Post by MajahTR on Jan 17, 2009 1:58:15 GMT -6
Glor would like to track the character development of Frodo. From his post I get the feeling that he would like to be responsible to do the posting for this. Anyone may make comments to his posts and if you feel that something has been forgotten feel free to post it yourself.
Glor told me that he would like it to be a group effort. So we will track the character development of Frodo together.
DA
I am adding this exerpt from the Pity and Compassion thread. DaleAnn asked for help in tracking Frodo's character development and Illadria mentioned that Frodo had no pity toward Gollum.
Pity 1. sorrow for another’s suffering or misfortune 2. A cause for sorrow
From Book I, Chapter II - The Shadow of the Past
"What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!" cried Frodo.
"Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity" answered Gandalf.
"I am sorry,"said Frodo. "But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum. (then he says that he can’t believe Gandalf and the Elves let Gollum live and that Gollum deserves death.)
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many—yours not least." this last comment from Gandalf.
**********
In the first paragraph spoken by Frodo, I believe the word pity is used as definition 2—he feels that it was a shame that Bilbo did not kill Gollum. Frodo does not feel pity (as in definition 1) for or toward Gollum because he has not actually come in contact with Gollum. His reaction is from hearing other’s descriptions of their encounters with Gollum and Frodo is more frightened and repelled by Gollum than sorry for him. Therefore, Frodo cannot feel pity as used in definition 2 as he states in the third paragraph above.
Stormrider
Bilbo adopted Frodo as his heir when Frodo was in his tweens (20's). Frodo's parents died in a boating accident when he was a child. Prior to his adoption, Frodo lived with his numerous relatives in BrandyHall in Buckland. His family on both sides was well-to-do
Gaffer Gamgee states in BookI Chap1 approximately 3 pages in: "Mr Frodo is as nice a young hobbit as you could wish to meet. Very much like Mr. Bilbo, and in more than looks." Later in the chapter, Bilbo spoke of Frodo: "He would come with me, of course, if I asked him. In fact he offered to once, just before the party. But he does not really want to, yet." Several paragraphs prior to this, Frodo realized that he loved Bilbo, so I believe that Frodo would have agreed to go with Bilbo out of a sense of duty rather than love. Bilbo continued, "I want to see wild country...but he is still in love with the Shire." He truly loved the countryside.
"As Master of Bag End, Frodo felt it his painful duty to say good-by to all the guests." Again, dutiful.
In the third to last paragraph in the chapter, Frodo says, "I love the Shire. But I begin to wish somehow, that I had gone, too. Frodo expresses longing quite frequently throughout the book.
DA
Frodo is good at seing the truth of the situation, from the beginning. Even though he doesn't know what lies ahead of him he understands the weight of the situation more than Sam and the other hobbits (and with good reason of course.) After he finds out about the ring, and though Gandalf doesn't say so exactly, Frodo understands that he must leave the Shire, and that it will not be "a kind of holidy" like Bilbo's adventure. Frodo is portrayed as thoughtful, insightful, especially considering how most hobbits are so focused on the doings of the Shire, its hard for them to see the bigger picture.
Fallo
In BookI Chap2, we see a "changing of the guard". The focus shifts from Bilbo to Frodo. "...he did settle down, but the growth of Hobbit sense was not very noticeable. Indeed, he at once began to carry on Bilbo's reputation for oddity." "He lived alone, as Bilbo had done; but he had a good many friends." "Frodo went tramping over the Shire with them; but more often he wandered by himself, and to the amazement of sensible folk he was sometimes seen far from home...Merry and Pippin suspected that he visited the Elves at times, as Bilbo had done."
Though he enjoyed being The Master of Bag End, as he grew older, the regret of not going with Bilbo grew. He became restless and wandered further afield.
Nearly seventeen years passed between Bilbo's disappearance and the talk Gandalf had with Frodo concerning Gollum and the powers of the Ring. Frodo was still deeply concerned over Bilbo's welfare. Stormrider discussed Frodo's lack of pity in a post above.
"I do really wish to destroy it!" cried Frodo. "Or, well, to have it destroyed. I am not made for perilous quests." I should like to save the Shire... I feel as long as the Shire lies behind, safe and comfortable, I shall find wandering more bearable....And I suppose I must go alone...But, I feel very small and uprooted, and well---desperate." ...A great desire to follow Bilbo flamed up in his heart...It was so strong that it overcame his fear.'
DA
Although Frodo knew the truth of the situation and of the hair-thick thread the free-world depended on, he was still very hasty and foolish in the western lands. Frodo had them take the "shortcut" through the Marish without much sense of direction and they were nearly caught by a black rider twice.
Later on, he would go with Sam, Merry, and Pippen into the old forest where they would decide to sleep against old man willow nearly resulting in the deaths of Merry and Pippen. Also, they had the disastrous rest in the barrow-downs which resulted in their capture by a barrow-wight. Both times they needed TB to save them or the quest could've been greatly delayed or failed.
Tuor
Tuor, Good points. I was 'hasty' to say that Frodo understands the situation, I suppose he knows the danger in his mind, but it is not a reality for him yet.
DA, Frodo does seem to grow during the time after Bilbo leaves, and before he learns about the ring, though not perhaps in ways that would be noticible to his neighbors. He is much more ready to leave the Shire than he was when Bilbo left.
Fallo
Of Rings and Premonitions
The "luck" of subconciously, Ring-assisted decisions
in Frodo's development of deeper intuition.
Tuor's point concerning the near disastrous "short cut" through the Marish has tipped my wobbly mind along a new tangent, as I always saw Frodo's choice to "wander" through the tangles and the mud -- rather than tread the known way past the "Golden Perch" -- as something quite inspired. I assumed from JRRT's statement, in Frodo's mouth: " 'Whew!' he said to Pippin. 'We were both right! The short cut has gone crooked already; but we got under cover only just in time' " that Frodo sort of "blundered" into making the right decision at the right time. They may have had two close encounters with Black Riders by entering the swampy lowlands, but I felt they had avoided a more certain confrontation-and-capture scenario by staying off the road. Here, Tuor, if I am not mistaking your point, you suggest Frodo is taking the Ring into harm's way through his blunders. I think, on a surfacial level of examination you are quite correct, Frodo has no well thought-out plan of escape, and seemingly mis-uses local knowledge of the Marish to get his small company "lost" in the boondocks!
But I am also thinking that in this incident we may already be seeing an early indication of Frodo's development along the eerie lines of the "magical." I am not sure of my argument here, and present this only as a possibility, but I think that the concept of Bilbo as being exceedingly "lucky" comes into play at this point. Bilbo seemed, in "The Hobbit," to have more than any mortal's fair share of luck, something the Wizard and Bilbo himself both comment upon in several places: " 'Perhaps I have begun to trust my luck more than I used to in the old days'..." (Bilbo, chpt 12 - "The Hobbit"). Bilbo also makes this very significant utterance a bit later while confronting Smaug: " 'I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; I am Barrel-rider'..." Here I take the emphasized phrase "I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer" to be a reference to the "luck" enhancing powers of the ring he wears. Smaug underlines Bilbo's special luckiness by scoffing at the boastful, riddling hobbit "If you get off alive, you will be lucky." Of course Bilbo DOES get off alive, because he IS extraordinarily "Lucky." But just what is the source of all this luck? At first blush I would shout "The ring!"* and if we remained only in the world of "The Hobbit," I think I would be right. But sometime between the 1937/38 publication of "The Hobbit" and the 1954 release of "The Lord of the Rings" Tolkien altered the powers, function, and meaning of Gollum's ring, making it, in this later work: The Ring.
The Ring, as we see it in FotR, still conveys invisibility, an enhanced perception of other-worldly things, and acts as a direct conduit between its wearers and the "Other Side." It is now a vastly corrupting device, a thing of definite "Evil" -- but does it still convey "luck?" No direct message from Tolkien that I have so far found, tells us how the "luck" enhancing virtues of Bilbo's ring have altered, now that it has become "The Ruling Ring." He does inform us, at some length, about the new malevolence that resides within this orb of precious gold, but the information is incomplete and unsatisfactory, and seemingly, at times, is downright contradictory.**
Gandalf tells us The Ring has a "will" of its own, it actively seeks re-union with its maker, yet it may still be twisted into assisting those who wish Sauron destroyed. So the "will" of the Ring is NOT the exact same thing as the will of Sauron, for surely if it were fully Sauron's will it could not assist others in his own destruction; and the Ring in other hands, say Gandalf's, would simply be inert. But, as a separate will (however tainted with Sauron's Evil), The Ring CAN be used as an independent source of overwhelming power -- used even to unseat its own maker, something Sauron fears exceedingly. In this regard, I see the Ring's own power and its own separate "will" as being somewhat capricious: the Ring is not a total "slave" to Sauron, and it sometimes seems to help (deliberately or not?) its current bearer, Frodo, to confound Sauron's desires. At other times The Ring, as on Weathertop, and at Amon Hen, seeks to betray Frodo, showing some continuation of its presumed, overriding allegiance to its maker. Confusing matters, indeed!***
But, however capricious The Ring may be, sometimes helping Sauron, sometimes assisting Frodo, its function as a device that conveys "luck" may still be independently active in the sense that it ties Frodo's mind, subconsciously, to the "Other Side," and allows the hobbit some subtle taste of foreknowledge. Frodo dreams of the Towers by the Sea, and of the Sea itself, are perhaps an "Other Side" premonition of the Grey Havens and the leave-taking he will one day make? Our heroic hobbit also "dreams" of an imprisoned Gandalf, and receives small glimpses of things that are, and things still yet to be. I suggest that this premonitory information may be the source of both Bilbo's "luck" and now Frodo's. The Ring allows Frodo to form "hunches" concerning future events, and thereby (subconsciously) assists him to stumble into correct and "lucky" seeming outcomes.
Bilbo was endowed with a sort of luck in "The Hobbit," stumbling into the right decisions for the wrong reasons or no apparent reason at all (why does he, "luckily" take up and secrete the Arkenstone? Is this sheer hobbit greed, or something else as well?). And now, I think Frodo, in the FotR, is displaying a similar sort of extraordinary "luck" even before he leaves the Shire. His apparent mistakes and blunders are --"luckily" -- turned into favorable outcomes: slogging their way through the Marish, saves the hobbits from direct confrontation with the Nazgul; the blundering movement through the magics of the Old Forest leads them to the dangers of Old Man Willow, BUT, "luckily," it also leads to their engagement with Tom Bombadil, and a safe haven in his house where much important advice is given. Then, through the "blunderings" of the Barrow Mound episode, the weapons that serve them well in the future are acquired, "luckily" (would Eowyn's blow have sufficed to destroy the High Nazgul, had not Merry's "enchanted" Barrow-blade not done its damage first?).
So in all these instances, Frodo "blunders" into choices that have "lucky," long term implications for the eventual success of the quest. His decision to "trust" Aragorn may have been "Ring" assisted, as was his astute offering of the Ring to Galariel wherein he is indeed "lucky" that she does reject it!**** When Frodo has Gollum in his power, he is continually given chances to secure the death of this depraved and broken creature (especially in Henneth Annum with Faramir), but "luckily" lets a "pity" he did not initially possess, save Gollum from an early death (see Stormrider's excellent treatment of the concept "pity" above and more related material at its original placement site). "Luckily" Frodo has by this point in the story, developed quite a different mindset from his original Baggin's mentality.
