LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 02 - The Shadow of the Past [Archive]

Guinevere

06-28-2004, 06:04 AM

Just a detail which struck me already in the first chapter, and in the beginning of chapter 2 again, is that Bilbo and Frodo's friends are all much younger.
about Bilbo :But he had no close friends, until some of his younger cousins began to grow up. The eldest of these, and Bilbo's favourite, was young Frodo Baggins Frodo is in fact 78 years younger than Bilbo !
About Frodo:
He lived alone, as Bilbo had done: but he had a great many friends, especially among the younger hobbits (mostly descendants of the old Took) who had as children been fond of Bilbo and often in and out of Bag End. (.....)
Frodo went tramping all over the Shire with them
I realized just recently that Pippin was only 11 years old at the time of Bilbo's party!! (one tends to forget that when one has movie-Pippin in one's mind... )
I've looked at the genealogies:
Pippin is 22 years younger than Frodo, Merry 14 and Fatty 12 years younger, and Sam either 12 or 15 years younger.

Now why is that so ? Perhaps because the grown up hobbits were too staid, too narrowminded and had no imagination left ? I guess it was only the children that still had a sense for wonder who listened to Bilbo's tales with relish, and appreciated and admired him.
Frodo too chose his companions for "tramping around the Shire" among the adolescent hobbits. Probably they were more openminded, still more adventurous and lively than the grown-ups. When I read the conversation in the "Green Dragon" and Ted Sandymans' "No nonsense" attitude., I don't wonder.

"Ah," said Ted, "(....)But I can hear fireside-tales and children's stories at home, if I want to."
"No doubt you can," retorted Sam,"and I daresay there's more truth in some of them than you reckon. Who invented the stories anyway? Take dragons now."
This statement relates to the conversation but I think it is one of the timeless truths one finds all over the books. Anyhow, it reminds me of what Tolkien wrote in "On Fairy-stories" .

Kuruharan

06-28-2004, 06:39 AM

I wonder what Gandalf expected Frodo to do. Gandalf said that he hardly expected that Frodo would volunteer to take the Ring and leave the Shire. Was he planning to persuade Frodo to do so or did he have something else in mind?

Orofaniel

06-28-2004, 06:48 AM

In this chapter, the story takes a crucial turn - the true nature of the Ring is revealed, along with its history, and Frodo's adventures begin.
For me, The Shadow of the Past is where the book really begins. I've always thought of it as the beginning of a great plot. The chapter itself has a great title, don't you think? Some way, the readers just know something exciting is about to come. It's an adventure that we are going to have a minor part in. (Only as a reader though – unfortuantly ;))

Guinevere- I too, find that quite fascinating. :rolleyes:

He lived alone, as Bilbo had done: but he had a great many friends, especially among the younger hobbits (mostly descendants of the old Took) who had as children been fond of Bilbo and often in and out of Bag End. (.....)
I think this quote says a whole lot about why Bilbo was attached to younger Hobbits. First of all, the younger Hobbits liked him, I think: More or less because Bilbo probably was the one Hobbit who actually was a "bit adventures", if you see my point; he old stories about his days where he had gone on his own adventures and paths, which were very exciting for the young Hobbit lads and lasses.

Just as you stated;
I guess it was only the children that still had a sense for wonder who listened to Bilbo's tales with relish, and appreciated and admired him.
I definitely think that is the main thing. I also think that Bilbo saw his "equal" in the children somehow; they were just as adventures as him. (Or at least I am of that opinion.)

Cheers,
Orofaniel

The Saucepan Man

06-28-2004, 08:09 AM

Having been a perennial latecomer so far, I thought that I would get my thoughts in early this time round.

In this chapter, the story takes a crucial turn - the true nature of the Ring is revealed, along with its history … (Estelyn Telcontar)Indeed. Readers who have read the Foreword will already have had it highlighted for them that this is a crucial chapter. The dark tone that underpinned the otherwise light-hearted opening chapter becomes more prevalent as Gandalf reveals the history of the Ring to Frodo (much of which he has only learned himself in the intervening years). Indeed, the only “light-hearted” moments are those which involve Sam, first in The Green Dragon and subsequently when his “eavesdropping” is discovered. (I will return to the development of Sam’s character in this chapter at the end of this post.)

Gandalf’s exposition of history of Ring builds on what we learned of it in the previous chapter, making explicit what was only implicit there (concerning its preserving qualities and corruptive power). Tolkien uses Frodo in this chapter to ask all of the questions which occur to us as readers:

“I still don’t understand what this has to do with Bilbo, myself, and our ring.”

“This ring!” he stammered, “How, how on earth did it come to me?”

“O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do?”

“But why not destroy it, as you say should have been done long ago?”

“You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?”So, having led the reader to identify with Hobbits in general in the Prologue and the preceding chapter, Tolkien here puts us in the (metaphorical) shoes of Frodo, our central character, who, like Bilbo, is portrayed as “different” from your average Hobbit.

Frodo’s questions and comments, and Gandalf’s replies to them, also touch upon issues which go the very heart of the story. For example:

“I am not made for perilous quests. I wish I had never seen the Ring! Why did it come to me? Why was I chosen?

“Such questions cannot be answered,” said Gandalf. “You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom, at any rate. But you have been chosen and you must therefore use such strength and heart and wits that you have.”And

“What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!”

“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.”

“I am sorry,” said Frodo. “But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.”

…

“Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He 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 so eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the 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 for ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least.”Contrast Frodo’s attitude here with his approach to Gollum when they finally meet (which is informed by Gandalf’s wise words here) and the pity which he displays to Saruman in The Scouring of the Shire. Gandalf’s words, of course, also foreshadow the role that Gollum ultimately plays with regard to the fate of the Ring, which would not have been possible without Bilbo’s (and Frodo’s) pity.

I like the way that, as this chapter unfolds, we come to regard the Ring as another character in the story. Gandalf’s words give it a persona. He tells Frodo (and us):

“A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it.”This is the most obvious reference, but almost every reference to the Ring portrays it as something which has its own will and its own agenda (to get back to its master). Interestingly in this regard, it became apparent to me as I searched for quotes to post above that it starts out the chapter being referred to as the ring but that, as we (and Frodo) learn more about it, it becomes the Ring, ie with the first letter capitalised as if it were the name of a character (which, of course, it is).

For me, however, the key passage in this chapter comes when Gandalf suggests that Frodo himself tries to do away with the Ring:

Frodo drew the Ring out of his pocket again and looked at it. It now appeared plain and smooth, without mark or device that he could see. The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its colour, how perfect its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious. When he took it out he had intended to fling it from him into the very hottest part of the fire. But he found that he could not now do so, not without great struggle. He weighed the Ring in his hand, hesitating, and forcing himself to remember all that Gandalf had told him; and then with an effort of will he made a movement, as if to cast it away – but he found that he had put it back in his pocket.What a fantastic piece of writing! Starting out with a simple description of the Ring, the passage gradually builds on Frodo’s regard of it to the point of obsession, culminating with the second reference in two chapters to it, by a character other than Gollum, as “precious”. Here we can clearly and explicitly see the beguiling effect of the Ring on its bearer and we can, perhaps, begin to understand just what went through Smeagol’s mind when he first set eyes on it. The device of having Frodo attempt to throw the Ring away, only to put it back in his pocket (echoing Bilbo’s attempts to leave the Ring behind in the previous chapter) is brilliantly conceived. These few sentences speak volumes of the nature and the power of the Ring. This passage, of course, foreshadows Frodo’s ultimate “failure” at Sammath Naur. And, reading it again, it suggests to me the inevitability of that “failure”, although I wonder how many of us had that sense when we first read the book.

Finally, a few words on the development of Sam’s character in this chapter. I like the way that he is portrayed sympathetically in his conversation with Ted Sandyman in The Green Dragon. Although Ted Sandyman appears to have the upper hand in the conversation, and as far as the Hobbit onlookers are concerned “scores points” off Sam, we know that it is in fact Sam who is speaking sense here. We already have the impression that there is danger afoot outside the cosy confines of the Shire, and Gandalf later starkly confirms this for us in his discussion with Frodo.

Later, when discovered outside the window by Gandalf, Sam's humorous response helps to relieve the tension which has built up throughout most of the chapter. Even Frodo is hardly able to keep from laughing, despite the horror of all that he has learned. However, I must say that I am not (and have never been) all that keen on the “There ain’t no eaves at Bag End, and that’s a fact” line. Personally, I suspect that this line is single-handedly responsible for the dreadful characterisation of Sam in the Bakshi animated film. In any event, while we later see him as the repository of earthy wisdom and unlikely hero that he really is, I do tend to think that this foolish (albeit humorous) comment starts us out on the wrong footing with Sam (if you take my meaning ;) ). Nevertheless, his otherwise sympathetic portrayal in the previous chapter and earlier in this chapter (which do suggest that there are hidden depths to him) do, I think, reassure us that Frodo has a suitable companion for his coming journey.

davem

06-28-2004, 08:38 AM

(Edit: cross-posted with Saucepanman)

What struck me most re-reading the chapter was Frodo's attitude:

'Gollum!' Cried Frodo. 'Gollum? Do you mean that this is the very Gollum-creature that Bilbo met? How loathsome!'

'I think it is a sad story.' said the wizard, 'and it might have happened to others, even some hobbits I have known.'

'I can't believe that Gollum was connected with hobbits, however distantly,' said Frodo with some heat. 'What an abominable notion!'

Later he interupts Gandalf, accuses him of inaction, demands to know why Bilbo didn't stab to death an unarmed opponent at a disadvantage, & why Gandalf doesn't make him destroy or throw away the Ring. He then tries to make Gandalf take it.

Finally, when he accepts the task, what does he give as his motivation?

I should like to save the Shire, if I could - though there have been times when I thought the inhabitants too stupid & dull for words, & have felt that an earthquake or an invasion of dragons might be good for them'

I suppose my memory of Frodo is of a selfless individual willing to sacrifice himself to save the world. But reading this chapter I don't get that impression. He seems selfish, judgemental, cowardly - the very things he condemns his fellow hobbits for. Maybe he's the one who needs to be confronted with earthquakes & dragons! His first response when confronted with the danger he is in is to try & get Gandalf to take the Ring - but why should Gandalf take it? Frodo doesn't know Gandalf's nature or role. Frodo has something dangerous in his possesion, & instantly he tries to get his 'friend' to take the dangerous thing away from him. He would even rather Bilbo had commited murder if that had meant he could have continued with his safe little life.

Then, the 'flip' - he will accept his burden - because he wants to save the Shire!. He's flipped from a coward to a meglomaniac, or at least a 'messiah'!

Now in all this do we see the influence of the Ring on an innocent hobbit, or do we see a 'selfish, judgemental coward'?

I think all this is deliberate on Tolkien's part - he wants us to see Frodo as being like ourselves. Frodo is certainly not a hero at first, not even admirable. Recalling my first reading, it took me a while to get to like Frodo - I read LotR straight after The Hobbit, & I liked Bilbo much more for a good part of the first book. I think the way Tolkien shows the growth of Frodo's character is wonderful, & it will be interesting to see how much he changes, & how he is 'purged of the gross' as the story progresses. And to see how much of the original Frodo is left by the end.

Fordim Hedgethistle

06-28-2004, 08:46 AM

One of my favourite chapters in the whole book. I shall attempt to be as brief as possible, and contain myself to two passages only, both of which develop the nature of the Ring, and highlight how it will be the centre of the narrative to follow.

’Three Rings for the Elven kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in the halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
In the land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie.’

