. I recall the scenes where something wrong (in the Foul-ian sense) emerged in her in glimpses of perversion. Yet - Donaldson does so well at insisting that these things are part of a greater Call, Narrative, Join, Belonging - in the Mythology Whole.

So - these things also 'Spectral sexuality' meaning - we see them in news castings or analyses, such as of places and cultures in our world. Themes about 'the ghosts' that are perversions of territorial religiosity, perhaps. I see the Nazgul as having originated from down this line. Greed, and self-serving seduction. Extended into the metaphysical, but in our world, the minds of might of 'men' - sociopathic. Sauron, and all the bad bois of both Donaldsonian and Tolkien seem to have the 'bad boi sociopathic' archetype, where it castes to metaphysical ideas.

Yet, Spectral metaphysical fears in societies (the Ghosts of formalised religion, perhaps) also create 'shadows' of social behaviour. But - ghosts - are often attributed to the occult, which also calls in Spectral caste to curiosity. There seem to be Spectral lines, of flow.

In Tolkien - he did speak of Sauron's greed and lust. As this ever-growing balloon - that past a point, just swelled and swelled - man - Sauron was in many ways quite unidimensional. Powerful hold, however, over cultural governance. In his presence, people cave and buckle. As he perverts and ruins.

Sauron's was a Spectral realm of a bound of territorial 'hold' over 'Ea' - in a mis-design and marring. None of his 'creations' were particularly 'living'. Necromancy, undead, things of simple, greed-based - almost idiocy. There's a thread about what Sauron's world would have looked like. Dark dust bowl. Nothing really having fun. Orcs and their 'festivities'. When there was nothing to hack at (Elves) I suspect they would turn on each other. They could never unify, except by external governance (Sauronic will). I suppose, also, there was 'lordlyness' somewhere in there. The Witchking laughed, spoke, made decisions about 'who' was his primary target during battle. He certainly held power of Lore and Spell. They certainly had presence, even if that was life draining. Certain realm of influence, in the Wraith-other-world that Elves somehow can 'see' yet where they vary in 'otherworld' form. Was Sauron 'Omni-present' in a Nazgul head - I would say so.

This last one seems most closely aligned with Ravers.

[Firefoot]

Interesting topic that I missed the first time around.

I think Morthoron hit the nail on the head:

I would say that Frodo did not spend his time becoming Sauron; on the contrary, he did not possess the will or need to dominate. The Ring, more coersive and addictive than any drug, simply took control of him where it was at the zenith of its power, in Orodruin.
...
Therefore, the fall of Sauron occurred precisely because Frodo lacked the intent to become Sauron personified, and his mercy and compassion -- virtues utterly alien to the Dark Lord -- compensated for his inevitably succumbing to a power greater than his weakened spirit could handle.

Without the external struggle against Sauron and the Ring, there is no internal struggle for Frodo. Here, the external creates the internal, quite the opposite of Donaldson's statement.

I'd like to comment on a couple other sections of the article as well:

Remember, of course, that he was a Beowulf scholar himself: he was attracted to Beowulf's epic vision. On the other hand, like all the rest of us he was a modern human being and could hardly have been blind to his own life, his own culture, his own religious and psychological milieu. Like all the rest of us, he was caught - tragically caught - between his ability to respond to epic perceptions and his inability to achieve them. And out of that conflict he forged a rather staggering achievement.

He restored the epic to English literature. Roughly a century after the epic became an impossible literary form, he made it possible to write epics again. But - a crucial
but - he did it by divorcing his work entirely from the real world, by insisting that there is no connection between the metaphors of fantasy and the facts of the
modern reality, by rejecting allegory. He claimed that his work was pure fantasy, that it existed solely for itself. And the subtext of that assertion is that it is indeed possible for us to dream about heroism and transcendental love, about grandeur of identity in all its manifestations - but only if we distinguish absolutely between the epic vision and who we actually are as human beings. Tolkien restored our right to dream epic dreams - but only if we understand clearly that those dreams have no connection to the reality of who we are and what we do. [emphasis mine]

Don't completely agree with this either. Just because a work is not allegorical does not mean it does not have connection to the real world. I think any semblance the Legendarium has to something allegorical comes from Tolkien's desire to create something mythological. I think this line at the end of the Sil says it well:

Here ends the Silmarillion; and if it has passed from the high and the beautiful to darkness and ruin, that was of old the fate of Arda Marred; and If any change shall come and the Marring be amended, Manwë and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the dooms of Mandos.

If this isn't at least a little bit reflective of how Tolkien saw our world, I would be surprised.

Honestly, I don't really see how allegory or metaphor is supposed to make fantasy any more or less real or applicable. Just because the character in Donaldson's book (which I haven't read, for the record) travels back and forth between lands and lives out his struggle in this fantasy land doesn't make that fantasy land any more accessible to me in the real world.