Now, of course, there are several other "personality altering" themes at work here that may undercut this provisional thesis concerning the power of the Ring as a "luck" making device, a power that changes Frodo's personal development ever more seriously as we approach the final end of his adventure. Several of these alternatives I'll just briefly mention here:
1. Bilbo's luck, and Frodo's, may just derive from their remarkable genetic inheritances (wish we knew more about the Old Took and his Three Remarkable daughters -- although I do not think Frodo shared their Tookish ancestry with Bilbo, being related only on the Baggins side, which argues for some early, unknown Baggins having some remarkable traits of his or her own to pass down to both Bilbo and Frodo...). In this case Frodo's perceptive decisions (trusting Aragorn in Bree; trusting Faramir with knowledge of the Ruling Ring's near presence) are simple a result of his natal character...
2. This "luck" may find its origin in some other external power than the Ring, and may be related to the nebulous statements Gandalf makes to Frodo at Bag End, concerning his wizardly belief that when Bilbo first found his ring "There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying to get back to its master... Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker!" (Gandalf to Frodo, FotR, book I, chpt 2). Lucky Bilbo! and thereafter, Lucky Frodo -- they have some guiding, presumably benevolent force steering them along the danger-strewn way toward their final success! (Is this power Iluvatar, or the Valar? The predetermined fate built into the history of Arda by the Song of the Ainur? Or is it just the friendly "editorial" hand of JRRT?)
Well, whatever the final outcome -- and it may be a dynamic interaction of Ring power, Frodo genetics, and Benevolent Guidance that make up Frodo's "luck" -- I'll continue to track Frodo's personal development into an ever more perceptive fellow (throughout the course of the LotR) in terms of this proposed power of the Ring, its power to assist the element of "luck" that seems to make the choices of the Ringbearers always turn out right.
*Of course one can always say that Bilbo's luck (and later Frodo's) is merely an artifact of the story-line. Tolkien cannot, in a "there and back again" tale, write his chief protagonist into a deadly blind end! Bilbo's "luck" is then reduced to being nothing more than Tolkien's way of getting his hero out of all the wonderful scrapes he writes him into... but I don't like that interpretation. LOL.
** I wonder if, in the rush to get the LotR published, and needing to connect The Hobbit to this "sequel," did Tolkien not have enough time to fully iron out all the wrinkles when he used the ring of Bilbo as the prime connecting element between the two works?
***In this regard, I think the Ring would prefer to find itself back on the hand of Sauron, but it will, if necessary, use even hobbit Frodo as a substitute, and trust in its own corrupting influence to eventually remake him in the very image of its former master and maker. The Ring, after all, as Gandalf states, "looks after itself."
****Does Frodo offer the Ring to the Elven Queen, subconsciously intuiting that she would, "luckily," reject it? It seems that Galadriel might have felt so, at least in her own mind, the Ringbearer is "testing her" in this scene: "Gently are you revenged for my testing of your heart at our first meeting. You begin to see with a keen eye. ...as Ringbearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise." (FotR, Book II - chpt. 7).
My understanding here, is that Galadriel recognizes the enhanced power of "premonitory perception" and "intuitive understanding" that using the Ring has given Frodo. These enhancements, when viewed from the outside, if not fully explained, would often appear to be mere "lucky" choices of decision... .
Karo6
Karo,
I love reading your musings... but I'm afraid I have to disagree on this one.
I don't have The Hobbit with me, but at the very end Gandalf makes a comment indicating that Bilbo shouldn't think that all his escapes and good luck were meant for him alone. Then there is the Gandalf quote you mentioned, about Frodo being "meant" to have the ring, and not by its maker.
Clearly both hobbits are involved in something much bigger than themselves. And there are forces at work beyond them. Whatever luck they have is because they are the ones destined for these tasks. Both have repeated opportunities to reject that destiny. If they had, I'm sure their "luck" would have ended. But when beings follow their true calling, fulfilling the purpose for which they exist, they tend to be "lucky" - things fall into place for them, and it seems that the details arrange themselves, as though they were "meant" to be. It's like finally finding the combination that opens the safe. Each tumbler falls into place with an imperceptible snick, and the handle which has stubbornly refused to move suddenly turns with ease.
Bilbo and Frodo are "lucky" because they have made the choices that have put them on the right path - they are where they truly belong.
The ring does give Frodo a heightened awareness of other ring holders - Black riders, Gandalf, Galadriel. That, of course, is no surprise. That's what it was made to do!
And you need to check your hobbit family trees. Remember that the Gaffer says that Mr. Frodo is Bilbo's first and second cousin, once removed either way. One of the Old Took's daughters was Mirabella, who married Gorbadoc Brandybuck. Their daughter Primula was Frodo's mother. So Frodo was a great-grandson of the Old Took.
Megn1
Sigh... another bubble burst? Then there is NO hope of redemption for the Bagginses? No possible genetic precursor who was anything other than "respectable"? How sad... But thank you for the genealogical note of correction, it warms my heart to know that even Frodo had something of the Took inside him! Good eye for detail, Megn!
However, the rest of your points I find more difficult to swallow, in fact some I must utterly reject -- while others I think may be easily subsumed to my thesis, as they do not impair my arguments nor my serenity in the least. LOL!!! (secret note in Moon Runes to self: This Megn1 has become a formidable free thinker, and a highly worthy debating foe. Must find some way of stopping her... hmmmm, new Dragons in town...)
Ok, down to business!
1. "Whatever luck they have is because they are the ones destined for these tasks."
2. "Both have repeated opportunities to reject that destiny."
3. "If they had, I'm sure their "luck" would have ended."
4. "Bilbo and Frodo are 'lucky' because they have made the choices that have put them on the right path - they are where they truly belong.
5. "The ring does give Frodo a heightened awareness of other ring holders - Black riders, Gandalf, Galadriel. That, of course, is no surprise. That's what it was made to do!"
Hmmmm. Statements 1 and 3 seem to form a tautology, a circular argument that leads to NO valid conclusion: Bilbo and Frodo are lucky because they are playing roles where luck will naturally attend them... er, yes, of course, so? And yes, if they step out of these roles where "luck" is an integral factor, then their "lucks" might indeed end... so? I assume the roles you refer to here are their functions as Ringbearers? If so, this tends to support my statement that the Ring is the necessary item in their respective runs of extraordinary luck. If they are NOT to be Ringbearers then the Ring is not going to be there for them as a connection between the mundane hobbit world and the "Other Side," the source of premonitory visions, dreams and "hunches," the source of their foreknowledge, which, according to my thesis, is revealed as their "luck." So here, I think we are actually in agreement, not discord.
As for your statement #2, I think here we DO really differ. In fact this seems internally inconsistent to me, but this late at night almost everything seems inconsistent, even my own existence.
First, where do you see legitimate "opportunities" occurring for a rejection of their "destinies?" If, as Gandalf tells us, the Ring looks after itself, and "its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to some one else's care..." then what voluntary opportunity for rejecting the role of Ringbearer did either Frodo or Bilbo have? With Gandalf's Maiar powers to assist him, Bilbo manages to hand the Ring over to Frodo's care, something even Gandalf admits has never happened before, a voluntary surrender of the Ring -- but this is not a rejection of his role as Ringbearer. Bilbo has already played out his "destiny" with the Ring, he does not reject his Ringbearer role, his destiny if you prefer, when he hands it to Frodo, he fulfills it! We have no way of knowing if Bilbo is able to hand it on strictly from his own sterling merits, or because Gandalf exerted "benevolent" power to help him, or even if the Ring itself realized that it must move on to someone else, as Gandalf thinks it decided when IT left Gollum.
Then, where do you see any opportunity for Frodo to rid himself of it? Perhaps, had Gandalf known more about the Ring at the time of Bilbo's farewell party, he could have told Frodo just what keeping it would entail, before possessing it had created a bond between hobbit and Ring. But by the time Frodo can learn what the Ring really is, it is too late for him to deny his "destiny" or reject the role of Ringbearer. He cannot throw the thing away, he cannot give it away, he cannot even will to harm it, and Gandalf has to toss it by slight trickery into the flames to be able to read its engraved message.
Secondly, if we are going to use the rhetoric of "destiny" -- "they are the ones destined for these tasks" -- then we run into the same problem that drove the strict, predestinational Puritans into a trap of confounding, cross-logics. If Bilbo and Frodo are "destined" to bear the Ring, then where is the freewill that would allow them to reject these "tasks"? If they MUST fulfill "the purpose for which they exist," that is bearing the Ring, then, I would argue, they never had any real opportunities for rejecting their destined roles.
Thirdly -- even if they are "destined" to be Ringbearers, this, I think, has no impact on my thesis at all. I do not care, for the purposes of my thesis, how they became Ringbearers, nor whether they had freewill available to them. What I am talking about is that once they ARE Ringbearers, they both have phenomenal runs of "luck." Events do indeed "fall into place" about them both, and I suggest the Ring mechanism as a major reason for this. So again, here I see no real incompatibility between your scenario and mine. I think here that you are offering a slight alternative to my proposal, not a countering proof.
"Bilbo and Frodo are 'lucky' because they have made the choices that have put them on the right path - they are where they truly belong." OK... if they chose to be Ringbearers, or even if they were simply forced by destiny and circumstance to assume these roles, is still a debatable point, I think -- but as I stated earlier, the Ring may still function as a focus for "luck" either way. Even if they are also being guided along by some outside, benevolent power, or are being cheated, gulled, and "led" along by the power of the Ring itself, it does not affect the efficacy of my proposal: the Ring aids their perceptive abilities, and allows them to make fortuitous decisions that turn out correct in the long run -- turn out to be "lucky" seeming choices.
Regarding #5: Yes, the Ring gives Frodo heightened awareness of the other Ringbearers, but it also heightens his awareness in general of all things, all people. Boromir does not hold a ring of power, yet Frodo early on intuits Boromir's fierce desire for the Ring, long before even Boromir understands this point. Frodo relaxes so quickly at Henneth Annun, because he "senses" Faramir can be trusted, yet Faramir has no Ring to leave his thought and mind open to the Ringbearer's examination. So I argue here, that it is not a "Ringbearer to Ringbearer" connection that is made, as I think you posit, Megn, it is a generalized "intuition" that I find at play here. Frodo, possibly because of the Ring's power, has an ability to receive valid "hunches" that he may use where he will, and with whom he will. While this does not "PROVE" my case (in fact it may be insusceptible of proof), nothing you have so far offered actually diminishes the possibility of the Ring acting in the manner I described above, acting as the source of Bilbo's and Frodo's intuition, hunches, or just plain "luck."
From what my leaky brain can judge of this situation, we still have an open debate here, no definite proofs have been established yet for either of our points of view. Right?
WHEW!!! Way to go Megn, you have forced me to extend myself further than I might have done on my own. But otherwise, I learn nothing at all. So -- THANK YOU AGAIN!
Karo6
Karo, my muddle-headed dragon, go sleep it off. Then look again at what you have written.
You have taken points I made, twisted them to say things I didn't say, and then declared that we are in agreement. Then you accuse me of being inconsistent because other things I said do not agree with your interpretation. Help me, someone! Debating with dragons is dangerous business, as our friend the burglar found out (cries go up - "against his will," "not a fair title," "working for a good end" - yes, yes, I know, but at that moment he wanted to be a burglar).
Let's return to the first three of my points, which you listed above
1. "Whatever luck they have is because they are the ones destined for these tasks."
2. "Both have repeated opportunities to reject that destiny."
3. "If they had, I'm sure their "luck" would have ended."
You say "I assume the roles you refer to here are their functions as Ringbearers?" Well, you know what they say the word "assume" means... Your assumption is incorrect.