The famous poem: certainly Tolkien’s best bit of verse (I think). And it clearly sets up a number of very important ideas about the Ring and its relation to other peoples, as well as its nature. First, there’s the resonating and insistent beat of the “One, One, One, One” of the Ring and Sauron versus the multiplicity of the other rings/peoples (three, seven, nine). Where the list of Rings that are associated with the free folk goes up in number (implying increase and diversity?) the Ring of Sauron is singular and one and remains one throughout the poem.

Another aspect of the poem is how it gives us a glimpse into then natures of the free folk: Elves live “under the sky” (beneath the protection/guidance of the Valar? As signified by the presence of Earendil and the other stars that they ‘worship’?); the Dwarves live under the earth where they are walled off from others “in their halls of stone”; and Men who are “doomed to die” – this is both good and bad: death is not nice, nor is having a “doom”, but doom in its fullest sense does not necessarily mean something bad, but “fated”. So in this sense, the Men are contrasted to the Elves (who are ‘trapped’ forever by their immortality “under” the sky like the Dwarves under the earth). Unlike them, Men die and find the gift of Eru.

The words associated with the Ring are extraordinarily telling: “rule, find, bring, bind”. I love the order of the words here – the Ring ‘begins’ with the desire to Rule, which necessitates ‘finding’ how and who to rule, which then leads to ‘bringing’ those people under rule, and brining to bear upon them the methods of rule, and it all ends with ‘binding’ them into that singular Rule. It’s a wonderfully brief and telling description/exploration of how power works.

There’s also two puns in the poem that speak volumes about the Ring. First, it’s from a place where “Shadows lie.” I love this: not just where shadows are, but where the Shadows deceive – this is how Sauron works, and this is how the Ring works: it’s a think of shadows and shadowy lies as it promises power that it will not bring; most importantly it tells the greatest lie of all: that by claiming it, one will find fulfilment of one’s desires, not the emptying of the will. The Ring is the ultimate lie: “take me and rule” when what it’s really all about is “be taken by me and be ruled.”

The second pun is the name of Mordor itself – it’s always looked to me a lot like the Anglo-Saxon word for murder morðor (pronounced “morthor”). I think this contrasts to the “Mortal Men doomed to die” – it is in the nature of humanity to die, it is our fate; the Ring is from a place that perverts that fate through unnatural death (that is, the murder/loss of our very mortality by enslavement to Sauron becoming Wraiths).

[Frodo] unfastened [the Ring] and handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.

The ambiguity of this moment is crucial to any understanding of the Ring, I think. Already, Frodo is unsure of where he ends and the Ring begins: who is the reluctant party here? Is the Ring overmastering his will, or is his will being turned to the point where he can’t give up the precious object. This is an ambiguity that I would suggest lasts through the whole novel – is Frodo being enslaved by the Ring or seduced? This idea of the Ring’s weight is a good way to make this point, for is it getting heavier and thus overpowering Frodo, or is he getting weaker and thus no longer able to bear the weight of the Ring?

One more note: I think we have a slight hint here of what Gandalf might (if pressed by Elrond, for example) have admitted was at the back of his mind for the quest ahead: he is the one who casts the Ring into the fire when Frodo is not able to. As Saucepan Man has already pointed out, Frodo is here at the beginning of his quest already completely incapable of throwing the Ring into his own little “fire,” so from that perspective he’s doomed to fail from the outset. But we’ve got this moment where Gandalf is able to convince Frodo to hand over the Ring, and then he does the deed himself. . . I’m not making any claims, I just think that it’s a reason to pause for thought.

The Saucepan Man

06-28-2004, 09:59 AM

Davem

He seems selfish, judgemental, cowardly - the very things he condemns his fellow hobbits for.While I agree with you that Tolkien wanted his readers to identify with Frodo, I would not go so far as to describe him in these terms. To me, his reactions appear entirely understandable given the import of what Gandalf is telling him. My first reaction would be to ask Gandalf, a wise and powerful figure, to take this terrible artefact. In response to Frodo's question, Gandalf explains why he cannot do so. As for Frodo's sentiments concerning Gollum, again I see these as entirely natural given what he (and we) know at this stage concerning this "vile creature". One sentence in particular in this chapter intensifies my disgust for Gollum:

It climbed trees to find nests; it crept into holes to find the young; it slipped through windows to find cradles.The final statement, suggesting as it does that Gollum devoured babies snatched from their cradles, is truly horrifying. Why should we feel any more pity for Gollum than we do for other creatures that engage in such behaviour, such as Goblins? Well, in response to Frodo's reaction, Gandalf tells us exactly why it is that we should pity him. And so, later on, when we meet Gollum and see the effect of Frodo's pity on him, we can appreciate exactly what it is that Gandalf is telling us here.

I think we have a slight hint here of what Gandalf might (if pressed by Elrond, for example) have admitted was at the back of his mind for the quest ahead: he is the one who casts the Ring into the fire when Frodo is not able to.You may well be right here, Fordim. Certainly, in light of what Gandalf knows concerning the Ring, he is unlikely to have thought Frodo capable of destroying it voluntarily. Alternatively, however, his references to Bilbo having been meant to find the Ring and Frodo being meant to have it, together with his comment that Gollum may yet have some further role to play, might suggest that he was trusting in the intervention of "providence" at the crucial moment all along.

davem

06-28-2004, 11:50 AM

I'd say Frodo is selfish - he is quite self centred - he keeps himself apart from the other hobbits, he plays no real part in his community. His first thought on finding that the Ring is dangerous is to try to pass it on to someone he is supposed to care about. He wants someone else to take responsibility for the Ring from him. He'd rather Bilbo, the one who has given him the luxurious lifestyle & the wealth he enjoys, had killed Gollum - & at that time Gollum hadn't killed anything but Deagol & orcs- no babies. And lets not forget that Gandalf has no evidence that Gollum had taken babies from their cradles - Gandalf is merely reporting rumours he has heard (though they were probably true, admittedly).

He has such contempt for the people he's grown up around that he has had fantasies of them being caught up in earthquakes, or attacked by dragons - & that thought hadn't just popped into his mind at that point - he'd had those fantasies previously. He's judgemental - he has mentally sat in judgement on his neighbours & found them wanting & deserving of horrendous punishment. He's wished suffering on them - just to 'wake them up', & so, presumably to make them more acceptable to him. He passes a death sentence on Gollum, wishing he was dead.

I think Gandalf realises that Frodo has these faults, & this is why he constantly, (though usually gently) rebukes him throughout the chapter for them.

Of course, I am putting the 'case for the prosecution' here. We also see Frodo's potential - the decision to take the Ring, & put his life at risk is noble, to say the least, but I think there is a 'darker' side to it, which, looking back on the story from the end, is easily forgotten. We see it in his first thoughts on awaking in the Barrrow for instance.

My real question is to what extent this 'dark' side we see is the action of the Ring on him, & how much is innate?

Firefoot

06-28-2004, 12:18 PM

Davem:His first thought on finding that the Ring is dangerous is to try to pass it on to someone he is supposed to care about. The way that I see this is not that Frodo is self-centered; just confused, and surprised. He sees Gandalf as someone who understands the ring much better than he does, and feels that Gandalf would know what to do with it better than himself. He doesn't want the Ring, but who would? He understands just enough of it to know what it is, and he would probably feel intimidated by it, and feel Gandalf as someone wise and powerful would know what to do with it.He'd rather Bilbo, the one who has given him the luxurious lifestyle & the wealth he enjoys, had killed Gollum Of course he would: all Frodo has heard of Gollum is vile and dishonest deeds, and what's more, Gollum was the one who took news of hobbits, the Shire, and the name of Baggins to Sauron. He says, "For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab the vile creature when he had the chance!" Frodo is, self-admittably, afraid, and probably desperate for some solution. He has lived a mostly peaceful hobbit lifestyle, and all of a sudden within a few hours he learns that he has an evil Ring that belongs to Sauron, Sauron is looking for him, and the vile creature Gollum is the one that brought the news to Sauron! He has such contempt for the people he's grown up around that he has had fantasies of them being caught up in earthquakes, or attacked by dragons Frodo only feels this way because he has already had a taste of something higher: Elves, dragons, and other things form the 'Outside'. He is frustrated that the other hobbits don't 'get it': they pass these things off as tales, far away things that do not concern them. He wants them to understand things that they don't get, and this is again because he is so different from them, and also why he does not take part in society with them.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

06-28-2004, 01:06 PM

It's interesting that here, in only the second chapter of the book, we already see the Ring as something that destroys the will of its bearers, which twists and perverts them. From this chapter the reader learns all that is necessary to understanding Gollum and the action of the central item of the story. It also contains one of the best descriptions of an addictive possession that I have ever read:
'All the "great secrets" under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night: there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering. He was altogether wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated the light more: he hated everything, and the Ring most of all.'

'What do you mean?' said Frodo. 'Surely the Ring was his precious and the only thing he cared for? But if he hated it, why didn't he get rid of it, or go away and leave it?'

'You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,' said Gandalf. 'He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.'
This final comment from Gandalf is chilling. Gollum is utterly alone and debased: he hates his condition and himself, and he hates the Ring, which has brought him lower than he would ever have sunk on his own. Yet he also loves his tormenting 'precious' with a possessive intensity that has utterly consumed his will. The Ring can now drive him without being close to him, without even being within his sight; and the rumours that follow him are more dreadful than any ancient and long-forgotten murder could ever be. In the light of this passage, Gandalf is entirely right. Sméagol's crime and punishment have become a single long nightmare of solitary misery. He no longer loves even himself, and is therefore an object of pity to those who understand. Frodo will come to know what it is to hold the Ring, as will Sam, and both of them will show more mercy than we would believe possible from their talk and actions beforehand. The overall message is, near enough, 'There but for the grace of God go I.'

For those who might be thinking that they have the presence and strength of mind to resist the Ring's blandishments, Tolkien has Gandalf himself explain how he would inevitably fall to evil were he to keep it:

'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly,' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as if by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'

This establishes two points: it tells us that even Gandalf is not sufficiently strong to resist the Ring for any length of time, and that the Ring has a way into every heart, no matter how strong or wise it may be. Later in the book we will discover that there is an exception, but that character is exceptional in more ways than one.

This chapter is one of foreshadowing, of chains of events set in motion many centuries in the past, leading into a dark and uncertain future. At present, the Shire appears a safe and peaceful place, but the gathering storm is already affecting it as harried refugees bring dark and strange stories to its borders. Seen in the light of the book's ending, Frodo's words about the Shire have an air of pathos about them: "I feel that as long as the Shire lies behind, safe and comfortable, I shall find wandering more bearable: I shall know that somewhere there is a firm foothold, even if my feet cannot stand there again." The Shire will cease to be a foothold, and it will require saving more than once before the story is over.

Other things are hinted at here that have yet to demonstrate their importance. The tree-man seen by Sam's cousin Halfast, present from very early in the development, hints at the existence of the Ents. It is interesting to note that this incident is present long before Tolkien knew anything about Fangorn Forest or Treebeard. The discussion of this incident between Sam and Ted Sandyman also gives us a chance to see the sort of circular arguments that Hobbits use when presented with something unfamiliar or frightening. It's another piece of social observation, funny in its way, but threatening in the light of the general atmosphere: Sandyman's words have the ominous overtones of someone who is wilfully ignoring the truth:

'All right,' said Sam, laughing with the rest. 'But what about these Tree-men, these giants, as you might call them? They do say that one bigger than a tree was seen up away beyond the North Moors not long back.'
'Who's they?'
'My cousin Hal for one. He works for Mr. Boffin at Overhill and goes up to the Northfarthing for the hunting. He saw one.'
'Says he did, perhaps. Your Hal's always saying he's seen things; and maybe he sees things that ain't there.'
'But this one was as big as an elm tree, and walking - walking seven yards to a stride, if it was an inch.'
'Then I bet it wasn't an inch. What he saw was an elm tree, as like as not.'
'But this one was walking, I tell you; and there ain't no elm tree on the North Moors.'
'Then Hal can't have seen one,' said Ted. There was some laughing and clapping: the audience seemed to think that Ted had scored a point.