I much prefer Orson Scott Card's viewpoint here (from Xenocide):

When you hear a true story, there is a part of you that responds to it regardless of art, regardless of evidence. Let it be the most obvious fabrication and you will still believe whatever truth is in it, because you can not deny truth no matter how shabbily it is dressed.

And that I think is the power of fiction in general - to express some kind of truth about the world, the human condition, or ourselves, and that I think is what speaks to us. I think Donaldson tries to get at this but seems rather hung up on the allegorical aspect.

And just because I thought that Donaldson's article wasn't totally off base, I'd like to quote a bit that I did quite like and do find applicable to fantasy as a genre, LotR included:

In all the rest of modern fantasy, however, the movement is away from futility. The approach of modern fantasy is to externalize, to personify, to embody the void in order to confront it directly. The characters in fantasy novels actually meet their worst fears; they actually face the things that demean them; they actually walk into the dark. And they find answers.

Apparently, the techniques and resources of fantasy - magic and personification, for example - attract writers who want to challenge the void, defy the notion of futility. Searching as they do for ways to meet their own inner voids, they posit fictional situations which allow them to define answers, allow them to say that, "Man is an
effective passion."

(On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that this was written pre-Game of Thrones, which in my opinion rather contrarily embodies the notion of futility. )

[Mithadan]

I am doing something that I usually do not care to do. I am replying to a post without reviewing the thread for context.

Here ends the Silmarillion; and if it has passed from the high and the beautiful to darkness and ruin, that was of old the fate of Arda Marred; and If any change shall come and the Marring be amended, Manwë and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the dooms of Mandos.

Feel free to disagree, but I very firmly believe that this is Christopher speaking, not JRRT. This is an apology if he got it wrong from what his father intended, which, in retrospect, was a valid apology.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Feel free to disagree, but I very firmly believe that this is Christopher speaking, not JRRT. This is an apology if he got it wrong from what his father intended, which, in retrospect, was a valid apology.

It could be read that way. As you probably know, the actual text is originally from the Valaquenta. It can be found in Morgoth's Ring:

Here ends The Valaquenta. If it has passed from the high and beautiful to darkness and ruin, that was of old the fate of Arda Marred; and if any change shall come and the Marring be amended, Manwë and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the dooms of Mandos.

Christopher Tolkien notes that

This passage was used to form a conclusion to the published Silmarillion

So it may be an apology. It's certainly repurposed material and has a very different meaning in the context of Quenta Silmarillion compared to its original position in Valaquenta in which it muses upon the relationship of the fallen Ainur to the fate of the world.

[Pitchwife]

Ivriniel: Agreed that Covenant raping Lena and the repercussions of that act are a big thing in the Chronicles, but I'd say it was a result of the conflict between leprosy and fantasy - of his emotional numbness being unable to cope with a world of healing and beauty. By the time he met their daughter he still wasn't ready to accept the Land as fully real, but at least he was taking it seriously enough not to give in to her attempts at seducing him. (Gosh, that does sound like GRR Martin, doesn't it? Balanced, fortunately, by some healthy and adorable lovemaking - Covenant and Linden on Starfare's Gem, awww! And yes, I love Linden too.)

In the Gap series, on the other hand, sex is mostly linked to issues of power and control - Angus over Morn, Morn over herself (after Angus gives her the control device) and thus over Nick. Different animal, I'd say. (There's also a strong undercurrent of mothers, motherhood and giving birth - Angus's abusive mom, Bryony Hyland and her importance to Morn and Davies, Morn herself, Norna Fasner - even the Amnion by virtue of their name.)

Got to confess btw that I absolutely love Angus - as a literary character, mind you, he's just unforgettable! - , and I cheered for him at the end of This Day All Gods Die, even while empathizing with Morn's relief to be rid of him. No small feat for an author, is it? You know, it occurs to me that he's maybe Donaldson's version of Gollum, or a gollumish character: murderous, depraved, despicable, but also pitiable once you learn more about him, and one who actually repents in the end and finds such redemption as he's capable of.

Yes, Donaldson sticks at nought if the story needs it, does he? And he spares neither his readers nor his characters. Especially not the latter - but although he may grind them in the mud he never leaves them there. Tolkien's protagonists show us what to aspire to, which is a great and noble thing. But Donaldson's protagonists - the ones like Covenant and Linden, or Morn and Angus - show us what we fear we are, or might become - and how to pick ourselves up from guilt and failure, accept and transcend.