Bilbo was destined to help the dwarves and men defeat Smaug, remove that terrible threat, and bring peace and prosperity back to that region. In addition, he was "meant" to find the ring (as Gandalf says). His luck is not arranged for him alone, nor for the ring. And it is clear that Gandalf believes it is arranged by another power, beyond the ring and its master, and greater than them. Bilbo could have rejected his destiny by not going with the dwarves, or by turning back or turning away at any number of points in his adventure. He could have not helped the dwarves escape from the spiders, or from the elves. He could have remained at Laketown, or refused to enter the door into the mountain. Most significantly, he could have hung back, rather than offering the Arkenstone to Bard. Any of those choices would have removed him from his destiny. He still would have had the ring, but he would no longer be fulfilling his purpose, and I believe his luck would have failed.
Frodo's destiny isn't just to be the ringbearer (meaning a possesser of the ring), but to be the one who would take the ring to the fire. While he had little choice about being the owner of the ring, he had repeated opportunities to reject the mission to destroy it. He could have refused to leave the Shire, or to leave Rivendell. He could have lain down and given up any number of times. He would have still had the ring, but he would no longer be fulfilling his purpose. Again, I believe his luck would have failed at that point.
(In case you haven't guessed, I believe both in destiny and free will. That fascinating conversation probably belongs elsewhere.)
Your scenario fails to explain the phenomenol luck experienced by Merry and Pippin, when separated from Frodo and the ring. In the escape from the orcs and the meeting of Treebeard there is an impressive number of details that click into place. Then there's Merry being in the right place, at the right time, with the right weapon... AND remaining unnoticed... that allowed him to strike a blow to the Chief Nazgul.
Aragorn also succeeds in making decisions which come together for him in ways it is unlikely that he could have foreseen. He did not follow the captured hobbits in hopes of joining forces with the Rohirrim.
As I said, your scenario fails to explain the luck of these non-ring bearers. Mine does. <Megn sticks out her tongue>
As to whether Frodo's intuition only reaches to other ring holders, I think your example of Boromir is a bad one. Frodo is actually slower to come to understand Boromir than Sam is. Sam sees through him almost immediately. Also, his initial reaction to Strider is wrong. And he does not trust Faramir at first, either.
I eagerly await your reply, with all respect and affection,
Megn
Drat... I am only certain at this point that we seem to be talking past one another -- my fault I think... apologies!
I like your point about the "luck" of the ringless hobbits. I think this is a perfectly valid countering-argument, perhaps even illuminating a fatal weakness in my thesis, without necessarily bolstering your's -- thank you -- I'll have to review the impact of this point very carefully.
As for the rest -- sigh, unconvinced still -- I shall persist in my "errors."
A second point I am willing to concede, concerns my desperate need of restorative sleep... *gaping YAWN here, with just a trickle of fine and wispy smoke to lend it a concealing sort of grace* Yes, time this Dragon was put to sleep!!
Karo6
NO! Don't put my favorite dragon to sleep!
Put him to bed, yes.
Good night
Megn
Only "somewhat" refreshed after a night of uneasy slumber -- recurring dreams of being jabbed and poked at by some unruly, mailclad valkyrie with a pointy sword -- it is time I returned to this field to see what may yet be salvaged. I think my major task here, as Marshal of the forces in retreat, is to merely preside over as eloquent a withdrawal as possible. I will not, however, entirely abandon this child of my thought, perhaps made doubly dear for its being so sorely handled, and I hope yet to find at least some smaller and more comfortable niche in which it may hereafter reside.
I think still valid is the basic concept that the Ring will have a major role to play in actually shaping the direction of Frodo's development as the tale progresses. Here I do not mean his reactions to the Ring, nor the fact that he has the unpleasant task of carrying the thing to some uncertain doom, but the Ring's actual impacts on his developing awarness of "Other Side Magics," including his elevated sense of intuition, the development of his own Voice of Command, and his uncanny ability to make correct decisions based on NO worldly fund of knowledge, his luck.
What, I think, Megn's arguments have forced upon me here, is a vastly scaled back understanding of this Ring Enhancement phenomenon. I earlier mentioned two other sources for the "luck" of the Ringbearers, a narrative trick employed by JRRT to keep the heroes going through one crisis to another, and another... and thirdly some genetic ability found in both Bilbo and Frodo. But now, the last of these mechanisms seems as equally inadequate as my first, for neither explain the incredible luck of the non-ring-gifted hobbits, nor the other positive-outcome members of the Fellowship -- only poor Boromir being so unlucky as to be assigned a more normal, gloomy fate.
This, for me, leaves the primary assignment of "luck" up to the book's author, something I find very boring if it is left there. Of course the writer may work wonders for his favored characters in the attempt to tell a suitably engaging tale of adventure, but I wanted a more internal mechanism, or a more consistently applied philosophical one to account for all this "luck."
Not presuming to cram foreign verbs into your mouth here, Megn, but I understand your main use of "destiny" in just this sense: it becomes the ruling philosophy, the explanatory mechanism through which the characters receive favorable outcomes, each according to his or her own fated merits. If this is how you are using the concept of "destiny" it does allow us to pretend that it is not merely Tolkien's whimsical manipulation of the book's internal reality that accounts for this "luck", but the "destined fates" that he built into the characters at the story's conception. If this is the case, I may still grumble about overly simplistic and restrictive mechanisms of character development being employed in LotR, but I do not think I could show this use of "destiny" as being invalid -- just personally unappetizing...
What would help me here, if you have the inclination and the time, is to get a fuller idea of your "destiny" concept, and the ways you see this as a personal development factor for Frodo (and others). I think I am still worried about the strait jackect that I see descending around the major characters if their actions are primarily conditioned by the predetermined playing out of their fated destinies.
And DaleAnn sez you did not transgress any regulations by calling me an "muddlehead" and I must not be so thinned-skinned or surely your pointy-sword will always penetrate my greeny hide... harumph!
Thank you very much Megn, it is a pleasure (of a grumbling, grudging sort) to be bested by you. It does keep me on my toes, er talons, er...Û
Karo6
Megn and Karo,
Thank you both for your thoughtful and thought provoking argument here. This is a lot to think about. We all benefit from your disputes. Hmmmm. If either of you have more thoughts on the idea of destiny here I look forward to hearing them, I'm not sure what I think about this as an overarching mechanism.
But Karo, I have to say, I hope you are wrong about "the Ring still having a major role to play in shaping the direction of Frodo's development" If this is the case, then my take on Frodo is totally off. And its so difficult to have to completely re-envision these things (in other words its hard to find I might be wrong) Not only would this wreck havoc on my current ideas about the Frodo, but also my understanding of the Ring.
Now, of course I do think that the Ring changes Frodo, shapes his development in a major way, but strictly in the sense you warned you did not mean, Karo6, Frodo's reaction to it. It is in his reaction to the Ring, as I see it, that Frodo finds these remarkable qualities of intuition, decision making and authority.
hmmmm, I'm afraid things are not so neatly divided "good" and "evil" as I was thinking in this story. If you are at all right Karo, the Ring has to be more ambiguos than I have been used to making it to be. Drat!
Fallo
Fallohide,
It's good to know that Karo6 and I haven't driven everyone else away from this thread. Interesting theory! Could it be that Frodo develops his abilities through his internal fight against the ring? Like a pearl that forms around an irritant in an oyster? Because of the burden of being the ringbearer, he is forced into a situation that causes him to grow in ways he never would have before. Ore in the furnace, with the impurities burning away...
I am very intrigued by the possibility of the ring being a morally neutral entity. In fact, I think it must be. Perhaps it simply confers power on the wearer - of whatever level is appropriate for the possessor. We know that power corrupts, so it would naturally tend (over time) to have a corrupting influence on whomever wore it. The ring itself need not have any tendency towards evil. It will be the inevitable consequence of bestowing power on a person that the person will become evil.
As I think about it, it seems that the ring is a metaphor for power, of all forms. (Not talking allegory here) Power is addicting, and when it is unchecked it is destructive. Both qualities are true of the ring, as well.
Karo,
First, for what it's worth, both Merry and Pippin have Took blood in them. So if the luck is genetic, they could have it as well. Seems unlikely, or at least dissatisfying, but there it is.
I think you are right that the ring confers some power on Frodo, and over time he learns to use it. Your example of the Voice of Command is a good one. Especially when Frodo deals with Gollum. He is clearly using the ring to command Gollum. And it does give him an intuitive understanding, at least of those who hold the other rings. He perhaps even has an advantage over Galadriel, in their dealings, because he holds the ruling ring. (I'm not yet convinced that Frodo has extraordinary intuition of others.) The ring gives Frodo a heightened awareness of the Enemy, even to the point of knowing a little of Sauron's mind. Can't remember the citation, but doesn't he know that Sauron is uneasy when he and Sam are in Mordor? So Frodo definitely derives some power from the ring.
Still thinking about destiny. That will be the next post...
As for "muddle-headed," I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Megn1
The ring itself need not have any tendency towards evil. It will be the inevitable consequence of bestowing power on a person that the person will become evil.
Like Megn, I am intrigued by the idea of the ring as a neutral entity. However, doesn't it say somewhere in the books, that Sauran poured all his malice, ill-will, and desire to dominate into the ring when he made it? Or is that something the movie added? Will one of our scholars help me out with this?
Sparrow
Excellent, Sparrow! A quest! This will require thorough investigation.
As a start, in "Shadow of the Past" Gandalf says
"The Enemy still lacks one thing to give him strength and knowledge to beat down all resistance, break the last defences, and cover all the lands in a second darkness. He lacks the One Ring."
So it gives strength and knowledge, both of which are morally neutral qualities.
Also Gandalf says, in the same chapter,
"He only needs the One; for he made that Ring himself, it is his, and he let a great part of his own former power pass into it, so that he could rule all the others."
Power, but not malice or ill-will.
Can anyone find the reference that Sparrow is thinking of? Is the Ring evil?
Megn1
Megn 1,
Yes, I do think Frodos development hinges on an internal struggle against being in a sense possesed by the ring. Through time his resistance changes him. Your examples were right on in illustrating what I meant. Thanks for describing that. Though, like I say, I'm less certain if this is true or not now.
But, though I'm starting to believe that the ring is not perhaps purely evil, I don't think it is a neutral entity. It seems to be mostly evil. Yes power in itself corrupts, can have a corrupting influence, but there seems to be someting more here, the ring desires this corruption to happen. And, if it were neutral, why would it be so dangerous for someone like Gandalf or Galadriel to take it then? They seem to be able to use power wisely. But perhaps it would be just too much power for them as well? Also, does the ring have a will of its own?
Sparrow, at Council of Elrond, (sorry, I know were not there yet) Gandalf does say the ring is "fraught with malice"
Anyway, this is not a very corherent post. Even though I think the ring is mostly evil, I don't think that this means the theme of "power corrupts" is any less present in the books.
Fallo
You're right, Fallohide, there are those like Galadriel and Gandalf (and Elrond) who all weild power safely. Perhaps the corrupting influence of power kicks in when one has power beyond ones natural abiltity to manage.
Looking at that list of powerful folks, I realize I listed the holders of the three elf rings. Those rings confer power, but do not corrupt.
Hmmm. Need to think about this some more.
megn1
I think that since the Three were untouched by Sauron, and his malice, they allowed Elrond, Galadriel and Cirdan(later, Gandalf) to wield them without corruption. The power of these rings seems to me to lie in preserving and continuing, rather than in conquering and destroying (like the One Ring).
Hilary
Interesting Hilary! You make me think that we should perhaps differenciate between these two kinds of power. Power of domination over another, and power that does not seek to control anyone.
Megn1, the more I think about this, it seems that the ring "works" so well from a literary point of view because it does ring true with our experiance of the effect too much power can have on people. This is at least equally important to the story as the idea the ring is an evil entity. I believe you are more right about this than I originally thought.
A word on Fodo. I hate to see all his powers of intuition "taken away" form him and attributed to the ring for this reason: the powerful, "good" figures in LotR seem to exhibit this gift of intuition. I am thinking of Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Aragorn, Faramir etc. Since Megn 1 is tracking prophesy and predictions, I should get a better idea if this is the case or not.