Already the weaknesses in the Shire that will topple it to Saruman are becoming evident, and one of the conspirators in its collapse is demonstrating the myopic lack of thought that will help to bring about the fallen wizard's dominion.

I'm beginning to get ahead of myself again, so I shall leave off while there are still points to be made.

davem

06-29-2004, 02:41 AM

First of all, if anyone is interested in seeing how this chapter developed, I posted an 'analysis' (for want of a word that implies less competence) yesterday on the chapter by chapter thread:http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10847 post no 19).

What's interesting to me is that in the earlier versions, Gollum is far less 'evil' In fact He seems to become increasingly 'monstrous' as Tolkien develops the story. Its easier to feel compassion for the earlier Gollum than the later one. Perhaps this is to emphasise the evil of the Ring - as it is transformed from being just 'one ring' among others into being the One Ring' to rule all others, its effect on those who come into contact with it also grows. Tolkien is making Gollum increasingly monstrous - in the end he makes Gollum into the most evil, psychopathic, twisted 'thing', we could imagine.

But the most interesting thing is Gandalf's statement that in the end Gollum 'had no will in the matter'. The Ring has dominated his will completely & he has no ability to choose - so in one of the first statements about the Ring in the book, Tolkien is going all Manichean on us - the Ring is a malevolent force that can dominate one's will & control one's behaviour - but, from a Christian perspective, this is heresy. Also, from a Middle Earth perspective - Tolkien has stated in Osanwe Kenta that no individual's will can be dominated by another - the individual must submit, & can end that submission at any time if they choose.

So, has Gollum's will really been destroyed by the Ring? And if it has then where is the hope? The whole thing becomes merely an external battle between forces of 'Good' & 'Evil', & the moral choices of any individual have no real part to play in deciding the outcome of the battle - simply put, the more powerful side will win. But Tolkien's position is that moral choices will decide the outcome, not strength of arms. But if Gollum's will can be overthrown against his will this is not the case.

mark12_30

06-29-2004, 05:46 AM

ShadowOfThePast

Here is another instance of "Torn Frodo", plus evidence of "Tookishness"; but more fascinating still, the first mention of his prophetic dreams:
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams. He began to say to himself: ‘Perhaps I shall cross the River myself one day.’ To which the other half of his mind always replied: ‘Not yet.’
It is left unclear whether he is a born seer, whether the dreams are an effect of his contact with the elves that pass thru the Shire, or whether the dreams are the effect of the Ring

A hint of the Conspiracy soon to be Unmasked:
.Frodo ...took to wandering further afield and more often by himself; and Merry and his other friends watched him anxiously.

Another delicate hint of the Conspiracy:
Sam sat silent and said no more. He had a good deal to think about. For one thing, there was a lot to do up in the Bag End garden.... But Sam had more on his mind than gardening.

In Defense of Frodo's offering the Ring to Gandalf:
It is far more powerful than I ever dared to think at first, so powerful that in the end it would utterly overcome anyone of mortal race who possessed it....... A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness.'
Why was I chosen?’
‘Such questions cannot be answered,’ said Gandalf. ‘You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom, at any rate. But you have been chosen, and you must therefore use such strength and heart and wits as you have.’
‘But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?’
One might guess at Frodo's thoughts thus: "Not only am I mortal, but the only power or wisdom I have is Bilbo's leftover money and a little lore-- in contrast to this ancient wizard who is far wiser and more powerful than I."

In addition, though Frodo did not know it, Gandalf even now carried the Ring of Fire-- proving that (in one sense) he could wield a ring and wield it well. Frodo was, as far as that went, correct; Frodo had not yet been told that *even Gandalf* would succumb to the Rings's temptation and curruption, and was clearly susprised by Gandalf's saying so. Up to this point their discussion had focused on incorrupt elves versus corrupted mortals. Frodo had no way of knowing that even Gandalf would be corrupted by the Ring. If it were not for the temptation to use it for good, for pity and mercy, Gandalf would have been a better choice.

An intriguing visionary moment:
Frodo gazed fixedly at the red embers on the hearth, until they filled all his vision, and he seemed to be looking down into profound wells of fire. He was thinking of the fabled Cracks of Doom and the terror of the Fiery Mountain.

... followed by a fairly selfless decision on Frodo's part:
‘Well!’ said Gandalf at last. ‘What are you thinking about? Have you decided what to do?’
‘No!’ answered Frodo.... ‘Or perhaps, yes. As far as I understand what you have said, I suppose I must keep the Ring and guard it, at least for the present, whatever it may do to me. .... ...it seems that I am a danger, a danger to all that live near me. I cannot keep the Ring and stay here. I ought to leave Bag End, leave the Shire, leave everything and go away.’ He sighed. ...... '...But this would mean exile, a flight from danger into danger, drawing it after me. And I suppose I must go alone, if I am to do that and save the Shire. But I feel very small, and very uprooted, and well – desperate. The Enemy is so strong and terrible.’

An indication that Frodo was not quite so solitary as his wanderings and isolation might lead us to believe:
‘It can’t be helped, Sam,’ said Frodo sadly. He had suddenly realized that flying from the Shire would mean more painful partings than merely saying farewell to the familiar comforts of Bag End.

HerenIstarion

06-29-2004, 09:03 AM

Excellent rendering of the Ring poem, Fordim :)

I feel like adding that there is a third pun on the 'shadows' theme, which occurs in Sam's reciting of Gil-Galad poem. The very last line goes as 'In Mordor where shadows are'. And that passage is even more interesting than deceitful shadows, but I withdraw my judgement until we reach the respective chapter (11, Knife in the Dark it is)

Coming abck to chapter 2, it should be added that just before reciting the Ring poem, Gandalf says something just very interesting:

The letters are Elvish, of an ancient mode, but the language is that of Mordor, which I will not utter here. But this in the Common Tongue is what is said, close enough

This is the first notion of Tolkien's very interesting concept - words themselves (i.e. in their meaning) are less dangerous than the language in which they are recited, if language is corrupted/created by Dark Lord. For, later on, (mark you, in parallel chapter of Book II chater 02 - Council of Elrond!), he recites it again, now in Black Speech, an gets reprimanded not for the context, but for the form:

Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Gandalf the Grey

I.e. Gandalf may have said 'good morning, dear fellow councillors', but if it were to be said in Black Speech, he would have got the same scolding.

davem

06-29-2004, 09:34 AM

Heren-Istarion

I.e. Gandalf may have said 'good morning, dear fellow councillors', but if it were to be said in Black Speech, he would have got the same scolding.

I think we're also dealing with the Light/Dark symbolism here - Languages in Middle Earth form a continuum - from Quenya, the language of the Calaquendi, the 'Light' speakers,the returning Noldor, on through Sindarin which replaces Quenya as the language of everyday speech in Beleriand, which is then replaced in Numenor by Adunaic, & finally by the Westron. In the continuum the Black speech is the language which is 'furthest' from the 'Light' or 'wisdom' of the West. Its a kind of 'negative' speech, & the 'reality' it attempts to communicate is the opposite of Elven reality.

The Black Speech is effectively an attempt to change/invert 'reality'. So even to speak it is to distort perceptions & invite in evil. What Gandalf does in Rivendell is not just bad taste its actually incredibly dangerous.

Aiwendil

06-29-2004, 09:54 AM

Forgive me for another bit of structural/functional rambling . . .

"The Shadow of the Past" is the first of two big expository chapters in the book. Now The Lord of the Rings has a lot of exposition to be dealt with, enough to give some authors nightmares no doubt. Before we can really get on with the story of the Ring we must first understand what the Ring is, the circumstances of its being made, how Sauron came to lose it, how it then came to Gollum, what Sauron means to do about it, how much he knows, etc., etc. In other words, we must learn much of the history of the Second Age and nearly all that of the Third.

Tolkien faced quite a task in presenting all this to the reader. The conventional wisdom holds that exposition is a necessary evil, to be dealt with as briefly as possible and preferably not until the main action of the plot has gotten underway. As Tolkien has certainly not gotten the main plot underway in chapter one, it would appear almost ludicrous for him to put the burden of about half the exposition on chapter two.

Yet it comes off splendidly. Why?

I don't think I have a complete answer to that, and I would certainly appreciate anyone else's thoughts on the matter. But as far as I can see there are three things that make the exposition engaging rather than boring:

1. Tolkien uses the simple but effective trick of presenting the exposition in the form of a dialogue between a character with the information and a character that needs the information. Imagine how much more dry the chapter would be if all this backstory were presented in the narrator's voice rather than Gandalf's. The dialogue allows the reader to idenitify with Frodo, to sympathize with Frodo's curiosity and thus to be satisfied when Gandalf presents the information.

2. The whole chapter is, like the second expository chapter of the novel in book II, framed in terms of a big question: what is to be done about the Ring? The various pieces of information thus have a direct relevance and an immediate significance that they would not have if they were presented merely as a story. We want to hear the exposition because we want to understand the Ring so that we can weigh the various courses of action that Frodo might take.

3. For Tolkien, exposition was not just a necessary evil; it was a valuable thing in itself. Tolkien was, after all, quite used to writing this sort of history; he had been working on the Silmarillion material since about 1918. He did not consider the story of the making of the rings, and the Last Alliance, and the slaying of Isildur just necessary backstory to the tale at hand. He thought they were interesting in themselves, and so he made them interesting in themselves. And no doubt he realized that a large part of what was going to make The Lord of the Rings (or any similar novel) work was the depth and "reality" or inner consistency of the world in which it takes place. So the exposition has triple value - it sets up the primary story, it's interesting as a story in itself, and it provides a sense of depth to Middle-earth.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

06-29-2004, 10:04 AM

But Tolkien's position is that moral choices will decide the outcome, not strength of arms. But if Gollum's will can be overthrown against his will this is not the case.

Which is precisely why Tolkien shows us through Gandalf's words that moral choices do make a difference. Because Bilbo comes into possession of the Ring with pity, he suffers much less from his possession than does Sméagol, who obtains it by murdering a friend. Essentially the Ring becomes more difficult to resist the longer one has it and uses it, but initially it offers a temptation such as that which Mephistopheles offers to Dr. Faustus. It makes promises that are related to the innate strength and goodness of its target. With Sméagol it was enough that the Ring was a beautiful item; with Sam it was the opportunity to turn the Plateau of Gorgoroth into a flowering garden; with Gandalf it would be the opportunity to remove the Dark Lord and bring peace and freedom. If the target rejects this and refuses to possess the Ring, they have made their moral choice, but if they decide to own it anyway it will gradually wear away at them until it conquers their will.

There is also the consideration that the Ring was created by Sauron, a fallen angel, and that his ability to dominate and will to power are bound up in its very fabric. Only those with greater strength of will than Sauron himself stand even a chance of resisting the Ring, and the amount of strength required grows the closer it comes to the place of its making. That this object can take over the will of its owners is reason enough to destroy it; but if one makes the moral choice to leave the Ring behind, as does Bilbo (with help from Gandalf), or not to take it up, as does Faramir, then one is spared the battle of wills that Frodo has thrust upon him. His moral choice is to attempt the ultimate rejection of power, to contest with the will of the Ring; that he fails in this is not as important as his intention to try.