Which brings me back to Frodo by the long and crooked. Covenant and Linden both have Despite within them (whether they 'create it' or not, I'm not sure how we got to that debate), both had to learn not to be led by its temptation, and thus they're both called and qualified to combat the exterior Despiser (also because they can wield white gold, which may be tied up with this somehow.) Frodo, On the other hand (as Morth said upthread and Firefoot rightly reminds us), Frodo as we first meet him, before the Ring has a chance to work on him, has none of the Sauronic will to power in him. (Heck, he gave up most of his earthly possessions just to see Bilbo again! Doesn't get much more un-Sauronic, does it? The quotes I gave upthread, where he dominates Gollum, clearly show the influence of the Ring, I'd say.) He has no inner Sauron to overcome to begin with, and therefore can't and needn't combat exterior Evil the way Donaldson's heroes do.

I'm thinking the whole 'creativity and evil' thing might perhaps warrant its own thread, after some searching for precedence, and I still need to digest all that 'spectral' stuff near the end of your post.

Firefoot: Thanks for your perceptive comments! I don't really think Donaldson had applicability on his radar at all. Just because Middle-earth and its history don't mirror our reality in a one-to-one way doesn't mean there's no thematic connection at all - on the contrary, precisely because they don't they can be applied to a wide variety of questions, experiences and contexts, and I don't think Donaldson was so unperceptive not to see that.

But I think he was talking about the characters, not the roles. What he's saying, if I understand him right, is that the archetypal roles of the epic tradition - brave hero, just and rightful king, fair lady, wise mentor, monstrous adversaries, etc. - don't fit our social and emotional experience anymore, and if we try to see ourselves in them we're, well, roleplaying, pretending, dissociating ourselves from our reality.

And he was talking pro domo, of course, because he was writing (or had just written) the story of a modern 'real world' character who finds himself at the cusp of an epic conflict but rejects the heroic role he feels the denizens of the Land are forcing on him, and how in the end he achieves heroism after all in his personal and convoluted way, through guilt and failure. In that he wasn't as far from Tolkien as he thought - the Professor, too, gave center stage to the hobbits in LotR, stand-ins for common people, and turned the more traditionally heroic types like Aragorn and Boromir into support characters.

I love your quote from Card (another author whose works are dear to me)! Didn't Finrod speak to Andreth of that joy by which the Elves discern that they've heard truth? (At least I thought he does, but when I tried to find the quote right now it eluded me like a rabbit hiding in its burrow.) And maybe Donaldson isn't so far from that either with "Joy is in the ears that hear."

[Ivriniel]

Yes, have to agree with you about the leprosy being the overarching foundation of the 'ordinary' world theme. I think since the works were released the world's gone pretty crazy about sex offending, which elevates the perversion themes a little more, but only by societal context, for 'now versus then' and not by author intentions.

Having said that, Lord Foul and perversion were where the mythology always took us, when it was about Donaldsonian 'wrongness'. Violations of natural lore and law. Elena had some kind of creepy crack or line, or something in her mind/psychology that surfaced (Cracks of Doom notion?), I seem to recall, three times. Once in Glimmermere, once somewhere else (forget) and of course at Earthblood day and the Power of Command. And AGAIN, Donaldson in the Andelain-ian summoning of the Dead puts Elena into a horrific confrontation with a partly antiposed facet of her nature, some many thousands of years later, with She who Has No Name.

I liked Nick Succorso, who was the archetypal 'bad boi' and Morn using the zone implant on herself for Nick was, in my mind, not quite how that kind of sexual attraction works in mother nature's world. Sexualisation or sexual attraction to Succorso-ites is an anti-social grounding into sensory purpose, an artefact of human condition, yet most usually comes with great emotional pain in unions founded of perversity, ultimately. We see it a lot in medial and remodernisations of old mythologies. Buffy mythology and Spike. True Blood covered it a lot.

I also very much loved Gap Sickness. As Morn blew up her family OMG! I was hoping Donaldson was going to do more with it than he did.

I wonder, suddenly, about the 'null' areas of mind not mapped out by implications of Gap Sickness. I saw the trilogy as deeply reflecting (again spectral) segments of the social mind. The Spectral Mind could most well have been mapped out in a Gap Sickness juxtaposition. I see psychosis or some types of it implicated in some of these themes in our world. It's a condition with so many varied expressions, and each has some snippet, or feature or metaphysical element of many wondrous human mythologies. The shadow cast by Society's dualism in its demarcation of territorial hold over propriety, ideas, and its meritocracy. Deeply divisionist thinking in the Minds of Might of Men has to create Spectral Shadows in social-collective consciousness. Of course, 'real' is not where I'm taking this, at all, although, as one watches mythologies in film (e.g. Star Wars - dualism in good+sexlessness and evil+evil sex in the Sith), the lines traced by fear as one watches such mythologies (especially those with metaphysical overtones), that draws a line of 'effect' or 'direction' to one's one spectrally haunted areas. All humans seem to have them.