Anyway, I have always thought that this intuition was some special sign of the character's being inwardly intuned to kind of the 'spirit' world, because of their moral goodness. You see how different it would make things, if Frodo gets his powers from a ring which I am thinking of as evil. The place where this argument really doesn't hold up though, as far as I can tell, is in regards to what Karo called Frodos "voice of authority". Because here he does use the ring, as has been pointed out. Alright, disregard this if it doesnt make much sense. Just thinking out loud, er..that is, on paper sort of.
Fallo
Wow, lots of new and very interesting stuff here! Just some quick points:
1. I think, the Ring, in Tolkien's LotR (NOT in the original Hobbit) is "Evil," evil according to Tolkien's own perception of Evil. Whether or not we accept Tolkien's idea of Evil, or wish to quibble with it, the Ring does not seem to function as a neutral power source. It has, by itself, the ability to alter those who wear it, and alter them in specific ways so that eventually they will become ever more like Sauron himself.
It is very informative that Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond all speak of the Ring as having this "corrupting power" that whosoever takes it up, will BECOME another Sauron, no matter how strong, or "good-willed" they are at first. In this sense, I see the Ring as being independent of Sauron. Sauron may actually be "destroyed" and the Ring will remain. Here, acting much like a virus, the Ring will then highjack the personality of whoever uses it to destroy Sauron, and will in a real sense ressurect The Dark Lord, by taking over its host's body and mind, re-making that individual into another Sauron.
2. Concerning the Three Rings, I agree with Hilary that they were designed to "preserve" all things unstained, and were not supposed to function as weapons of war or domination. But here I see a nasty trap that the Elves blundered into that makes the Three Elven rings just as much a source of corruption as the Ruling Ring itself. Celebrimbor created the rings as focussing devices that would allow the Elves to break the laws of Arda. All of these rings are, therefore "illegal" devices of domination, which, in the case of the Three, serve the overweening egotism of the High Elves. The destiny of Arda had already been sung, and according to that destiny the Elves were to dominate Middle-earth as the Children of Iluvatar, until the coming of the Second Born, Men. After the coming of Men the Elves were to gradually relinquish their domination to Men, and withdraw to the Immortal Lands, where their long lives were in balance with the slower pace of change that was in effect there.
But, some of the Elves (Feanor's selfish kin!) wanted to maintain an illegal independence from the Valar, wanted to over-extend their domination of Middle-earth. From this corrupting desire, they sought some artifical, "un-fated" means of thwarting the will of Eru, some way to stay in Middle-earth and not face the processes of the fading. The Elven Rings allowed this illegal extention of Elven domination through the Second Age and the Third, but provoked a counter-measure -- Sauron and the Ruling Ring.
The Wars of the Rings, Second Age and Third, were simply the means by which the corrupting egotism and power seeking attitudes of the Elves might be corrected, and the normal flow of time be re-established in Middle-earth. As many of the Wise reflected later, it would have been better had no rings ever been made, as all were corruptions of the fated destiny of Arda, and doomed to failure anyway.
So here Megn1 and I would be in respectful disagreement again: "Looking at that list of powerful folks, I realize I listed the holders of the three elf rings. Those rings confer power, but do not corrupt." OH YEAH! I think the Three are VERY corrupting indeed! LOL! A "softer, kinder" sort of domination the Three Elven Rings might produce than that devised by Sauron, but still their creation was an attempt to go against the natural order of Arda -- an action that results in a corruption of destiny just as deep as Sauron's, and just as needful of "divine" correction.
One might even argue that the long, brutal history of the Wars of the Rings was actually caused by this Elvish corruption. The fact that their rings were first created to serve this selfish, Elven interest that then required repairs through the agency of Sauron and his Ring, should amply demonstrate the subtle corrupting influences that all attempts at domination and subversion of destiny in Arda will entail. It seems that EVIL in Tolkien's mind always revolves about the free-will, conscious decisions made by Ainur, Valar, Elves, Men and all other entities, decisions to egotistically subvert the will of Eru. I think we are being overly simplistic to merely assume that only the "recognized" forces of evil are capable of such corrupting betrayals of Eru's will.
Karo6
Many golden nuggets of insight on this thread, so I may as well throw my pebble in and hope for a ripple. Frodo held the ring for many long years while doing nothing more significant with it then hiding from those dreadful Sackville-Bagginses. During that time, there was no apparent eviling of his nature, however it can also be argued that was do to his lack of information regarding it's nature. When he did learn what was really in his possession, it was done by Gandalf, a beloved friend who explained the evil it was capable of producing if it reached the hand of it's master. His immediate reaction was terror and fear for the Shire and his friends.
I think the intuition he exhibits is merely wise musings of someone who has lived too closely with terror and fears, and has had to do much soul searching and decision making based on his love for his friends, his lands, and finally the whole of the world. Living and dealing with these issues for so long would either break a weaker man, or impart a genuine wisdom and authority. Luckily for all, Frodo did not break until the very last moment when he stood at the cracks of the worlds doom.
Yes, I think the ring is inherently evil, but it's corruptive influence is slower to gain power over good beings of strong will and morals. I think as Karo said, the three Elven rings are also tainted, but not entirely evil, since Sauron never touched them, expecting to overpower and ensnare them with his one ring. Also the Elves weilding them were of good nature and resisted the enemy, even though as Galadriel put it, "I know what you last saw, for that is also in my mind."
While the Elven rings seem to have been made to enhance and protect, the one rings's sole purpose was to dominate. The wise knew this, and though many were tempted, they resisted. Which is why they hid the rings when they learned of Sauron's real purpose. I ramble, not really knowing where I am going with this, but perhaps it may spark a ripple or two for someone else.
Glor
Here is a textual reference on the making of the ring:
"ecretly Sauron made One Ring to rule all the others, and their power was bound up with it, to be subject wholly to it and to last only so long as it too should last. And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency; and Sauron forged it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow."
Silmarillion, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age
The words and phrases I have bolded indicate to me the ring is evil.
Sparrow
Groan, yes back again...
Points regarding "relative evils" in an absolutist novel: When murder is committed by people we like, are we morally permitted to ignore the deed, while we fling ourselves wholeheartedly into the persecution of just those murders we already dislike?
There seems to be a decided trend to whitewash the Elven character in our discussions, three times now, at least on this thread, the statement has been presented that the Elven Rings of Power, work "good," serve to preserve and protect not dominate. The corollary to this statement is that the EVIL nature of Sauron's Ruling Ring is to be found in the motive of its manufacturing, it was made to dominate, to subordinate and control the wills of others, to establish a dominating power for Sauron. I am trying to convey with more urgency and emphasis than the TR situation really warrants, the concept that the Elven Rings should be regarded as EVIL in precisely the same way that we view the One because the Three Rings (and all the others) were made as instruments of DOMINATION. I'll try here to make this point with quotations from Tolkien's own thoughts on this matter.
In his letters, JRRT himself was quite explicit in seeing ALL of the rings as being tools created to allow the domination of others. There may be a difference here, as I think Glor suggests, in the "amount" of domination intended, but if one approaches this situation from the "absolute values" POV, domination is domination, just as murder is murder. That Tolkien saw it in this light (given his fundamentalist, absolutist RC background) is no surprise. He even marks the creation of the Rings as the Second Fall of the Elves, the First being the Noldoran revolt in Valinor over the issue of the Silmarils, and the Elves' perception that the Valar were trying to dominate the Eldar ( see pp 147 - 148, Letters for the First Elven Fall; and pp 151 - 152 for the creation of the Elven Rings as their Second Fall).
"There was nothing wrong essentially in their [the Elves] lingering [in Middle-earth] against counsel [the counsel of the Valar] ... But they wanted to have their cake without eating it. They wanted the peace and bliss and perfect memory of 'The West' [Aman], and yet remain on the ordinary earth [Middle-earth] where their prestige as the highest people, above Wild Elves, dwarves, and Men, was greater than at the bottom of the hierarchy of Valinor. They thus became obsessed with 'fading', the mode in which the changes of time (the law of the world under the sun) was perceived by them. They became sad, and their art (shall we say) antiquarian, and their efforts all really a kind of embalming ..." (Letters, # 131, p. 151, my emphasis).
So all of the fine Elvish talk concerning the uses of THEIR rings to "preserve" is seen by JRRT as really nothing more than the attempt to "embalm" Middle-earth, halting the natural laws of historical change. Change, as has often been observed, is a fundamental quality of LIFE -- its absence is (just as "embalming" implies) a form of DEATH. In other words, by attempting to dominate the will of Eru, attempting to maintain their place of privilege and power (as the "highest" of people in Middle-earth long after it was time for them to relinquish that domination to Men) the Elves were willing (some of them) to KILL Middle-earth. In this sense the "SIN" of the Noldoran Mirdain, is exactly the same as that of Sauron: both are acts of egotism, both are attempts to dominate others, to alter the course of time and history to suit their own desires. The Elves of Eregion excused their making of the rings by convincing themselves that the power of these devices would allow them to make "Western Middle-earth as beautiful as Valinor. It was really a veiled attack on the gods... (Letters, #131, p. 152). By making the rings, the Noldoran Exiles were contravening the entire concept of Middle-earth as a MORTAL realm, they were denying Mankind its period of domination, they were perverting the entire fate of the world. And by making their rings they also gave ring technology to Sauron who used it to make his own Ruling Ring, a device, that increased his original power tremendously, and nearly gave him complete control over Middle-earth. There is, I then reiterate, NOTHING good about the making of ANY of the rings of power.
Karo6
Obviously there is no disputing the words straight out of Tolkien's Letters. But, even accepting the making of the Elven rings as a veiled attempt at subverting the will of the Valar, where was the deliberate overt evil? What muderous carnage was done by the weilders of the ring? Karo states murder is still murder. Of course it is, but who was murdered, pray tell? At least in the cannon of LotR, I can find no direct violence perpertrated by the holders of the three rings.
Of course at the time of the WOR, the holders were Elrond, Galadriel, and Círdan(and he gave it to Gandalf). Perhaps there was some mischief someone can cite that happened in the first or second age of ME, that I am not aware of. I invite Karo or anyone else to help me understand this better.
Thanks,
Glor
My, my, my, such a dissertation I have not read since the "Huan debate" of the Silmarillion. Wonderful insights and arguments on all fronts, and Sparrow very key insights into the nature of the Ring, But......and I must apologize for skipping ahead, for to the key to solving this riddle is yet unknown to us at this point in the tale. The big Ring debate key which proves out both a bit of Karo's theory and a bit of Megn's theory is to be found in the chapter "The mirror of Galadriel" page 381.
"Did not Gandalf tell you the ring(s) give power to the meassure of each possesor?"
(Galadriel explaining to Frodo why he should not attempt to master the Ring.) This of course is also touch upon when the tale of the Rings history is being unfolded to us in the begining. Golum's possession began with murder, and he became a masterful killer with the help of the Ring while he lived below Goblin Town. Bilbos possesion began with pity, and "luck" so he became a masterfully "lucky" and sympathetic "Treasure Hunter". The Ring is more of an amplifier of ones self, not a giver of new gifts. Not to say the Ring isn't evil though, but the power of the Ring is slow to work on indivduals who come to possess it without use of violence or greed. However proxemity to it's creator, place of creation, or Ring Wraiths seems to be a factor in increasing it's evil influence. So that brings us to Frodos possession, which began with responsibility. He had just become master of Bagend, he just inhereited the Ring! I felt Frodo was always more insightful than jolly old Bilbo, and the Ring inhanced these virtues of responsibilty/duty and insight/foresight.