Orofaniel

06-29-2004, 10:41 AM

I'd say Frodo is selfish - he is quite self centred - he keeps himself apart from the other hobbits, he plays no real part in his community.

Just a comment on Davem's quote:

Selfish? I wouldn't use that word. As for Frodo keeping himself away from the other Hobbits and playing no real part in the community, doesn't mean a he's selfish and self centred.

I think that The Shadow of the Past, the chapter in itself and the dialogues with Gandalf show quite the opposite.

When Gandalf says that Frodo has to take the Ring away from the Shire, Frodo doesn't hide that he's horrified and sacred, no, not at all- but he also says he'd do anything for the Shire.

There is also some talk going on here about Frodo acting cowardly. Here too, I would disagree. The Hobbit lad is scared! Who wouldn't be scared when he realises he’s holding "The One Ring" - The Ring of Evil - in his hand, knowing that Nazgûls are out to get him? I think this chapter shows how Frodo, even though he's horrified, wins over himself in a way that he takes the Ring from Gandalf too keep so that Sauron won't find. Even though Gandalf is away fro several years, he still keeps it safe. A selfish/self centred coward wouldn't do that after my opinion.

Cheers,
Oro :)

davem

06-29-2004, 10:46 AM

Squatter

it will gradually wear away at them until it conquers their will. ...That this object can take over the will of its owners is reason enough to destroy it

But this is the central thing - can the Ring actually overcome the individual's will, or is it always the case that the individual must surrender to the Ring? Is Tolkien's philosophical position Manichaean or Boethian? My own feeling is that it is Boethian, & that the Ring cannot overcome & enslave an individual's will if the individual does not willingly surrender to it. Of course, the longer an individual possesees the Ring the more it will grow on their mind & the greater the temptation will be to surrender, but it must always be an act of surrender, otherwise we are dealing with an objective force of evil, which can overcome the individual & may ultimately overcome Illuvatar Himself - or if Illuvatar wins in the end it will simply be because He is stronger - & that ultimate victory would not be a moral victory. If the Ring has taken over Gollum's will, then he is not responsible for his actions - but then what has he got to repent for - why does he 'deserve death'? 'Smeagol' is innocent, but to all intents & purposes, by the time of LotR, has no real , willed. existence, & 'Gollum' is a body driven by the will of the Ring, & therefore cannot be saved, no matter how much mercy he is shown, & despite any opportunities for repentance which may arise. But I don't think Tolkien is saying that Gollum's will is completely gone - Gandalf still hopes for his cure - there is still the possibility of repentance on Gollum's part - ie there is still the opportunity for him to reject the Ring's dominance. So Tolkien is saying that 'Smeagol's will can still reassert itself over that of the Ring - he's surrendered to it, but he can still change his mind & reject it's control.

Of course, this question becomes really significant at the Sammath Naur, so we shouldn't really pursue it here.

Fordim Hedgethistle

06-29-2004, 11:01 AM

Oh, but we can pursue the question here, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere. As I cited above (but will do so again here)

[Frodo] unfastened [the Ring] and handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.

In this quote, I think we have both possibilities that you suggest davem put side by side and held in some kind of difficult and tense balance -- perhaps suspended is a better way of putting it. The text is uncertain about what's going on here: is the Ring reluctant (and thus 'in charge,' plunging us into a Manichean world of Good vs Evil, in which the individual will is merely the battleground upon which these large forces confront one another), or is Frodo reluctant (and thus still possessing his will, moving us into a world of good or evil choices)?

This ambiguity perhaps explains the ambiguity of this strangly split Frodo -- is a flawed person showing those flaws but able to overcome them, or is he a Good person being taken over by Evil? I think that these questions are introduced here, raised to a fever pitch as the novel progresses, but then never fully answered (which is a smart move on Tolkien's part, I would suggest. . .)

davem

06-29-2004, 01:14 PM

But if we are dealing with a conflict of 'external' powers (which Ainulindale denies, I would say - as there is no equal but opposite force to Eru - there is only the 'void' in which Melkor seeks, but fails to find, the Secret Fire, - 'because it is with Eru), then an individual's moral choices can only affect themselves, unless 'luck' plays a part, or strength.

A moral victory requires that 'good' wins because it is good, & evil loses because it is evil. If good wins because it happens to be stronger than evil, then its a victory of the strong over the weak, & it will be able to claim the title of 'good' for itself because history is written by the winners.

I come back to the quote from Brian Rosebury's 'Tolkien: A Cultural Phenmomenon, which I gave in a previous thread:

..The defeat of the forces of evil should ideally appear, not as a lucky accident, or as a punishment inflicted from outside by a superior power (which deprives the actual process of defeat of any moral significance), but as the practical consequence of wickedness itself: Evil must appear as intrinsically self defeating in the long run. Sauron & his servants, despite their steadily growing superiiority in crude strength & terror, are hindered by weaknesses which are themselves vices: their lack of imagination, the irrational cruelty which denies them the option of voluntary assistance (the victim must be made to act against his own will), & the selfishness which disables their alliances.

This is the great denial of Manicheanism. For the victory of Good to have 'moral significance ', evil must be self defeating. This cannot be the case if it has the power to overwhelm the weak & innocent, & force them to do its will. Evil corrupts through temptation, by offering the individual the power to do as he will - it exploits the individual's desires, convincing them that what they want is right. But the individual must have the choice to go along with that, or reject it.

Or to quote from an essay by Michael Posa on the portrayal of evil in the movies, which I referred to in the 'Just say no, Faramir' thread:

'The contrast between Faramir and his brother Boromir also portrays the duality of man in The Lord of the Rings. At the end of Fellowship, Boromir succumbs to the temptation of the Ring and attempts to seize it from Frodo. However, when confronted with the Ring, Faramir brashly tells Frodo that, "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway" (Two Towers 330). Philippa Boyens, an influential writer in the film project, immediately dismisses Faramir's rejection of the ring as "death on film" because of their attempt to portray the Ring as "one of the most evil things ever created" (LotR: Two Towers). He is, simply put, too good: an idea that Tolkien fan and film student Elicia Donze agrees with when she writes, "[In a] film…you simply cannot have FLAT characters" (Donze). It is true that Jackson's Faramir is much more complicated and dynamic than Tolkien's original character. Indeed, it may be difficult for an audience to comprehend how Faramir might dismiss the Ring out of hand. And yet, it would be simplistic to say that no one can outright resist the temptation embodied in the ring; doing so would take away Faramir's free will to reject evil; and Tolkien is very insistent upon the choice we all have do good.

The significance of Faramir's rejection of evil can be explored further by examining Michael Swanick's essay on his personal experience with Tolkien's work. Here, Swanick introduces the idea of the Ring as a "God-sent integrity test… to test all of creation and decide whether it is worthy of continuance" we can begin to understand the moral significance of Faramir's decision (Swanick 42). While Swanick exaggerates with this claim, since the Ring is definitely not God-sent, it is clearly true that the Quest is a test with the most dire consequences for failure. Throughout the story, the characters that resist the Ring's temptation--Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Sam and even Aragorn--are more than simply human. Gandalf is an angelic spirit, Elrond and Galadriel are elves and Sam is a hobbit. Aragorn, while a man, is descended from the lords of Númenor and is blessed with both inner strength and longevity that far exceeds other men(King 389). The Fourth Age that begins at the end of the novels is the Age of Men and so it is of the utmost importance that men, too, pass the test of the Ring. This is why Faramir must have the choice to derail the quest and it is why he does not fail. As we have seen, Tolkien shows us that we always have the choice to resist temptation and evil. Jackson and Boyens, in order to produce a film, have lost this pivotal triumph of human will--I hesitate to say "good" --over evil. They posit the Ring as a Manichaean source of evil that can create ill will within others, rather than simply magnify the desire for dominance that is already there. While it initially appears as if the movie has an added element of depth lacking in the novels, it is this depth that actually polarizes the concepts of good and evil.

Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat. So the manichaean view must ultimately be false, because otherwise there will always remain the possibility that it could in some way become powerful enough to overcome in the end, or at the very least, as I said, that it will only lose because its not strong enough.

I just can't see Tolkien putting out that message.

mark12_30

06-29-2004, 01:53 PM

"The Shadow of the Past" is the first of two big expository chapters in the book. Now The Lord of the Rings has a lot of exposition to be dealt with, enough to give some authors nightmares no doubt. Before we can really get on with the story of the Ring we must first understand what the Ring is, the circumstances of its being made, how Sauron came to lose it, how it then came to Gollum, what Sauron means to do about it, how much he knows, etc., etc. In other words, we must learn much of the history of the Second Age and nearly all that of the Third.

Aiwendil, it reminds me of:

The arrival & reign of Scyld Scefing (Bilbo's backstory early in chapter one)

The generous ring-giving, partying, etc, and overlordship of Hrothgar in Heorot (Bilbo's party, generosity and gift-giving, down to a ring, even...)

and

The Grendel Backstory (Gandalf's narrative, ch2.)

Seems reasonable that Tolkien preferred Beowulf-form over more modern ideas.

The Saucepan Man

06-29-2004, 06:52 PM

My real question is to what extent this 'dark' side we see is the action of the Ring on him, & how much is innate?Sorry, davem, but I really don't see any 'dark' side to Frodo in this chapters. Of course, he is (like us) not without flaws, but his reactions here are no more than I would expect in light of what Gandalf is revealing to him. As Orofaniel says, he is scared, and quite justifiably so in my opinion. And, while his comments concerning his fellow inhabitants of the Shire do reflect a frustration with their narrow-mindedness (again, understandable given his broader outlook on life), I detect that he nevertheless has great affection for them. Certainly, to my mind, he is being far from literal when he talks of earthquakes and Dragons. As I see it, he is simply saying that they could do with a good shake-up on occasion. And, going by the attitude displayed by Ted Sandyman in The Green Dragon, and the parochial picture painted in the preceding chapter, I see no reason to disagree with him on this.

Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat.But there must always remain the possibility that evil will win. Otherwise, why bother to struggle against it? Evil will not necessarily bring about its own defeat. This can only occur as a result of the choices made by those who seek to struggle against it.

It is essential, from the perspective of the reader too, that the possibility remains that evil will prevail. Otherwise, why bother reading the book? Of course, we hope that good will defeat evil, because we want a "happy ending", and so we trust that the characters will make the choices necessary to bring this about ("estel"?).

Davem, to go back to your question concerning the portrayal of Gollum in this chapter, there is, as you point out, a tension between Gandalf's comment that "he [Gollum] had no will left in the matter", and his assertion that there remains a (slight) chance of him "being cured before he dies". But I think that this tension can be resolved by taking the comments as referring to Gollum with the Ring and without it. Gollum with the Ring represents the triumph of evil (the Ring) over the will. He had a choice not to seize it, but he failed to make that choice (murdering his best friend into the bargain). He may even have had a shot at freeing himself of the Ring in the early days, although Frodo's failure to do precisely that in this chapter suggests that he was unlikely to have been able to do so. But, after so many years of possessing it, his will was utterly mastered. He did indeed have no will left in the matter while under its dominion. However, his will, while mastered, was not wholly destroyed, since Gandalf is suggesting that, once "free" of the Ring, he does have another shot at redemption. He may remain "bound by the desire of it", but there nevertheless is hope that he will overcome that desire. And, viewed in this way, this seems to me to be consistent with the approach that it is the characters' moral choices, rather than any external conflict between good and evil, that determine which will ultimately prevail. Gollum's ability to make a moral choice is suspended while he is in possession of the Ring and under its dominion, much as it would be if he were incarcerated by Sauron, but it surfaces again (as a possibility) once he is "set free".