Here then - is my join to Frodo and Tolkien's rendering of 'metaphysical evil' and Frodo-ism. I quite agree with you about Frodo's inheritance of the Ring being very significant, and so, the Gifting, indeed, a critical difference in how the Ring ordinarily works in the Sauronic sense. I'm sure Sauron crafted it as Sméagol's claiming of it shows us. Strangely - Holbytlan folk all through. Sméagol succumbs upon finding it in the battle with Deagol. Yet, Frodo and Bilbo - some 4000 years later - the closest we got to dire battling was in Elrond's halls. And there, we certainly saw the Spectre (Spectral* Theory is one of my new areas of thinking), of Frodo's "Sauronisation".

The author placed us in Frodo's narrative, viewing Bilbo. I have never been quite convinced that what Frodo saw, did not reflect, in part, Frodo's Shadow. Shadows, as we know, via Tolkienism - it's an important theme. In its inverse, I've always never forgotten: ringwraiths and how the living "cast a shadow" in their minds.

That one's 'tricksy hobbitses'. How does a being OF Shadow (Spectral--The Spectral hue of the ghosts of the Middle-Earthian 'good', created by Sauronisation), have a SHADOW cast in its mind????

This, must mean then, for Frodo, viewing Bilbo as Frodo saw a SHADOW of Bilbo lurching in greed and avarice for the Ring--and given Frodo's recent recovery (recall his 'transparency)--it was from there forwards that.....

I never quite trusted Frodo, and I somehow knew there was something at work. He was too quick to volunteer to take the Ring to Mordor. Seriously? He what? After just recovering?

I never trusted the volunteerism from its root. Here, then, my connection to Donaldson as he says "Frodo creating Sauron"....

Footnote:
* Spectral-definition as I use it. The metaphysical dimensions [i.e. 'magic', 'spirit', 'lore', 'spirituality-KINDS'] of collective-social trends, collective beliefs, and the shadows cast by the collective religions that split the universe into --OFTEN --Good versus Evil. A Spectral 'line' or 'layer' or 'level' or 'dimension' can be 'element-ised' [FIRE WATER AIR], 'matter-ised [e.g. FLESH, CYBORG, UNDEAD, UNFLESH, ZOMBIE] if about 'living'. Or it can be matter-ised [Rock-Earth-Elements of Period Table-magic-ised, e.g. 'living stone', 'haunted geo-spiritual 'earth' foundations. Rips in 'time' created by 'new undiscovered elements'--that one's UFO-isable. The Amnion come to mind. They can also be CREATIONIST - 'Elves' 'Ea', and that draws a line to Science and the opposite of Entropy, whatever the heck that might be]. etc

Example:

The Spectral ghost of spiritual beliefs that place 'sexuality' with evil and 'asexuality' with good:

An example is Succubus and Incubus, or Lileth - which are Spectral Shadows and sexualised fears as they caste into cognition, for the Western religiosity, in particular.

[Ivriniel]

Spectral: The definition as I use it. Separate post -

The metaphysical dimensions [i.e. 'magic', 'spirit', 'lore', 'spirituality-KINDS'] of collective-social trends, collective beliefs, and the shadows cast by the collective religions that split the universe into --OFTEN --Good versus Evil. A Spectral 'line' or 'layer' or 'level' or 'dimension' can be 'element-ised' [FIRE WATER AIR], 'matter-ised [e.g. FLESH, CYBORG, UNDEAD, UNFLESH, ZOMBIE] if about 'living'. Or it can be matter-ised [Rock-Earth-Elements of Period Table-magic-ised, e.g. 'living stone', 'haunted geo-spiritual 'earth' foundations. Rips in 'time' created by 'new undiscovered elements'--that one's UFO-isable. The Amnion come to mind. They can also be CREATIONIST - 'Elves' 'Ea', and that draws a line to Science and the opposite of Entropy, whatever the heck that might be]. etc

Example on what I call a "Spectrally Misaligned" one of Western Culture (i.e. 'shadow of the collective social mind' :

The Spectral ghost of spiritual beliefs that place 'sexuality' with evil and 'asexuality' with good:

An example is Succubus and Incubus, or Lileth - which are Spectral Shadows and sexualised fears as they caste into cognition, for the Western religiosity, in particular. Those ones are Western for they conflict with ideas of 'sexual governance' and the Natural, versus Supernatural. I'm not talking about their historical rendition, or place in literature, science or fact. Theologians have a reserved term for what I've done with the definition, but heck, for the life of me I can't remember the word. It's a variation of 'exegesis' that specifically partitions what the social mind does to meaning about spiritual, popular 'terms'