Now with regards to "luck" I see all Hobbits as having more than their share, we're talking about an entire race of people that the DarkLord compelety missed. That's lucky! Thanks for the great insights though I would have never remebered these passages if I hadn't read through all of your post.
Namárië,
Iarwain
Glor told me that he would like it to be a group effort. So we will track the character development of Frodo together.
DA
I am adding this exerpt from the Pity and Compassion thread. DaleAnn asked for help in tracking Frodo's character development and Illadria mentioned that Frodo had no pity toward Gollum.
Pity 1. sorrow for another’s suffering or misfortune 2. A cause for sorrow
From Book I, Chapter II - The Shadow of the Past
"What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!" cried Frodo.
"Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity" answered Gandalf.
"I am sorry,"said Frodo. "But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum. (then he says that he can’t believe Gandalf and the Elves let Gollum live and that Gollum deserves death.)
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many—yours not least." this last comment from Gandalf.
**********
In the first paragraph spoken by Frodo, I believe the word pity is used as definition 2—he feels that it was a shame that Bilbo did not kill Gollum. Frodo does not feel pity (as in definition 1) for or toward Gollum because he has not actually come in contact with Gollum. His reaction is from hearing other’s descriptions of their encounters with Gollum and Frodo is more frightened and repelled by Gollum than sorry for him. Therefore, Frodo cannot feel pity as used in definition 2 as he states in the third paragraph above.
Stormrider
Bilbo adopted Frodo as his heir when Frodo was in his tweens (20's). Frodo's parents died in a boating accident when he was a child. Prior to his adoption, Frodo lived with his numerous relatives in BrandyHall in Buckland. His family on both sides was well-to-do
Gaffer Gamgee states in BookI Chap1 approximately 3 pages in: "Mr Frodo is as nice a young hobbit as you could wish to meet. Very much like Mr. Bilbo, and in more than looks." Later in the chapter, Bilbo spoke of Frodo: "He would come with me, of course, if I asked him. In fact he offered to once, just before the party. But he does not really want to, yet." Several paragraphs prior to this, Frodo realized that he loved Bilbo, so I believe that Frodo would have agreed to go with Bilbo out of a sense of duty rather than love. Bilbo continued, "I want to see wild country...but he is still in love with the Shire." He truly loved the countryside.
"As Master of Bag End, Frodo felt it his painful duty to say good-by to all the guests." Again, dutiful.
In the third to last paragraph in the chapter, Frodo says, "I love the Shire. But I begin to wish somehow, that I had gone, too. Frodo expresses longing quite frequently throughout the book.
DA
Frodo is good at seing the truth of the situation, from the beginning. Even though he doesn't know what lies ahead of him he understands the weight of the situation more than Sam and the other hobbits (and with good reason of course.) After he finds out about the ring, and though Gandalf doesn't say so exactly, Frodo understands that he must leave the Shire, and that it will not be "a kind of holidy" like Bilbo's adventure. Frodo is portrayed as thoughtful, insightful, especially considering how most hobbits are so focused on the doings of the Shire, its hard for them to see the bigger picture.
Fallo
In BookI Chap2, we see a "changing of the guard". The focus shifts from Bilbo to Frodo. "...he did settle down, but the growth of Hobbit sense was not very noticeable. Indeed, he at once began to carry on Bilbo's reputation for oddity." "He lived alone, as Bilbo had done; but he had a good many friends." "Frodo went tramping over the Shire with them; but more often he wandered by himself, and to the amazement of sensible folk he was sometimes seen far from home...Merry and Pippin suspected that he visited the Elves at times, as Bilbo had done."
Though he enjoyed being The Master of Bag End, as he grew older, the regret of not going with Bilbo grew. He became restless and wandered further afield.
Nearly seventeen years passed between Bilbo's disappearance and the talk Gandalf had with Frodo concerning Gollum and the powers of the Ring. Frodo was still deeply concerned over Bilbo's welfare. Stormrider discussed Frodo's lack of pity in a post above.
"I do really wish to destroy it!" cried Frodo. "Or, well, to have it destroyed. I am not made for perilous quests." I should like to save the Shire... I feel as long as the Shire lies behind, safe and comfortable, I shall find wandering more bearable....And I suppose I must go alone...But, I feel very small and uprooted, and well---desperate." ...A great desire to follow Bilbo flamed up in his heart...It was so strong that it overcame his fear.'
DA
Although Frodo knew the truth of the situation and of the hair-thick thread the free-world depended on, he was still very hasty and foolish in the western lands. Frodo had them take the "shortcut" through the Marish without much sense of direction and they were nearly caught by a black rider twice.
Later on, he would go with Sam, Merry, and Pippen into the old forest where they would decide to sleep against old man willow nearly resulting in the deaths of Merry and Pippen. Also, they had the disastrous rest in the barrow-downs which resulted in their capture by a barrow-wight. Both times they needed TB to save them or the quest could've been greatly delayed or failed.
Tuor
Tuor, Good points. I was 'hasty' to say that Frodo understands the situation, I suppose he knows the danger in his mind, but it is not a reality for him yet.
DA, Frodo does seem to grow during the time after Bilbo leaves, and before he learns about the ring, though not perhaps in ways that would be noticible to his neighbors. He is much more ready to leave the Shire than he was when Bilbo left.
Fallo
Of Rings and Premonitions
The "luck" of subconciously, Ring-assisted decisions
in Frodo's development of deeper intuition.
Tuor's point concerning the near disastrous "short cut" through the Marish has tipped my wobbly mind along a new tangent, as I always saw Frodo's choice to "wander" through the tangles and the mud -- rather than tread the known way past the "Golden Perch" -- as something quite inspired. I assumed from JRRT's statement, in Frodo's mouth: " 'Whew!' he said to Pippin. 'We were both right! The short cut has gone crooked already; but we got under cover only just in time' " that Frodo sort of "blundered" into making the right decision at the right time. They may have had two close encounters with Black Riders by entering the swampy lowlands, but I felt they had avoided a more certain confrontation-and-capture scenario by staying off the road. Here, Tuor, if I am not mistaking your point, you suggest Frodo is taking the Ring into harm's way through his blunders. I think, on a surfacial level of examination you are quite correct, Frodo has no well thought-out plan of escape, and seemingly mis-uses local knowledge of the Marish to get his small company "lost" in the boondocks!
But I am also thinking that in this incident we may already be seeing an early indication of Frodo's development along the eerie lines of the "magical." I am not sure of my argument here, and present this only as a possibility, but I think that the concept of Bilbo as being exceedingly "lucky" comes into play at this point. Bilbo seemed, in "The Hobbit," to have more than any mortal's fair share of luck, something the Wizard and Bilbo himself both comment upon in several places: " 'Perhaps I have begun to trust my luck more than I used to in the old days'..." (Bilbo, chpt 12 - "The Hobbit"). Bilbo also makes this very significant utterance a bit later while confronting Smaug: " 'I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; I am Barrel-rider'..." Here I take the emphasized phrase "I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer" to be a reference to the "luck" enhancing powers of the ring he wears. Smaug underlines Bilbo's special luckiness by scoffing at the boastful, riddling hobbit "If you get off alive, you will be lucky." Of course Bilbo DOES get off alive, because he IS extraordinarily "Lucky." But just what is the source of all this luck? At first blush I would shout "The ring!"* and if we remained only in the world of "The Hobbit," I think I would be right. But sometime between the 1937/38 publication of "The Hobbit" and the 1954 release of "The Lord of the Rings" Tolkien altered the powers, function, and meaning of Gollum's ring, making it, in this later work: The Ring.
The Ring, as we see it in FotR, still conveys invisibility, an enhanced perception of other-worldly things, and acts as a direct conduit between its wearers and the "Other Side." It is now a vastly corrupting device, a thing of definite "Evil" -- but does it still convey "luck?" No direct message from Tolkien that I have so far found, tells us how the "luck" enhancing virtues of Bilbo's ring have altered, now that it has become "The Ruling Ring." He does inform us, at some length, about the new malevolence that resides within this orb of precious gold, but the information is incomplete and unsatisfactory, and seemingly, at times, is downright contradictory.**
Gandalf tells us The Ring has a "will" of its own, it actively seeks re-union with its maker, yet it may still be twisted into assisting those who wish Sauron destroyed. So the "will" of the Ring is NOT the exact same thing as the will of Sauron, for surely if it were fully Sauron's will it could not assist others in his own destruction; and the Ring in other hands, say Gandalf's, would simply be inert. But, as a separate will (however tainted with Sauron's Evil), The Ring CAN be used as an independent source of overwhelming power -- used even to unseat its own maker, something Sauron fears exceedingly. In this regard, I see the Ring's own power and its own separate "will" as being somewhat capricious: the Ring is not a total "slave" to Sauron, and it sometimes seems to help (deliberately or not?) its current bearer, Frodo, to confound Sauron's desires. At other times The Ring, as on Weathertop, and at Amon Hen, seeks to betray Frodo, showing some continuation of its presumed, overriding allegiance to its maker. Confusing matters, indeed!***
But, however capricious The Ring may be, sometimes helping Sauron, sometimes assisting Frodo, its function as a device that conveys "luck" may still be independently active in the sense that it ties Frodo's mind, subconsciously, to the "Other Side," and allows the hobbit some subtle taste of foreknowledge. Frodo dreams of the Towers by the Sea, and of the Sea itself, are perhaps an "Other Side" premonition of the Grey Havens and the leave-taking he will one day make? Our heroic hobbit also "dreams" of an imprisoned Gandalf, and receives small glimpses of things that are, and things still yet to be. I suggest that this premonitory information may be the source of both Bilbo's "luck" and now Frodo's. The Ring allows Frodo to form "hunches" concerning future events, and thereby (subconsciously) assists him to stumble into correct and "lucky" seeming outcomes.
Bilbo was endowed with a sort of luck in "The Hobbit," stumbling into the right decisions for the wrong reasons or no apparent reason at all (why does he, "luckily" take up and secrete the Arkenstone? Is this sheer hobbit greed, or something else as well?). And now, I think Frodo, in the FotR, is displaying a similar sort of extraordinary "luck" even before he leaves the Shire. His apparent mistakes and blunders are --"luckily" -- turned into favorable outcomes: slogging their way through the Marish, saves the hobbits from direct confrontation with the Nazgul; the blundering movement through the magics of the Old Forest leads them to the dangers of Old Man Willow, BUT, "luckily," it also leads to their engagement with Tom Bombadil, and a safe haven in his house where much important advice is given. Then, through the "blunderings" of the Barrow Mound episode, the weapons that serve them well in the future are acquired, "luckily" (would Eowyn's blow have sufficed to destroy the High Nazgul, had not Merry's "enchanted" Barrow-blade not done its damage first?).
So in all these instances, Frodo "blunders" into choices that have "lucky," long term implications for the eventual success of the quest. His decision to "trust" Aragorn may have been "Ring" assisted, as was his astute offering of the Ring to Galariel wherein he is indeed "lucky" that she does reject it!**** When Frodo has Gollum in his power, he is continually given chances to secure the death of this depraved and broken creature (especially in Henneth Annum with Faramir), but "luckily" lets a "pity" he did not initially possess, save Gollum from an early death (see Stormrider's excellent treatment of the concept "pity" above and more related material at its original placement site). "Luckily" Frodo has by this point in the story, developed quite a different mindset from his original Baggin's mentality.