Aiwendil

The conventional wisdom holds that exposition is a necessary evil, to be dealt with as briefly as possible and preferably not until the main action of the plot has gotten underway. Conventional wisdom be confounded! Personally, I don't hold with the view that there is any "correct" way to structure a story. The trick is in the skill of the story-teller. To my mind, Tolkien is able to "pull off" this expositionary chapter so early in the novel by virtue of the quality of his writing (as reflected in the various points which you have listed). Of course, there are some who find that the early chapters of the book (and the Council of Elrond chapter too) drag, so it does not necessarily appeal to everyone. But I think that the majority of those to whom Tolkien's writing appeals are held enthralled by this chapter simply by virtue of his skill as a story-teller.

HerenIstarion

06-30-2004, 02:06 AM

Selection of recent posts, as far as I can understand them, deals with perception of evil with Tolkien. Is it Manichaean, or Boethian, is the main question, it seems.

(as a side note - hope (in the sense of Estel - Faith) is clearly expression of Boethian view - the belief that whatever Creator does is for the good of his creatures, even when creatures themselves consider things done to them as undesirable(=evil))

First, it would be appropriate to consider the concept of 'shadow'. What is a shadow?

My Merriam-Webster has a load of things to say about it, but I wll draw on enries I find relevant:

1: partial darkness or obscurity within a part of space from which rays from a source of light are cut off by an interposed opaque body
2 : a reflected image
4 a : an imperfect and faint representation b : an imitation of something

All three definitions apply [to Sauron, and his Ring in particular) and both are expressions of Boethian view of Evil, which is absence of Good, and is flatly stated within Tolkien's works as unable to create, only to mock (that is, to reflect, or to imitate imperfectly)

but there is, as well, such an entry in the dictionary for the word 'shadow' as:

10 a : an inseparable companion or follower

Which moves us on to Manichaean view - as Good and Evil interbalanced forces, with equal opportunities.

And now I'm forced to review the poem Sam recites in chapter 11:

Gil-galad was an Elven-king.
Of him the harpers sadly sing:
the last whose realm was fair and free
between the Mountains and the Sea.

His sword was long, his lance was keen,
his shining helm afar was seen;
the countless stars of heaven's field
were mirrored in his silver shield.

But long ago he rode away,
and where he dwelleth none can say;
for into darkness fell his star
in Mordor where the shadows are.

So, shadows, be them absence or not, can be, that is, have an existence. They are in Mordor, at least.

Which, as far as I can see, is Tolkien's effort to combine, conciliate those both views. For, indeed, if LoTR were totally Boethian, than there would be no need for Frodo to go anywhere at all - there would be nothing to confront, as Evil would be nothing - mere absence and would eliminate itself

Now, the Ring is somehow an union of those two concepts of Evil. As indicated by Squatter above, it draws on bearer's inner weakness (Boethian), is a kind of booster for what lack of Goodness it finds inside. That is why it is often described as temptation - Frodo is tempted to put on the Ring, and has a fight with himself. But, it is mentioned several times, the Ring has the will of its own - that is, it is outside force as well (Manichaean). There are moments, contrary to mentioned when there is no temptation for Frodo (at the stairs to Cirith Ungol, per instance) - when there is no inner response, and his hand is moved to take the Ring by sheer outside force

So it seems, that one can not take one or other side and define it clearly as falling into one category. Or, rather, Tolkien is mainly Boethian, but with shadows (in a sense 11 : a small degree or portion : TRACE) of Manichaeanism to him.

PS
Probably it would be of interest to consider, perhaps, the followng thread dealing with the subject (but mainly around Sammath Naur, so maybe it is a bit before its time, but nevertheless):

Frodo or the Ring? (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=577)

PPS
1. Yes, I do miss Mithadan posting in The Books :)
2. Views expressed by yours truly back there are somehow modified and changed by now.

davem

06-30-2004, 02:46 AM

SpM
But there must always remain the possibility that evil will win. Otherwise, why bother to struggle against it? Evil will not necessarily bring about its own defeat. This can only occur as a result of the choices made by those who seek to struggle against it.

H-I
So it seems, that one can not take one or other side and define it clearly as falling into one category. Or, rather, Tolkien is mainly Boethian, but with shadows (in a sense 11 : a small degree or portion : TRACE) of Manichaeanism to him.

But Evil cannot 'win' in the sense of having an overall victory, because it has no objective or 'real' existence (according to Ainulindale) - it is an option - one can choose to behave in a particular way, which could be classed 'evil', but it has no existance in the sense that Illuvatar has, or even that the things created by Illuvatar have - evil does not possess the Secret Fire which alone guarantees true 'existence'. This is confirmed by its inability to create, only mar what has been created.

So, even if the forces which fight for good were defeated, evil's victory would not last, because, being unable to create, only mar, it would turn on itself & so bring about its own destruction. It has no original source from which to draw power, or even existance- even the things which serve evil owe their existence to Illuvatar. If He were to withdraw his will for their existance, they would cease to be.

H-I
Which, as far as I can see, is Tolkien's effort to combine, conciliate those both views. For, indeed, if LoTR were totally Boethian, than there would be no need for Frodo to go anywhere at all - there would be nothing to confront, as Evil would be nothing - mere absence and would eliminate itself.

Not so, because others have chosen to serve evil, so they constitute an external threat which must be confronted. Evil may have no true objective existance, but those who serve it do - if some group of terrorists, who believed that a giant pink elephant who lives on the dark side of the moon had ordered them to plant bombs in shopping malls, started killing people they would have to be stopped, because they would constitute a real threat, but their existence wouldn't prove the existence of the giant pink elephant.

Which moves us on to Manichaean view - as Good and Evil interbalanced forces, with equal opportunities.

I can't find any evidence for this in the 'theology' of Middle Earth. For me, Tolkien is saying the opposite all through the Legendarium. The theological stance is in no way dualistic - I can't see any evidence for dualism in Middle Earth - the only ones who propose the idea are Morgoth & Sauron.

SpM
He (Gollum) may even have had a shot at freeing himself of the Ring in the early days, although Frodo's failure to do precisely that in this chapter suggests that he was unlikely to have been able to do so. But, after so many years of possessing it, his will was utterly mastered. He did indeed have no will left in the matter while under its dominion.

Of course there comes a point where the individual has surrendered themselves to evil for so long that its almost impossible to break free, but its always a case of almost as far as I can see. If the Ring had completely mastered Gollum then when it left him there would have been nothing left of him to do anything. Smeagol still lurks there - in the early drafts of the chapter he even plans to give the Ring away, just to be free of it, & I think there are still echoes of this in the final version - Gandalf says he loves & hates it - as he loves & hates himself - if the Ring had completely mastered him, what would the source of that 'hate' of the ring be? Hatred is an act of will - if he can feel hatred for the Ring, his will has not been completely mastered by it.

Estelyn Telcontar

06-30-2004, 03:09 AM

After these recent post excursions into the depths of philosophical thought, I'd like to get back to Tolkien's practical philosophy as he expressed it in this chapter. Rereading it made me realize just how many of the book's famous quotes are placed here! We not only have exposition here (the background of the Ring, history of Middle-earth's past ages, etc.), we have wonderful wisdom passed on to us. I'd like to mention just a few of the most important, not quoting them completely, since we all know them well and can reread them ourselves.

His knowledge is deep, but his pride has grown with it.

'I wish it need not have happened in my time...'
...so do all... But that is not for them to decide. All that we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

It was Pity that stayed his hand.

Many that live deserve death...

'Why was I chosen?'
You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess... These wisdoms have proverbial quality and an innate worth that makes them timeless and applicable to my life. Again, the genius of Tolkien puts them not into the narration, but into Gandalf's words, showing us his deep wisdom - and Tolkien's as well!

There are other practical insights, less lofty, that make me stop to think on them:

Frodo's age (parallel to Bilbo's) at the onset of the adventures, and his restlessness - "the old paths seemed too well-trodden." Mid-life crisis described at a time when no one had yet coined that term?

The observation that immortality can be a curse "until at last every minute is a weariness."

The description of the addictive influence of the Ring on Gollum, as Squatter already mentioned.

The significance of roots - "I shall know that somewhere there is a firm foothold, even if my feet cannot stand there again."

The importance of companions - "I don't think you need go alone."

These thoughts are what make LotR more than just another story for me!

mark12_30

06-30-2004, 09:28 AM

Thanks, Esty. I like the practical philosophy quite a bit. I think that's one reason (among many) that I'm so fond of the four war-hobbits; they have lots of gut-level relationship-oriented reactions. Frodo especially manages to express them eloquently; Sam in his simplicity attains an elegance all his own ("...and that's why I choked...")

Maédhros

06-30-2004, 09:30 AM

The thing that to me amazes me most about this chapter is the Ring of course and the thinking of both Gandalf and Frodo.
As Gandalf and Frodo now know, the ring must be destroy, yet is seems to me that neither of them can do it.
As it has been quoted previously, Gandalf cannot be the guardian of the Ring, so therefore the keeper of the Ring must be Frodo, for the time being at least.

‘But why not destroy it, as you say should have been done long ago?’ cried Frodo again. If you had warned me, or even sent me a message, I would have done away with it.’
‘Would you? How would you do that? Have you ever tried?’
‘No. But I suppose one could hammer it or melt it.’
‘Try!’ said Gandalf. Try now!’
Frodo drew the Ring out of his pocket again and looked at it. It now appeared plain and smooth, without mark or device that he could see. The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its colour, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious. When he took it out he had intended to fling it from him into the very hottest part of the fire. But he found now that he could not do so, not without a great struggle. He weighed the Ring in his hand, hesitating, and forcing himself to remember all that Gandalf had told him; and then with an effort of will he made a movement, as if to cast it away - but he found that he had put it back in his pocket.
Does Frodo has the will to destroy the Ring? This begins a whole series of actions that will put the quest of the destruction of the ring with Frodo but to me he was doomed to failed from the start, for how could he destroy the Ring, if he couldn't even throw it in his own fire in Bag End?

Concerning Gandalf and the Ring
The following quotation has always interested me:
From the Letters of JRRT: 246
Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']
How do one makes good seem evil?

Aiwendil

06-30-2004, 09:37 AM

Davem wrote:
Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat.

I have to disagree. In the Athrabeth "estel" seems to be hope without assurance, as opposed to "amdir", optimism based on rational evaluation of evidence. What you say suggests that estel is, rather, hope based on ultimate, complete assurance of final victory, which would seem to be rather the opposite.

Mark12_30 wrote:
Seems reasonable that Tolkien preferred Beowulf-form over more modern ideas.

Very true! Thanks for those parallels; I'd never noticed them before.

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Sorry, davem, but I really don't see any 'dark' side to Frodo in this chapters. Of course, he is (like us) not without flaws, but his reactions here are no more than I would expect in light of what Gandalf is revealing to him. As Orofaniel says, he is scared, and quite justifiably so in my opinion. And, while his comments concerning his fellow inhabitants of the Shire do reflect a frustration with their narrow-mindedness (again, understandable given his broader outlook on life), I detect that he nevertheless has great affection for them. Certainly, to my mind, he is being far from literal when he talks of earthquakes and Dragons. As I see it, he is simply saying that they could do with a good shake-up on occasion. And, going by the attitude displayed by Ted Sandyman in The Green Dragon, and the parochial picture painted in the preceding chapter, I see no reason to disagree with him on this.