Now, of course, there are several other "personality altering" themes at work here that may undercut this provisional thesis concerning the power of the Ring as a "luck" making device, a power that changes Frodo's personal development ever more seriously as we approach the final end of his adventure. Several of these alternatives I'll just briefly mention here:
1. Bilbo's luck, and Frodo's, may just derive from their remarkable genetic inheritances (wish we knew more about the Old Took and his Three Remarkable daughters -- although I do not think Frodo shared their Tookish ancestry with Bilbo, being related only on the Baggins side, which argues for some early, unknown Baggins having some remarkable traits of his or her own to pass down to both Bilbo and Frodo...). In this case Frodo's perceptive decisions (trusting Aragorn in Bree; trusting Faramir with knowledge of the Ruling Ring's near presence) are simple a result of his natal character...
2. This "luck" may find its origin in some other external power than the Ring, and may be related to the nebulous statements Gandalf makes to Frodo at Bag End, concerning his wizardly belief that when Bilbo first found his ring "There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying to get back to its master... Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker!" (Gandalf to Frodo, FotR, book I, chpt 2). Lucky Bilbo! and thereafter, Lucky Frodo -- they have some guiding, presumably benevolent force steering them along the danger-strewn way toward their final success! (Is this power Iluvatar, or the Valar? The predetermined fate built into the history of Arda by the Song of the Ainur? Or is it just the friendly "editorial" hand of JRRT?)
Well, whatever the final outcome -- and it may be a dynamic interaction of Ring power, Frodo genetics, and Benevolent Guidance that make up Frodo's "luck" -- I'll continue to track Frodo's personal development into an ever more perceptive fellow (throughout the course of the LotR) in terms of this proposed power of the Ring, its power to assist the element of "luck" that seems to make the choices of the Ringbearers always turn out right.
*Of course one can always say that Bilbo's luck (and later Frodo's) is merely an artifact of the story-line. Tolkien cannot, in a "there and back again" tale, write his chief protagonist into a deadly blind end! Bilbo's "luck" is then reduced to being nothing more than Tolkien's way of getting his hero out of all the wonderful scrapes he writes him into... but I don't like that interpretation. LOL.
** I wonder if, in the rush to get the LotR published, and needing to connect The Hobbit to this "sequel," did Tolkien not have enough time to fully iron out all the wrinkles when he used the ring of Bilbo as the prime connecting element between the two works?
***In this regard, I think the Ring would prefer to find itself back on the hand of Sauron, but it will, if necessary, use even hobbit Frodo as a substitute, and trust in its own corrupting influence to eventually remake him in the very image of its former master and maker. The Ring, after all, as Gandalf states, "looks after itself."
****Does Frodo offer the Ring to the Elven Queen, subconsciously intuiting that she would, "luckily," reject it? It seems that Galadriel might have felt so, at least in her own mind, the Ringbearer is "testing her" in this scene: "Gently are you revenged for my testing of your heart at our first meeting. You begin to see with a keen eye. ...as Ringbearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise." (FotR, Book II - chpt. 7).
My understanding here, is that Galadriel recognizes the enhanced power of "premonitory perception" and "intuitive understanding" that using the Ring has given Frodo. These enhancements, when viewed from the outside, if not fully explained, would often appear to be mere "lucky" choices of decision... .
Karo6
Karo,
I love reading your musings... but I'm afraid I have to disagree on this one.
I don't have The Hobbit with me, but at the very end Gandalf makes a comment indicating that Bilbo shouldn't think that all his escapes and good luck were meant for him alone. Then there is the Gandalf quote you mentioned, about Frodo being "meant" to have the ring, and not by its maker.
Clearly both hobbits are involved in something much bigger than themselves. And there are forces at work beyond them. Whatever luck they have is because they are the ones destined for these tasks. Both have repeated opportunities to reject that destiny. If they had, I'm sure their "luck" would have ended. But when beings follow their true calling, fulfilling the purpose for which they exist, they tend to be "lucky" - things fall into place for them, and it seems that the details arrange themselves, as though they were "meant" to be. It's like finally finding the combination that opens the safe. Each tumbler falls into place with an imperceptible snick, and the handle which has stubbornly refused to move suddenly turns with ease.
Bilbo and Frodo are "lucky" because they have made the choices that have put them on the right path - they are where they truly belong.
The ring does give Frodo a heightened awareness of other ring holders - Black riders, Gandalf, Galadriel. That, of course, is no surprise. That's what it was made to do!
And you need to check your hobbit family trees. Remember that the Gaffer says that Mr. Frodo is Bilbo's first and second cousin, once removed either way. One of the Old Took's daughters was Mirabella, who married Gorbadoc Brandybuck. Their daughter Primula was Frodo's mother. So Frodo was a great-grandson of the Old Took.
Megn1
Sigh... another bubble burst? Then there is NO hope of redemption for the Bagginses? No possible genetic precursor who was anything other than "respectable"? How sad... But thank you for the genealogical note of correction, it warms my heart to know that even Frodo had something of the Took inside him! Good eye for detail, Megn!
However, the rest of your points I find more difficult to swallow, in fact some I must utterly reject -- while others I think may be easily subsumed to my thesis, as they do not impair my arguments nor my serenity in the least. LOL!!! (secret note in Moon Runes to self: This Megn1 has become a formidable free thinker, and a highly worthy debating foe. Must find some way of stopping her... hmmmm, new Dragons in town...)
Ok, down to business!
1. "Whatever luck they have is because they are the ones destined for these tasks."
2. "Both have repeated opportunities to reject that destiny."
3. "If they had, I'm sure their "luck" would have ended."
4. "Bilbo and Frodo are 'lucky' because they have made the choices that have put them on the right path - they are where they truly belong.
5. "The ring does give Frodo a heightened awareness of other ring holders - Black riders, Gandalf, Galadriel. That, of course, is no surprise. That's what it was made to do!"
Hmmmm. Statements 1 and 3 seem to form a tautology, a circular argument that leads to NO valid conclusion: Bilbo and Frodo are lucky because they are playing roles where luck will naturally attend them... er, yes, of course, so? And yes, if they step out of these roles where "luck" is an integral factor, then their "lucks" might indeed end... so? I assume the roles you refer to here are their functions as Ringbearers? If so, this tends to support my statement that the Ring is the necessary item in their respective runs of extraordinary luck. If they are NOT to be Ringbearers then the Ring is not going to be there for them as a connection between the mundane hobbit world and the "Other Side," the source of premonitory visions, dreams and "hunches," the source of their foreknowledge, which, according to my thesis, is revealed as their "luck." So here, I think we are actually in agreement, not discord.
As for your statement #2, I think here we DO really differ. In fact this seems internally inconsistent to me, but this late at night almost everything seems inconsistent, even my own existence.
First, where do you see legitimate "opportunities" occurring for a rejection of their "destinies?" If, as Gandalf tells us, the Ring looks after itself, and "its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to some one else's care..." then what voluntary opportunity for rejecting the role of Ringbearer did either Frodo or Bilbo have? With Gandalf's Maiar powers to assist him, Bilbo manages to hand the Ring over to Frodo's care, something even Gandalf admits has never happened before, a voluntary surrender of the Ring -- but this is not a rejection of his role as Ringbearer. Bilbo has already played out his "destiny" with the Ring, he does not reject his Ringbearer role, his destiny if you prefer, when he hands it to Frodo, he fulfills it! We have no way of knowing if Bilbo is able to hand it on strictly from his own sterling merits, or because Gandalf exerted "benevolent" power to help him, or even if the Ring itself realized that it must move on to someone else, as Gandalf thinks it decided when IT left Gollum.
Then, where do you see any opportunity for Frodo to rid himself of it? Perhaps, had Gandalf known more about the Ring at the time of Bilbo's farewell party, he could have told Frodo just what keeping it would entail, before possessing it had created a bond between hobbit and Ring. But by the time Frodo can learn what the Ring really is, it is too late for him to deny his "destiny" or reject the role of Ringbearer. He cannot throw the thing away, he cannot give it away, he cannot even will to harm it, and Gandalf has to toss it by slight trickery into the flames to be able to read its engraved message.
Secondly, if we are going to use the rhetoric of "destiny" -- "they are the ones destined for these tasks" -- then we run into the same problem that drove the strict, predestinational Puritans into a trap of confounding, cross-logics. If Bilbo and Frodo are "destined" to bear the Ring, then where is the freewill that would allow them to reject these "tasks"? If they MUST fulfill "the purpose for which they exist," that is bearing the Ring, then, I would argue, they never had any real opportunities for rejecting their destined roles.
Thirdly -- even if they are "destined" to be Ringbearers, this, I think, has no impact on my thesis at all. I do not care, for the purposes of my thesis, how they became Ringbearers, nor whether they had freewill available to them. What I am talking about is that once they ARE Ringbearers, they both have phenomenal runs of "luck." Events do indeed "fall into place" about them both, and I suggest the Ring mechanism as a major reason for this. So again, here I see no real incompatibility between your scenario and mine. I think here that you are offering a slight alternative to my proposal, not a countering proof.
"Bilbo and Frodo are 'lucky' because they have made the choices that have put them on the right path - they are where they truly belong." OK... if they chose to be Ringbearers, or even if they were simply forced by destiny and circumstance to assume these roles, is still a debatable point, I think -- but as I stated earlier, the Ring may still function as a focus for "luck" either way. Even if they are also being guided along by some outside, benevolent power, or are being cheated, gulled, and "led" along by the power of the Ring itself, it does not affect the efficacy of my proposal: the Ring aids their perceptive abilities, and allows them to make fortuitous decisions that turn out correct in the long run -- turn out to be "lucky" seeming choices.
Regarding #5: Yes, the Ring gives Frodo heightened awareness of the other Ringbearers, but it also heightens his awareness in general of all things, all people. Boromir does not hold a ring of power, yet Frodo early on intuits Boromir's fierce desire for the Ring, long before even Boromir understands this point. Frodo relaxes so quickly at Henneth Annun, because he "senses" Faramir can be trusted, yet Faramir has no Ring to leave his thought and mind open to the Ringbearer's examination. So I argue here, that it is not a "Ringbearer to Ringbearer" connection that is made, as I think you posit, Megn, it is a generalized "intuition" that I find at play here. Frodo, possibly because of the Ring's power, has an ability to receive valid "hunches" that he may use where he will, and with whom he will. While this does not "PROVE" my case (in fact it may be insusceptible of proof), nothing you have so far offered actually diminishes the possibility of the Ring acting in the manner I described above, acting as the source of Bilbo's and Frodo's intuition, hunches, or just plain "luck."
From what my leaky brain can judge of this situation, we still have an open debate here, no definite proofs have been established yet for either of our points of view. Right?
WHEW!!! Way to go Megn, you have forced me to extend myself further than I might have done on my own. But otherwise, I learn nothing at all. So -- THANK YOU AGAIN!
Karo6
Karo, my muddle-headed dragon, go sleep it off. Then look again at what you have written.
You have taken points I made, twisted them to say things I didn't say, and then declared that we are in agreement. Then you accuse me of being inconsistent because other things I said do not agree with your interpretation. Help me, someone! Debating with dragons is dangerous business, as our friend the burglar found out (cries go up - "against his will," "not a fair title," "working for a good end" - yes, yes, I know, but at that moment he wanted to be a burglar).
Let's return to the first three of my points, which you listed above
1. "Whatever luck they have is because they are the ones destined for these tasks."
2. "Both have repeated opportunities to reject that destiny."
3. "If they had, I'm sure their "luck" would have ended."
You say "I assume the roles you refer to here are their functions as Ringbearers?" Well, you know what they say the word "assume" means... Your assumption is incorrect.
Bilbo was destined to help the dwarves and men defeat Smaug, remove that terrible threat, and bring peace and prosperity back to that region. In addition, he was "meant" to find the ring (as Gandalf says). His luck is not arranged for him alone, nor for the ring. And it is clear that Gandalf believes it is arranged by another power, beyond the ring and its master, and greater than them. Bilbo could have rejected his destiny by not going with the dwarves, or by turning back or turning away at any number of points in his adventure. He could have not helped the dwarves escape from the spiders, or from the elves. He could have remained at Laketown, or refused to enter the door into the mountain. Most significantly, he could have hung back, rather than offering the Arkenstone to Bard. Any of those choices would have removed him from his destiny. He still would have had the ring, but he would no longer be fulfilling his purpose, and I believe his luck would have failed.
Frodo's destiny isn't just to be the ringbearer (meaning a possesser of the ring), but to be the one who would take the ring to the fire. While he had little choice about being the owner of the ring, he had repeated opportunities to reject the mission to destroy it. He could have refused to leave the Shire, or to leave Rivendell. He could have lain down and given up any number of times. He would have still had the ring, but he would no longer be fulfilling his purpose. Again, I believe his luck would have failed at that point.
(In case you haven't guessed, I believe both in destiny and free will. That fascinating conversation probably belongs elsewhere.)
Your scenario fails to explain the phenomenol luck experienced by Merry and Pippin, when separated from Frodo and the ring. In the escape from the orcs and the meeting of Treebeard there is an impressive number of details that click into place. Then there's Merry being in the right place, at the right time, with the right weapon... AND remaining unnoticed... that allowed him to strike a blow to the Chief Nazgul.
Aragorn also succeeds in making decisions which come together for him in ways it is unlikely that he could have foreseen. He did not follow the captured hobbits in hopes of joining forces with the Rohirrim.
As I said, your scenario fails to explain the luck of these non-ring bearers. Mine does. <Megn sticks out her tongue>
As to whether Frodo's intuition only reaches to other ring holders, I think your example of Boromir is a bad one. Frodo is actually slower to come to understand Boromir than Sam is. Sam sees through him almost immediately. Also, his initial reaction to Strider is wrong. And he does not trust Faramir at first, either.
I eagerly await your reply, with all respect and affection,
Megn
Drat... I am only certain at this point that we seem to be talking past one another -- my fault I think... apologies!
I like your point about the "luck" of the ringless hobbits. I think this is a perfectly valid countering-argument, perhaps even illuminating a fatal weakness in my thesis, without necessarily bolstering your's -- thank you -- I'll have to review the impact of this point very carefully.
As for the rest -- sigh, unconvinced still -- I shall persist in my "errors."
A second point I am willing to concede, concerns my desperate need of restorative sleep... *gaping YAWN here, with just a trickle of fine and wispy smoke to lend it a concealing sort of grace* Yes, time this Dragon was put to sleep!!
Karo6
NO! Don't put my favorite dragon to sleep!
Put him to bed, yes.
Good night
Megn
Only "somewhat" refreshed after a night of uneasy slumber -- recurring dreams of being jabbed and poked at by some unruly, mailclad valkyrie with a pointy sword -- it is time I returned to this field to see what may yet be salvaged. I think my major task here, as Marshal of the forces in retreat, is to merely preside over as eloquent a withdrawal as possible. I will not, however, entirely abandon this child of my thought, perhaps made doubly dear for its being so sorely handled, and I hope yet to find at least some smaller and more comfortable niche in which it may hereafter reside.
I think still valid is the basic concept that the Ring will have a major role to play in actually shaping the direction of Frodo's development as the tale progresses. Here I do not mean his reactions to the Ring, nor the fact that he has the unpleasant task of carrying the thing to some uncertain doom, but the Ring's actual impacts on his developing awarness of "Other Side Magics," including his elevated sense of intuition, the development of his own Voice of Command, and his uncanny ability to make correct decisions based on NO worldly fund of knowledge, his luck.
What, I think, Megn's arguments have forced upon me here, is a vastly scaled back understanding of this Ring Enhancement phenomenon. I earlier mentioned two other sources for the "luck" of the Ringbearers, a narrative trick employed by JRRT to keep the heroes going through one crisis to another, and another... and thirdly some genetic ability found in both Bilbo and Frodo. But now, the last of these mechanisms seems as equally inadequate as my first, for neither explain the incredible luck of the non-ring-gifted hobbits, nor the other positive-outcome members of the Fellowship -- only poor Boromir being so unlucky as to be assigned a more normal, gloomy fate.
This, for me, leaves the primary assignment of "luck" up to the book's author, something I find very boring if it is left there. Of course the writer may work wonders for his favored characters in the attempt to tell a suitably engaging tale of adventure, but I wanted a more internal mechanism, or a more consistently applied philosophical one to account for all this "luck."
Not presuming to cram foreign verbs into your mouth here, Megn, but I understand your main use of "destiny" in just this sense: it becomes the ruling philosophy, the explanatory mechanism through which the characters receive favorable outcomes, each according to his or her own fated merits. If this is how you are using the concept of "destiny" it does allow us to pretend that it is not merely Tolkien's whimsical manipulation of the book's internal reality that accounts for this "luck", but the "destined fates" that he built into the characters at the story's conception. If this is the case, I may still grumble about overly simplistic and restrictive mechanisms of character development being employed in LotR, but I do not think I could show this use of "destiny" as being invalid -- just personally unappetizing...
What would help me here, if you have the inclination and the time, is to get a fuller idea of your "destiny" concept, and the ways you see this as a personal development factor for Frodo (and others). I think I am still worried about the strait jackect that I see descending around the major characters if their actions are primarily conditioned by the predetermined playing out of their fated destinies.
And DaleAnn sez you did not transgress any regulations by calling me an "muddlehead" and I must not be so thinned-skinned or surely your pointy-sword will always penetrate my greeny hide... harumph!
Thank you very much Megn, it is a pleasure (of a grumbling, grudging sort) to be bested by you. It does keep me on my toes, er talons, er...Û
Karo6
Megn and Karo,
Thank you both for your thoughtful and thought provoking argument here. This is a lot to think about. We all benefit from your disputes. Hmmmm. If either of you have more thoughts on the idea of destiny here I look forward to hearing them, I'm not sure what I think about this as an overarching mechanism.
But Karo, I have to say, I hope you are wrong about "the Ring still having a major role to play in shaping the direction of Frodo's development" If this is the case, then my take on Frodo is totally off. And its so difficult to have to completely re-envision these things (in other words its hard to find I might be wrong) Not only would this wreck havoc on my current ideas about the Frodo, but also my understanding of the Ring.
Now, of course I do think that the Ring changes Frodo, shapes his development in a major way, but strictly in the sense you warned you did not mean, Karo6, Frodo's reaction to it. It is in his reaction to the Ring, as I see it, that Frodo finds these remarkable qualities of intuition, decision making and authority.
hmmmm, I'm afraid things are not so neatly divided "good" and "evil" as I was thinking in this story. If you are at all right Karo, the Ring has to be more ambiguos than I have been used to making it to be. Drat!
Fallo
Fallohide,
It's good to know that Karo6 and I haven't driven everyone else away from this thread. Interesting theory! Could it be that Frodo develops his abilities through his internal fight against the ring? Like a pearl that forms around an irritant in an oyster? Because of the burden of being the ringbearer, he is forced into a situation that causes him to grow in ways he never would have before. Ore in the furnace, with the impurities burning away...
I am very intrigued by the possibility of the ring being a morally neutral entity. In fact, I think it must be. Perhaps it simply confers power on the wearer - of whatever level is appropriate for the possessor. We know that power corrupts, so it would naturally tend (over time) to have a corrupting influence on whomever wore it. The ring itself need not have any tendency towards evil. It will be the inevitable consequence of bestowing power on a person that the person will become evil.
As I think about it, it seems that the ring is a metaphor for power, of all forms. (Not talking allegory here) Power is addicting, and when it is unchecked it is destructive. Both qualities are true of the ring, as well.
Karo,
First, for what it's worth, both Merry and Pippin have Took blood in them. So if the luck is genetic, they could have it as well. Seems unlikely, or at least dissatisfying, but there it is.
I think you are right that the ring confers some power on Frodo, and over time he learns to use it. Your example of the Voice of Command is a good one. Especially when Frodo deals with Gollum. He is clearly using the ring to command Gollum. And it does give him an intuitive understanding, at least of those who hold the other rings. He perhaps even has an advantage over Galadriel, in their dealings, because he holds the ruling ring. (I'm not yet convinced that Frodo has extraordinary intuition of others.) The ring gives Frodo a heightened awareness of the Enemy, even to the point of knowing a little of Sauron's mind. Can't remember the citation, but doesn't he know that Sauron is uneasy when he and Sam are in Mordor? So Frodo definitely derives some power from the ring.
Still thinking about destiny. That will be the next post...
As for "muddle-headed," I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Megn1
The ring itself need not have any tendency towards evil. It will be the inevitable consequence of bestowing power on a person that the person will become evil.
Like Megn, I am intrigued by the idea of the ring as a neutral entity. However, doesn't it say somewhere in the books, that Sauran poured all his malice, ill-will, and desire to dominate into the ring when he made it? Or is that something the movie added? Will one of our scholars help me out with this?
Sparrow
Excellent, Sparrow! A quest! This will require thorough investigation.
As a start, in "Shadow of the Past" Gandalf says
"The Enemy still lacks one thing to give him strength and knowledge to beat down all resistance, break the last defences, and cover all the lands in a second darkness. He lacks the One Ring."
So it gives strength and knowledge, both of which are morally neutral qualities.
Also Gandalf says, in the same chapter,
"He only needs the One; for he made that Ring himself, it is his, and he let a great part of his own former power pass into it, so that he could rule all the others."
Power, but not malice or ill-will.
Can anyone find the reference that Sparrow is thinking of? Is the Ring evil?
Megn1
Megn 1,
Yes, I do think Frodos development hinges on an internal struggle against being in a sense possesed by the ring. Through time his resistance changes him. Your examples were right on in illustrating what I meant. Thanks for describing that. Though, like I say, I'm less certain if this is true or not now.
But, though I'm starting to believe that the ring is not perhaps purely evil, I don't think it is a neutral entity. It seems to be mostly evil. Yes power in itself corrupts, can have a corrupting influence, but there seems to be someting more here, the ring desires this corruption to happen. And, if it were neutral, why would it be so dangerous for someone like Gandalf or Galadriel to take it then? They seem to be able to use power wisely. But perhaps it would be just too much power for them as well? Also, does the ring have a will of its own?
Sparrow, at Council of Elrond, (sorry, I know were not there yet) Gandalf does say the ring is "fraught with malice"
Anyway, this is not a very corherent post. Even though I think the ring is mostly evil, I don't think that this means the theme of "power corrupts" is any less present in the books.
Fallo
You're right, Fallohide, there are those like Galadriel and Gandalf (and Elrond) who all weild power safely. Perhaps the corrupting influence of power kicks in when one has power beyond ones natural abiltity to manage.
Looking at that list of powerful folks, I realize I listed the holders of the three elf rings. Those rings confer power, but do not corrupt.
Hmmm. Need to think about this some more.
megn1
I think that since the Three were untouched by Sauron, and his malice, they allowed Elrond, Galadriel and Cirdan(later, Gandalf) to wield them without corruption. The power of these rings seems to me to lie in preserving and continuing, rather than in conquering and destroying (like the One Ring).
Hilary
Interesting Hilary! You make me think that we should perhaps differenciate between these two kinds of power. Power of domination over another, and power that does not seek to control anyone.
Megn1, the more I think about this, it seems that the ring "works" so well from a literary point of view because it does ring true with our experiance of the effect too much power can have on people. This is at least equally important to the story as the idea the ring is an evil entity. I believe you are more right about this than I originally thought.
A word on Fodo. I hate to see all his powers of intuition "taken away" form him and attributed to the ring for this reason: the powerful, "good" figures in LotR seem to exhibit this gift of intuition. I am thinking of Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Aragorn, Faramir etc. Since Megn 1 is tracking prophesy and predictions, I should get a better idea if this is the case or not.