I have to say that I agree. Frodo is certainly no epic hero in the early chapters, but I don't see any darkness - if by darkness we mean some minor form of evil. The only possible point at which I can see any such evil inclination at all is when he wishes that Bilbo had killed Gollum. But this wish is certainly very natural, and it seems to me that Frodo is saying it primarily in response to Gandalf's news of the mischief Gollum has done recently - revealing the names "Shire" and "Baggins" to Sauron. I don't think that the Ring has anything to do with it at all - particularly because much later on, when the Ring has far more control over Frodo, he changes his mind on this point and pities Gollum, and does not slay him.

Conventional wisdom be confounded! Personally, I don't hold with the view that there is any "correct" way to structure a story. The trick is in the skill of the story-teller.

Well, I agree and disagree. There certainly are poor ways of telling a story, for there are poor novels. There is a real danger in starting with too much exposition. But I think that often the conventional wisdom is short sighted or incomplete. That's why I find it so interesting to take cases like LotR, where the conventional wisdom is violated with good results, and to try to determine what causes their success.

HerenIstarion wrote:
Now, the Ring is somehow an union of those two concepts of Evil.

This is certainly my view. It is also the one that Tom Shippey argues for in Author of the Century.

I think, incidentally, that "Manichean" is not the best name for the one sort of evil, for "Manichean" suggests not only the external existence of that evil but also a kind of dualism, in which good and evil are cosmologically equal.

There is no question that, in Tolkien's universe, good is cosmologically dominant over evil. I think the more relevant question with regard to the Ring is simply whether the evil of the Ring is external - in the Ring itself - or internal - in the owner or desirer of the Ring. And I think that there is sufficient evidence in favor or each of these apparently contradictory claims that we must conclude that somehow both are simultaneously true.

I don't think that broad cosmological/theological arguments have all that much point with regard to this ambiguity, either. For regardless of the ultimate nature of evil, it cannot be denied that Sauron is an external power. And there is no theological reason that he cannot have placed a part of that power in the Ring (as is indeed said), so that there is in fact an external evil will within the Ring.

To try to simplify the picture and force all the evidence to fit either a Boethian or a Manichean view, or to force the smaller scale situation to match exactly with the cosmological, is to miss much of the subtlety of Tolkien's world.

Bêthberry

06-30-2004, 10:15 AM

Fascinating points and insights discussed here, and hard to find a way to introduce my thoughts into the discussion! I particularly liked Guinevere and Orofaniel's observations about the importance of younger friends to Bilbo and Frodo, and the suggestion (Fordim's or SpM's?) that the Ring is given characteristics of a character, acting as it does to influence events. I think davem's perception of certain negative qualities in Frodo touches a nerve with many because Tolkien's characterisation is so sharp: he does not idealise his hero or glorify the terrible task Frodo faces.

Yet it is Estelyn's post which I think allows us to understand another reason why this chapter resonates so much with many readers. It is not simply Tolkien's control over exposition, his sure judgement as a story-teller, but the style Tolkien chooses to express Gandalf's perspective. Gandalf speaks in the short, almost pithy form of ancient wisdom literature which uses proverbs exclusively. The structure of proverbs gives Gandalf's lines power.

I can attest to Estelyn's idea about the force of the practical philosophy in these proverbial lines:

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.

Once several years ago I saw these lines generate a very long and heated debate about capital punishment. Talk about applicability!

It is Gandalf's telling of Gollum's story that I think is so suggestive, for we 'see' Gandalf applying his own value of pity towards the most wretched creature; we understand how he applies what he has learnt. And it is this initial perspective of sympathy which I think makes Gollum's "almost conversion" so much more heart-breaking and poignant later, when Sam's good intentions in fact thwart Gollum. For me, the heart of LotR lies in Gandalf's point of view here.

That said, I am intrigued by a couple of perhaps lesser points in this chapter. One is the offhand way that Tolkien incorporates vampires, creatures of dark mythology, into the story, with this brief comment:

The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood.

One other is the depiction of Gollum's home community as a matriarchy.

There was among them a family of high repute, for it was large and wealthier than most, and it was ruled by a grandmother of the folk, stern and wise in old lore, such as they had. ... It is not to be wondered at that he [Gollum] became very unpopular and was shunned (when visible) by all his relations. They kicked him, and he bit their feet. He took to thieving, and going about muttering to himself, and gurgling in his throat. So they called him Gollum, and cursed him, and told him to go far away, and his grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole.

Here is the 'downside' of the Hobbits' lack of vision and sympathy, perhaps, but what I wonder about is why Tolkien decided to devote this context to what is essentially a matriarchal form of society. We have here the cruelty of a society which practices 'shunning' (as many very insecure, strongly ideological cultures do) but why does it have to be a grandmother in charge? Is this Tolkien thinking of ancient records of pre-patriarchal cultures here, to depict a society that lacks any form of ruth (using the old, now disputed meaning of that word)? Certainly this is one of the saddest parts of Gollum's story, that he then wanders in extreme loneliness, so much so that he comes to flee from the light, the sun in this context being female.

The last point I wonder about is Gandalf's comment to Frodo concerning how he wrung "the true story out of" Gollum.

in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him...

Is this a foreshadowing of Gandalf the White, he who no longer is under any requirement to limit his power? Or is this simply the story-teller being ironic about the fate of Gollum, even before readers know it? Or is this one of those oblique "consciously so" references to hellfire and damnation?

Edit: cross posting with everyone after Esty's post!

Orofaniel

06-30-2004, 10:48 AM

Aiwendil wrote: I have to say that I agree. Frodo is certainly no epic hero in the early chapters, but I don't see any darkness - if by darkness we mean some minor form of evil. The only possible point at which I can see any such evil inclination at all is when he wishes that Bilbo had killed Gollum. But this wish is certainly very natural, and it seems to me that Frodo is saying it primarily in response to Gandalf's news of the mischief Gollum has done recently - revealing the names "Shire" and "Baggins" to Sauron.

About Frodo's wish (Bilbo should have killed him):

Don't you guys think this was a rush reaction to what Gandalf had told him? I doubt that if Frodo had thought it "though", as gotten more time, he wouldn’t have said the same thing. Later in the book, we must remember that it was actually Frodo who prevented Sam from killing Gollum. Yet, I'm not sure that Sam really would have killed him, but that is another discussion. I may add, when I'm at it; that I do believe saying something or thinking something as "major" as this is very different from actually "doing it". When I read this chapter, hearing Frodo's frustration (yes, because I would call it that), I can understand it. After my opinion he hadn't gotten enough time to think everything through and digest the horrible tale that Gandalf brought with him.

And about the "epic hero"; I would say that in a certain way he is. I don't know however what Tolkien's intension was. I would say that Frodo is indeed a small hero when he takes Ring. No one would have expected it; because he's only a small Hobbit who doesn't care for the outside world- (Like many if not all, Hobbits). Heroism can be a simple thing after my opinion - although the result of it may not be as comprehensive all the time.

People can of course, interpret this exact quote in different ways, and therefore many conclusions and opinions regarding Frodo will occur.

Cheers,
Orofaniel

davem

06-30-2004, 11:01 AM

Aiwendil

Davem wrote:Quote:
Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat.

I have to disagree. In the Athrabeth "estel" seems to be hope without assurance, as opposed to "amdir", optimism based on rational evaluation of evidence. What you say suggests that estel is, rather, hope based on ultimate, complete assurance of final victory, which would seem to be rather the opposite.

You're right to pick me up - I was oversimplifying the two terms. I would say, however, that I understand estel to be more along the lines of 'hope without evidence', as opposed to 'hope without assurance' - ie Tolkien is comparing it to religious faith. But I accept I could have explained the terms better.

Now, I know I'm risking Esty's wrath, As I've been asked to avoid 'falling into deep waters', but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your points, so, a short response only:

I think the more relevant question with regard to the Ring is simply whether the evil of the Ring is external - in the Ring itself - or internal - in the owner or desirer of the Ring.

Obviously, for the Ring to have any influence/effect on its bearer it must strike a chord - it 'cannot burn snow' - but it cannot overwhelm the bearer's will unless they agree to that. If the manichaean position was correct, it could - but it never does - not once- in fact there's no example I can think of where any of the Rings - or any of the magical objects - Palantiri, swords, Silmarils, anything, corrupt a good person against their will.

And now, having stated my position on that subject I'll not stray there again (at least as regards this chapter!).

Bêthberry

06-30-2004, 11:31 AM

Obviously, for the Ring to have any influence/effect on its bearer it must strike a chord - it 'cannot burn snow' - but it cannot overwhelm the bearer's will unless they agree to that. If the manichaean position was correct, it could - but it never does - not once- in fact there's no example I can think of where any of the Rings - or any of the magical objects - Palantiri, swords, Silmarils, anything, corrupt a good person against their will.

davem, and Aiwendil too,

Perhaps the point lies in your statement about striking a chord? Think of Gandalf's comment about how Gollum was drawn in:

The ring had given him power according to his stature.

Rather than overwhelming a person's will, the ring in fact works through a person's temperament. The ring reaches Bilbo through his delight in pranksmanship and so Bilbo is less prone to cruelty, whereas the Ring gains power over Smeagol through inciting his avarice and tendency to violence. Gandalf would in fact be made to use his pity and mercy to dominate others. Perhaps a better way to think of the Ring's influence is not that it dominates the wearer's will but that it perverts the will to achieve Sauron's intent?

mark12_30

06-30-2004, 11:38 AM

Rather than overwhelming a person's will, the ring in fact works through a person's temperament. The ring reaches Bilbo through his delight in pranksmanship and so Bilbo is less prone to cruelty, whereas the Ring gains power over Smeagol through inciting his avarice and tendency to violence. Gandalf would in fact be made to use his pity and mercy to dominate others. Perhaps a better way to think of the Ring's influence is not that it dominates the wearer's will but that it perverts the will to achieve Sauron's intent?

Wow. Yes; the twisted, twisting corruption of pure desires (i.e. what should be virtues) toward idolatrous appetites (vices). (A definition of sin, if I'm not mistaken.) So the Ring turns a person's innate tendencies towards evil-- whether those tendencies were evil pre-Ring (Gollum) or not (Gandalf).

Brilliant, Bb.

Novnarwen

06-30-2004, 12:59 PM

I must admit that I haven't read the whole thread yet. But I would still like to comment one thing I found interesting...

Máedhros Wrote:
Does Frodo has the will to destroy the Ring? This begins a whole series of actions that will put the quest of the destruction of the ring with Frodo but to me he was doomed to failed from the start, for how could he destroy the Ring, if he couldn't even throw it in his own fire in Bag End?

Interesting theory about being doomed from the start. I think, Frodo thought he was doomed when receiving the ring. I mean, isn't it obvious? He is a Hobbit. A little man who has no past of ever being much outside of the Shire, and then Gandalf tells him that he is going to save everyone from Sauron who will arise again as the Dark Lord. This is were I think Davem is trying to say that Frodo is self-centred and so on, because he offers the ring to Gandalf. However, as Orofaniel says (and others) he is just scared. Would it be natural for a Hobbit not to be scared in a situation like this, maybe? But what I think is perhaps the most important thing is what Máedhros pointed out about Frodo being doomed and not having the will. And in order to this, I would say that asking Gandalf to take the ring is the most HUMBLE and least egocentric thing he could ever do. I mean, if he already thinks he is doomed, why should he go with the Ring?

“But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?”
“No!” Gandalf cried, springing to his feet.

From Shadow of the Past (Bold; my own..)

Offering the Ring to Gandalf only points out that he cares about the Shirelings and what happens to them. In order not to fail (as he is doomed), he wants to pass the ring over to someone who actually might have a chance. By saying that Gandalf is wise and powerful, it is as if he looks at himself of no good use in the quest Gandalf has laid before him.

But then, Gandalf denies the Ring, and says that only Frodo can take it. This, obviously, gives him confidence as he admires and respects Gandalf. This confidence gives him the will to take the Ring, right? If not, where does the sudden will come from?

I will stalk off now, read the whole thread before I possibly post again. I hope I haven't taken the discussion far back, but you can always just not take heed to it.

Cheers,
Nova

Durelin

06-30-2004, 01:25 PM

The ring had given him power according to his stature.

Rather than overwhelming a person's will, the ring in fact works through a person's temperament. The ring reaches Bilbo through his delight in pranksmanship and so Bilbo is less prone to cruelty, whereas the Ring gains power over Smeagol through inciting his avarice and tendency to violence. Gandalf would in fact be made to use his pity and mercy to dominate others. Perhaps a better way to think of the Ring's influence is not that it dominates the wearer's will but that it perverts the will to achieve Sauron's intent?

I believe this is one thing that can reveal a 'character' to the Ring. It is as cunning as its master, and as good at finding evil where it already lies. Sauron used the greed of Men to turn them to darkness, and the divisions between Elvenkind and Mankind to separate the power of the Free Peoples. The Ring clearly is a manifestation of evil, which is truly the evil found in the hearts of the beings of Middle-Earth. This is where a battle between good and evil begins. Not the ideal of angels vs. devils, but the real thing: beings fighting the evil within them. As Frodo stands before the Cracks of Doom, that fight comes to a pinnacle, as he makes his choice.

Although this choice is obviously contrary to the one he makes in this Chapter, Frodo must constantly remake his decision throughout the book. This makes the battle of good vs. evil even more realistic, as it is not made in one act. Referring to the belief in an apocalypse, it seems that this battle, in truth, rages on into eternity. Even the title of the Chapter brings this to attention. 'The Shadow of the Past' A shadow has fallen on the land, and the Wise are aware of Sauron's power growing. And now they discuss the Shadow that was in the past, and also the Shadow of the future (I'd love to add more to that part, but that will have to wait until we get to Lorien. :D)

So the Ring turns a person's innate tendencies towards evil

I just wanted to quickly bring up the fact that the Catholic religion teaches that a human beings tendencies are toward evil, because of the sin that's in the world. But good is there, of course. Just something to consider, as Tolkien was a Catholic, and anyone could think of it that way, separate of a religion.

-Durelin

EDIT: Cross-posted with Nova, otherwise I would have elaborated on some more points... A vicious circle, it is...

mark12_30

06-30-2004, 01:42 PM

I just wanted to quickly bring up the fact that the Catholic religion teaches that a human beings tendencies are toward evil, because of the sin that's in the world. But good is there, of course. Just something to consider, as Tolkien was a Catholic, and anyone could think of it that way, separate of a religion.

Hmmmmm. I suspect we are thinking of somewhat similar things, but let me clarify.

Tolkien makes the point that since Eru is a creator, and we are made in the image of Eru, then it is part of our nature to create-- and in order to glorify God, we should sub-create. I would argue that Tolkien does not consider the *desire* to subcreate a fallen desire. It is a desire, simply put.

(It is like the plain and simple desire for food-- neither good nor bad; it is not yet gluttony. Gandalf's enjoyment of a good meal is not gluttony. )

Similarly, Celebrimbor had the desire to sub-create. He did so. I do not believe Tolkien considered that sinful. It was Sauron's creation of the One Ring to dominate that was sinful. Good desire (to subcreate) was turned to evil purposes (domination.) Incidentally I don't recall that Celebrimbor sinned in all this; he was duped, but I don't remember any outright rebellion.

(Same thing with Feanor. I don't think there was anything wrong with his desire to sub-create; it was Feanor's reaction to his finished Silmarils that was sinful ("MINE").)

This is not to imply that Celebrimbor (or Feanor) was without sin; just that his desire to sub-create was not in itself bad (remember that Tolkien endorses the desire to sub-create.)

Back to your quote, Durelin; when you say that man's tendencies are toward evil, I find that an acceptable statement. But to imply that any desire that the Ring twisted for its own purposes was therefore an inherently evil desire: that I disagree with.

Gandalf says he has the desire to do good, and to show pity. **That** is the desire that he fears will be twisted by the Ring. To do good is not something that I believe Tolkien would have called a fallen, perverted, twisted desire. It is a good desire.

However, the Ring will twist it to evil. And fallen humanity has little capacity to resist that very twisting. If that is what you are referring to then we are on the same page.

Another Edit: Durelin, are we cross-editing? :) ;)

Firefoot

06-30-2004, 01:51 PM

It seems to me that this is the chapter where the Ring is introduced, not only as a focal object of the story, but also as a main 'character'. It is an inanimate object, and yet it also is not at the same time. It looks after itself, can slip off a finger, and wants to be found, according to Gandalf. Now we are bringing in some other points, which I agree with: the Ring turns a person's innate tendencies towards evil, can give people power according to their stature, and some others. Not exactly your typical inanimate object! The Ring seems to have an ability to understand its bearer, if it is able to give them power and use their strengths/weaknesses. Now, where I am going with this is this: just how much is the Ring able to do and what are its weaknesses? Obviously, it can't get up and walk or talk, etc, but it can certainly get around after its own fashion and if it can work on its bearer's mind in this way, is talking really necessary? If the nature of the Ring is to work Sauron's will, how much of the Ring's power over people comes from Sauron and how much is the Ring's nature? To clarify, (not saying this is possible, but...) if Sauron were somehow destroyed and the Ring left, what would happen to it? Would it still carry out Sauron's will?

Durelin

06-30-2004, 01:59 PM

Back to your quote, Durelin; when you say that man's tendencies are toward evil, I find that an acceptable statement. But to imply that any desire that the Ring twisted for its own purposes was therefore an inherently evil desire: that I disagree with.

I really was actually not implying that, so, once again, we agree. :D I was simply elaborating upon the Ring's ability to use the inherent evils that exist, and often to turn a desire/thought of good into one of evil.

I wonder if desire is the best word for all of this, though it does seem to fit well when you're talking about the Ring.

Kuruharan

06-30-2004, 02:20 PM

Maédhros
How do one makes good seem evil?

Just as an example…

“You can’t have any doughnuts, they're not healthy!!”

“No more cookies or ice cream either!!”

“…and Kuruharan, no more driving 15 MPH in excess of the posted limit!!!”

davem

06-30-2004, 03:27 PM

Mark

Well, Tolkien does say the Elves 'flirted with Sauron' - in the same letter as he refers to them as 'embalmers'. Celebrimbor's intention is to create Rings which will effectively stop change - actually they are intended to give the wearer the power to 're-make the world in their own image' - make it as they feel it 'should' be - & then embalm it. And this is what the One is intended to do. This, it seems to me, is what it offers all its bearers - actually, its what all the Rings are intended, & used, to do - offer the power to change reality until it suits the bearer.

So, it plays on their desires, uses them to wheedle its way into their consciousness. So in answer to Firefoot, i think if Sauron was destroyed & the ring survived, it would continue doing that - not that is possible, as they are one. Sauron & the ring are both about the manifestation of desire. If 'Sauron', as an intelligence, ceased to be, there would still exist the will to dominate - so whoever took it would be tempted by the desire to remake the world as they believed it should be. This is the temptation of the Ring to my mind - it convinces the unwary that the world is wrong - 'What you want is right, & I can help you make it the way you know it should be'.

But there always has to be a surrender to it. You can choose estel - faith, trust & let go of your desires - or put them in the hands of Eru & let him weigh them & decide whether they are worthy. Its simply lack of estel that leads to the victory of the Ring over your will.

So, the temptation is greater for the powerful - those who are used to wielding power & ordering things - Sam gives up the Ring with almost no struggle, because he has never had any real power, nor desired any.

All the magical objects can corrupt those who wield them, but only if their bearers choose to be corrupted, by giving in to their desires. So, in effect, as all are potentially corruptible, all are in danger, & the Ring works on that. But they cannot automatically corrupt anyone, overriding their will, or there would be no real hope.

The hope that runs through the whole Legendarium is simply, & only, that - you cannot be forced to surrender, you have to choose it.

HerenIstarion

07-01-2004, 01:38 AM

All the magical objects can corrupt those who wield them, but only if their bearers choose to be corrupted

Well, that being generally true, there is a minor, but significant, deviation. The choice of not being corrupted is expressed by giving the ring away. One can not eat the cake and have it. That is, as the Ring is not only the 'booster' of wielder's weaknesses, but some kind of focus of 'Evil As Outside Force' too, and as it is flatly stated (for the first time in the very chapter we are discussing now) to be able to overcome even the most 'good' intentions (with wich, as is well known, the road to hell is paved ;)), the only way not to fall is to let it fall, if you follow my meaning

davem

07-01-2004, 02:37 AM

H-I

Well, that being generally true, there is a minor, but significant, deviation. The choice of not being corrupted is expressed by giving the ring away. One can not eat the cake and have it. That is, as the Ring is not only the 'booster' of wielder's weaknesses, but some kind of focus of 'Evil As Outside Force' too, and as it is flatly stated (for the first time in the very chapter we are discussing now) to be able to overcome even the most 'good' intentions (with wich, as is well known, the road to hell is paved ), the only way not to fall is to let it fall, if you follow my meaning

I agree - but only because we are all corruptible - if we weren't the Ring could not exert any influence on its bearer.

But the other thing that interests me is that in the final version Tolkien has the Elves making the Rings. In the early versions it is Sauron himself who makes & distributes them

‘In the ancient days the dark master made many Rings, & he dealt them out lavishly, so that they might be spread abroad to ensnare folk. the elves had many, & there are now many elf-wraiths in the world; the goblins had some & their wraiths are very evil & under the command of the Lord. The dwarves had seven, but nothing could make them invisible. In them it only kindled to flames the fire of their greed...In this way the master controlled them. Men had three rings, & others they found in secret places cast away by the elf-wraiths: the men-wraiths are servants of the Lord, & they brought all their rings back to him; till at last he had gathered all into his hands again that had not been destroyed by fire - all save one.

- some elves are given them & become corrupted into 'elf-wraiths' - but (apart from asking why they would take them from him) the question remains - why would Tolkien choose to make the Elves responsible for the greatest threat to Middle Earth? And why the High Elves in particular? He has a perfectly good, & convincing, origin for the Rings - Sauron makes them & gives them away in order to corrupt the free races. But then, for some reason, he decides he wants to make the Elves responsible - so the High Elves are changed from heroes, & defenders of Middle Earth, to beings who have 'flirted with Sauron', into embalmers, who are, because of the desires which drive them, responsible for the mess in which Middle Earth finds itself at the end of the Third Age.

So, is this a case of Tolkien's attitude towards the Elves changing. They begin, in the Book of Lost Tales as a race of beautiful, perfect beings, almost incarnate Angels, & 'fall' further & further, until in the final version of LotR they are in the main, selfish, self obsessed fallen angels, unconcerned with the fate of the other races, wishing only to cut themselves off & let the rest of Middle Earth go hang.

Its interesting, comparing the early drafts of the chapter, to see how Tolkien still presents an idealised race of High Elves:

But the Elves resist his power more than all other races; & the high-elves of the West, of whom some still remain in the middle-world, percieve & dwell at once both [in] this world & the other side without the aid of rings.