Anyway, I have always thought that this intuition was some special sign of the character's being inwardly intuned to kind of the 'spirit' world, because of their moral goodness. You see how different it would make things, if Frodo gets his powers from a ring which I am thinking of as evil. The place where this argument really doesn't hold up though, as far as I can tell, is in regards to what Karo called Frodos "voice of authority". Because here he does use the ring, as has been pointed out. Alright, disregard this if it doesnt make much sense. Just thinking out loud, er..that is, on paper sort of.
Fallo
Wow, lots of new and very interesting stuff here! Just some quick points:
1. I think, the Ring, in Tolkien's LotR (NOT in the original Hobbit) is "Evil," evil according to Tolkien's own perception of Evil. Whether or not we accept Tolkien's idea of Evil, or wish to quibble with it, the Ring does not seem to function as a neutral power source. It has, by itself, the ability to alter those who wear it, and alter them in specific ways so that eventually they will become ever more like Sauron himself.
It is very informative that Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond all speak of the Ring as having this "corrupting power" that whosoever takes it up, will BECOME another Sauron, no matter how strong, or "good-willed" they are at first. In this sense, I see the Ring as being independent of Sauron. Sauron may actually be "destroyed" and the Ring will remain. Here, acting much like a virus, the Ring will then highjack the personality of whoever uses it to destroy Sauron, and will in a real sense ressurect The Dark Lord, by taking over its host's body and mind, re-making that individual into another Sauron.
2. Concerning the Three Rings, I agree with Hilary that they were designed to "preserve" all things unstained, and were not supposed to function as weapons of war or domination. But here I see a nasty trap that the Elves blundered into that makes the Three Elven rings just as much a source of corruption as the Ruling Ring itself. Celebrimbor created the rings as focussing devices that would allow the Elves to break the laws of Arda. All of these rings are, therefore "illegal" devices of domination, which, in the case of the Three, serve the overweening egotism of the High Elves. The destiny of Arda had already been sung, and according to that destiny the Elves were to dominate Middle-earth as the Children of Iluvatar, until the coming of the Second Born, Men. After the coming of Men the Elves were to gradually relinquish their domination to Men, and withdraw to the Immortal Lands, where their long lives were in balance with the slower pace of change that was in effect there.
But, some of the Elves (Feanor's selfish kin!) wanted to maintain an illegal independence from the Valar, wanted to over-extend their domination of Middle-earth. From this corrupting desire, they sought some artifical, "un-fated" means of thwarting the will of Eru, some way to stay in Middle-earth and not face the processes of the fading. The Elven Rings allowed this illegal extention of Elven domination through the Second Age and the Third, but provoked a counter-measure -- Sauron and the Ruling Ring.
The Wars of the Rings, Second Age and Third, were simply the means by which the corrupting egotism and power seeking attitudes of the Elves might be corrected, and the normal flow of time be re-established in Middle-earth. As many of the Wise reflected later, it would have been better had no rings ever been made, as all were corruptions of the fated destiny of Arda, and doomed to failure anyway.
So here Megn1 and I would be in respectful disagreement again: "Looking at that list of powerful folks, I realize I listed the holders of the three elf rings. Those rings confer power, but do not corrupt." OH YEAH! I think the Three are VERY corrupting indeed! LOL! A "softer, kinder" sort of domination the Three Elven Rings might produce than that devised by Sauron, but still their creation was an attempt to go against the natural order of Arda -- an action that results in a corruption of destiny just as deep as Sauron's, and just as needful of "divine" correction.
One might even argue that the long, brutal history of the Wars of the Rings was actually caused by this Elvish corruption. The fact that their rings were first created to serve this selfish, Elven interest that then required repairs through the agency of Sauron and his Ring, should amply demonstrate the subtle corrupting influences that all attempts at domination and subversion of destiny in Arda will entail. It seems that EVIL in Tolkien's mind always revolves about the free-will, conscious decisions made by Ainur, Valar, Elves, Men and all other entities, decisions to egotistically subvert the will of Eru. I think we are being overly simplistic to merely assume that only the "recognized" forces of evil are capable of such corrupting betrayals of Eru's will.
Karo6
Many golden nuggets of insight on this thread, so I may as well throw my pebble in and hope for a ripple. Frodo held the ring for many long years while doing nothing more significant with it then hiding from those dreadful Sackville-Bagginses. During that time, there was no apparent eviling of his nature, however it can also be argued that was do to his lack of information regarding it's nature. When he did learn what was really in his possession, it was done by Gandalf, a beloved friend who explained the evil it was capable of producing if it reached the hand of it's master. His immediate reaction was terror and fear for the Shire and his friends.
I think the intuition he exhibits is merely wise musings of someone who has lived too closely with terror and fears, and has had to do much soul searching and decision making based on his love for his friends, his lands, and finally the whole of the world. Living and dealing with these issues for so long would either break a weaker man, or impart a genuine wisdom and authority. Luckily for all, Frodo did not break until the very last moment when he stood at the cracks of the worlds doom.
Yes, I think the ring is inherently evil, but it's corruptive influence is slower to gain power over good beings of strong will and morals. I think as Karo said, the three Elven rings are also tainted, but not entirely evil, since Sauron never touched them, expecting to overpower and ensnare them with his one ring. Also the Elves weilding them were of good nature and resisted the enemy, even though as Galadriel put it, "I know what you last saw, for that is also in my mind."
While the Elven rings seem to have been made to enhance and protect, the one rings's sole purpose was to dominate. The wise knew this, and though many were tempted, they resisted. Which is why they hid the rings when they learned of Sauron's real purpose. I ramble, not really knowing where I am going with this, but perhaps it may spark a ripple or two for someone else.
Glor
Here is a textual reference on the making of the ring:
"
Silmarillion, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age
The words and phrases I have bolded indicate to me the ring is evil.
Sparrow
Groan, yes back again...
Points regarding "relative evils" in an absolutist novel: When murder is committed by people we like, are we morally permitted to ignore the deed, while we fling ourselves wholeheartedly into the persecution of just those murders we already dislike?
There seems to be a decided trend to whitewash the Elven character in our discussions, three times now, at least on this thread, the statement has been presented that the Elven Rings of Power, work "good," serve to preserve and protect not dominate. The corollary to this statement is that the EVIL nature of Sauron's Ruling Ring is to be found in the motive of its manufacturing, it was made to dominate, to subordinate and control the wills of others, to establish a dominating power for Sauron. I am trying to convey with more urgency and emphasis than the TR situation really warrants, the concept that the Elven Rings should be regarded as EVIL in precisely the same way that we view the One because the Three Rings (and all the others) were made as instruments of DOMINATION. I'll try here to make this point with quotations from Tolkien's own thoughts on this matter.
In his letters, JRRT himself was quite explicit in seeing ALL of the rings as being tools created to allow the domination of others. There may be a difference here, as I think Glor suggests, in the "amount" of domination intended, but if one approaches this situation from the "absolute values" POV, domination is domination, just as murder is murder. That Tolkien saw it in this light (given his fundamentalist, absolutist RC background) is no surprise. He even marks the creation of the Rings as the Second Fall of the Elves, the First being the Noldoran revolt in Valinor over the issue of the Silmarils, and the Elves' perception that the Valar were trying to dominate the Eldar ( see pp 147 - 148, Letters for the First Elven Fall; and pp 151 - 152 for the creation of the Elven Rings as their Second Fall).
"There was nothing wrong essentially in their [the Elves] lingering [in Middle-earth] against counsel [the counsel of the Valar] ... But they wanted to have their cake without eating it. They wanted the peace and bliss and perfect memory of 'The West' [Aman], and yet remain on the ordinary earth [Middle-earth] where their prestige as the highest people, above Wild Elves, dwarves, and Men, was greater than at the bottom of the hierarchy of Valinor. They thus became obsessed with 'fading', the mode in which the changes of time (the law of the world under the sun) was perceived by them. They became sad, and their art (shall we say) antiquarian, and their efforts all really a kind of embalming ..." (Letters, # 131, p. 151, my emphasis).
So all of the fine Elvish talk concerning the uses of THEIR rings to "preserve" is seen by JRRT as really nothing more than the attempt to "embalm" Middle-earth, halting the natural laws of historical change. Change, as has often been observed, is a fundamental quality of LIFE -- its absence is (just as "embalming" implies) a form of DEATH. In other words, by attempting to dominate the will of Eru, attempting to maintain their place of privilege and power (as the "highest" of people in Middle-earth long after it was time for them to relinquish that domination to Men) the Elves were willing (some of them) to KILL Middle-earth. In this sense the "SIN" of the Noldoran Mirdain, is exactly the same as that of Sauron: both are acts of egotism, both are attempts to dominate others, to alter the course of time and history to suit their own desires. The Elves of Eregion excused their making of the rings by convincing themselves that the power of these devices would allow them to make "Western Middle-earth as beautiful as Valinor. It was really a veiled attack on the gods... (Letters, #131, p. 152). By making the rings, the Noldoran Exiles were contravening the entire concept of Middle-earth as a MORTAL realm, they were denying Mankind its period of domination, they were perverting the entire fate of the world. And by making their rings they also gave ring technology to Sauron who used it to make his own Ruling Ring, a device, that increased his original power tremendously, and nearly gave him complete control over Middle-earth. There is, I then reiterate, NOTHING good about the making of ANY of the rings of power.
Karo6
Obviously there is no disputing the words straight out of Tolkien's Letters. But, even accepting the making of the Elven rings as a veiled attempt at subverting the will of the Valar, where was the deliberate overt evil? What muderous carnage was done by the weilders of the ring? Karo states murder is still murder. Of course it is, but who was murdered, pray tell? At least in the cannon of LotR, I can find no direct violence perpertrated by the holders of the three rings.
Of course at the time of the WOR, the holders were Elrond, Galadriel, and Círdan(and he gave it to Gandalf). Perhaps there was some mischief someone can cite that happened in the first or second age of ME, that I am not aware of. I invite Karo or anyone else to help me understand this better.
Thanks,
Glor
My, my, my, such a dissertation I have not read since the "Huan debate" of the Silmarillion. Wonderful insights and arguments on all fronts, and Sparrow very key insights into the nature of the Ring, But......and I must apologize for skipping ahead, for to the key to solving this riddle is yet unknown to us at this point in the tale. The big Ring debate key which proves out both a bit of Karo's theory and a bit of Megn's theory is to be found in the chapter "The mirror of Galadriel" page 381.
"Did not Gandalf tell you the ring(s) give power to the meassure of each possesor?"
(Galadriel explaining to Frodo why he should not attempt to master the Ring.) This of course is also touch upon when the tale of the Rings history is being unfolded to us in the begining. Golum's possession began with murder, and he became a masterful killer with the help of the Ring while he lived below Goblin Town. Bilbos possesion began with pity, and "luck" so he became a masterfully "lucky" and sympathetic "Treasure Hunter". The Ring is more of an amplifier of ones self, not a giver of new gifts. Not to say the Ring isn't evil though, but the power of the Ring is slow to work on indivduals who come to possess it without use of violence or greed. However proxemity to it's creator, place of creation, or Ring Wraiths seems to be a factor in increasing it's evil influence. So that brings us to Frodos possession, which began with responsibility. He had just become master of Bagend, he just inhereited the Ring! I felt Frodo was always more insightful than jolly old Bilbo, and the Ring inhanced these virtues of responsibilty/duty and insight/foresight.
Now with regards to "luck" I see all Hobbits as having more than their share, we're talking about an entire race of people that the DarkLord compelety missed. That's lucky! Thanks for the great insights though I would have never remebered these passages if I hadn't read through all of your post.
Namárië,
Iarwain