By the final version the High Elves have become much less 'ideal'.

Same thing happens with Gollum, who begins as much less of a 'monster':

There was long ago living by the bank of a stream a wise, clever handed & quiet footed little family. I guess they were of hobbit-kind.....The most inquisitive & curious-minded of that family was called Digol...He found the ring in the mud of the river-bank under the roots of a thorn tree; & he oput it on, & when he returned home none of his family saw him while he wore it. He ws pleased with his discovery & concealed it, & he used it to discover secrets, & put his knowledge to malicious use, & became sharp-eyed & keen-eared for all that was unpleasant.

And finally:

He wanted to slip out & leave the mountains, & smell the open air even if it killed him...But that would have meant leaving the Ring. And that is not easy to do. The longer you have had one the harder it is.

Why Tolkien felt the need to 'darken' all his characters is an interesting question?

HerenIstarion

07-01-2004, 03:44 AM

It seems that whatever accusations made by critics, JRRT is mostly modern writer. One of the issues, now, raised in modern writing is the problem of power, and its corruption (All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely). It would have been highly relevant issue to be addressed by the man of the last century, still more the participant of the WWI and witness of WWII, two 'wars to end all wars', started by power corrupted tyrants. That'd be the reason number one - to explore the impact of power on an individual.

Another reason, mentioned M/B confrontation - if it were Sauron who were entirely to blame, than, firstly, the hint of "Evil as Outside Force" would have been by way stronger than what Christian writer would have wished for, and another critique made by many critics of Tolkien's works - that they are black-n-white, without shades of grey, would have been true. But as it is, even the most 'good' heroes have something to repent of, it is better mirror of the things as they are.

Or, for short - reasons for that may be described as political and theological at the same time.

And all of the above, is of course, personal opinion.

davem

07-01-2004, 04:53 AM

Hmm...

Still, what Tolkien seems to be doing is changing his presentation of evil - rather than a kind of 'demon-king' figure (as we have in Morgoth), with Sauron we seem to have something more akin to a nebulous, all pervading presence, which works by corrupting others, influencing them to its service by playing on their desires.

So, we almost get the sense that rather than 'Sauron the Dark Lord' being present himself - making the Rings & distributing them, as in the first versions -'he' is like a poisonous 'idea' or motivating 'force', pushing individuals in a particular direction. Perhaps that's what makes him so successful - he doesn't confront you as an external, physical presence, but as an idea that seems to arise within, so that it can seem, to the unwary at least, that the desires they feel are their own.

Does any of that make sense?

mark12_30

07-01-2004, 07:39 AM

"And that's when I choked, which you heard, seemingly."
Am I the only one who, at this line, falls in love with Sam all over again? To me this expression of devotion (for his boss!) is just amazing. The rest of his devotion throughout the quest is packed into this one little line. Incredible demonstration of genuine virtue.

Another favorite:
"Me go and see the elves and all! Hooray!" And then he burst into tears.

Don't you love him for that?

Aiwendil

07-01-2004, 09:30 AM

A minor point:

Davem wrote:
All the magical objects can corrupt those who wield them, but only if their bearers choose to be corrupted, by giving in to their desires.

But the One Ring is fundamentally quite different from other magical objects. Others can be used for good. The One Ring never can be. The One Ring is fundamentally evil in a way that the other Rings, the Palantiri, the Silmarils, etc. are not. It may be true that, as you say, it works on the existing inclinations of its user, so that it is ultimately the user that chooses evil. But obviously in order to do this it must have a great power in itself - that is, external to the user. Gandalf wields Narya and no ill comes of it. But if Gandalf took the One Ring for his own, it would be the end of all hope for the free peoples.

Mark12_30 wrote:
Am I the only one who, at this line, falls in love with Sam all over again? To me this expression of devotion (for his boss!) is just amazing. The rest of his devotion throughout the quest is packed into this one little line. Incredible demonstration of genuine virtue.

Sam's introduction in this chapter is one of my favorite bits. I still can't fathom why Peter Jackson substituted another joke for Sam's:

"Eavesdropping Sir? I don't follow you, begging your pardon. There ain't no eaves at Bag End, and that's a fact."

davem

07-01-2004, 09:50 AM

Aiwendil
But the One Ring is fundamentally quite different from other magical objects. Others can be used for good. The One Ring never can be. The One Ring is fundamentally evil in a way that the other Rings, the Palantiri, the Silmarils, etc. are not. It may be true that, as you say, it works on the existing inclinations of its user, so that it is ultimately the user that chooses evil. But obviously in order to do this it must have a great power in itself - that is, external to the user. Gandalf wields Narya and no ill comes of it. But if Gandalf took the One Ring for his own, it would be the end of all hope for the free peoples.

In that the 'official' account states that the Three can create while the One can only mar I'd agree, but I suspect that the Three could also be used to mar, if the wielders went in for that kind of thing, & we have Gandalf saying he would use the One to do good in the first instance, so I wonder how accurate that 'official' account is.

Could the One rule the others if its nature was fundamentally different? Is there no correspondence between them?

Guinevere

07-01-2004, 03:17 PM

And that's when I choked, which you heard, seemingly.
I agree very much with you, Mark 12-30! Tolkien manages to make Sam very endearing with just these few words - but they speak volumes! and that Sam bursts in tears after shouting "hooray!" mirrors his inner turmoil and is very plausible.

Estelyn's excellent post #27 "Words to live by":
It is these insights that you pointed out that impressed me too. Gandalf's words of timeless wisdom stay forever in my head (and heart!). I was so glad that several of these quotes made it into the movie! (Was that only thanks to Ian mcKellen, I wonder?)
These wisdoms have proverbial quality and an innate worth that makes them timeless and applicable to my life.
Exactly! And that's why it seemed so strange to me that Tolkien stated in the foreword that "there is no inner meaning or message"!

I found it very interesting what Bethberry wrote in post #31 about the proverbial style in which these wisdoms are presented. (I've been collecting the "proverbs" in the books, as Esty knows, and often I couldn't tell which were real ancient sayings and which were "made up" by Tolkien. Needless to say that they don't sound so impressive and terse anymore when translated into another language.) (Hey, you added a new word to my vocabulary: pithy! very fitting indeed!))

The Saucepan Man

07-01-2004, 06:46 PM

Davem's points concerning the corrupting effect of the Ring reminded me of a point which occurred to me when I re-read this chapter.

Gandalf tells Frodo:

A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twighlight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Ring. Yes, sooner or later - later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last - sooner or later the dark power will devour him.At the outset of this passage, it is made very clear that it refers to the effect of the Ring on mortals. This suggests that the Ring might not have the same effect on immortals. It might even suggest that the Ring has no effect on immortals. Yet, later in the chapter, Gandalf makes it clear that it would have a corrupting effect on him, an immortal being.

This leads me to wonder whether the Ring might affect mortal and immortal beings differently. Clearly, it has the power to corrupt both, but do its "enwraithing" properties affect mortals only? The earlier drafts which davem quoted refer to 'elf-wraiths', so Tolkien clearly contemplated the possibility of immortals becoming wraiths. But these references had been removed by the final version. Is this, perhaps, because an immortal being, by his or her very nature, cannot become eternally confined to the "Wraith-world" alone? Any thoughts?

The passage quoted above also tells us that, if a mortal bears the Ring long enough, then he will inevitably become enslaved to it. Davem said:

The hope that runs through the whole Legendarium is simply, & only, that - you cannot be forced to surrender, you have to choose it.But this passage suggests that the only choice a Ringbearer has is to cast the Ring away, or destroy it, before he becomes enslaved to it. If he does not do so, then he will be forced to surrender to it.

These wisdoms have proverbial quality and an innate worth that makes them timeless and applicable to my life. (Estelyn)

Exactly! And that's why it seemed so strange to me that Tolkien stated in the foreword that "there is no inner meaning or message"! (Guinevere)Ah, but he accepted that it might have applicability to his readers. ;)

mark12_30

07-01-2004, 07:29 PM

Saucie, I read (somewhere) that elves who had been to the West lived in both worlds-- the current world and the shadow world. Hence although Frodo's friends grew dimmer as the knife -point penetrated, yet Glorfindel was shining brightly. These elves at least already live in both worlds, so I do not think they would fade.

(As an aside, I think that's what the movie was trying to show when a glowing, silver-garbed Arwen approached the wounded Frodo and he was wide-eyed at her radiance. To the rest she was clad in dark colors.)

HerenIstarion

07-02-2004, 02:13 AM

Saucie, I read (somewhere) that elves who had been to the West lived in both worlds-- the current world and the shadow world.

So Gandalf tells Frodo in Rivendell:

And here in Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power.'

davem

07-02-2004, 02:27 AM

SpM

But this passage suggests that the only choice a Ringbearer has is to cast the Ring away, or destroy it, before he becomes enslaved to it. If he does not do so, then he will be forced to surrender to it.

My problem with the idea that the Ring inevitably corrupts its bearer is that if it does then Frodo (& Gollum) are in the end merely victims of its power, overwhelmed by a superior force that they can do nothing to withstand.

But is Frodo just a victim? To me he is a tragic hero, & his tragedy
comes from his surrender in the end - he carries it to the Fire, weary, confused, in pain, & at the last moment I can almost hear the voice of the Ring:' I can make it stop, I can make all the pain go away, & you can rest. Just claim me.'

And he does. That's what's heartbreaking. It wouldn't be so horrible if he had been so overwhelmed that he had lost control of his will & didn't know what he was doing. What makes me weep for Frodo is that in the end he just wants it to stop, so he can rest, free from the suffering he's been through. And its the fact that evil still, even at the end can't simply sweep his will & sense of identity away, but he must surrender it - & does. The cruelty of the Ring, & its master is brought into stark relief by this final moment. And Frodo's self condemnation, his feelings of failure, are much harder to read about.

Mark

I also wanted to pick up on your earlier point about Frodo dreaming of the mountains, & of crossing the River, because Frodo's dreams become an increasingly important element in the story, And they all seem to be prophetic dreams, or dreams about actual events which are happening to others. How is this possible - are those events somehow 'destined'? In Osanwe Kenta Tolkien states that the future is known only to Eru, & so can only be revealed by him. Are we seeing Eru's presence running throughout the story, surfacing in these dreams & visions?

The Saucepan Man

07-02-2004, 02:33 AM

Saucie, I read (somewhere) that elves who had been to the West lived in both worlds-- the current world and the shadow world.Yes indeed. But I was wondering whether the long-term effects of the Ring on them would be to restrict them solely to the "spirit-world" (just as it turns mortals to wraiths), or whether its "enwraithing" properties simply didn't work on them. It doesn't really matter as it's a hypothetical question, but it was just a thought prompted by Gandalf's specific reference to "mortals" in the passage which I quoted above.

My problem with the idea that the Ring inevitably corrupts its bearer is that if it does then Frodo (& Gollum) are in the end merely victims of its power, overwhelmed by a superior force that they can do nothing to withstand.Well, Frodo is not necessarily a victim of its power. It depends whether or not it has totally enslaved him to its will by the time he reaches Mount Doom. If it has, then yes he is a victim. If not, he has a choice. But I don't think that we can deny what Gandalf is saying here about the inevitability of the Ring ultimately prevailing (with mortals at least) given sufficient time.

Clearly there is an important debate to be had concerning whether Frodo would ever have been able to destroy the Ring. My own view is that any analysis which suggests that someone else could have done it and that Frodo was simply not strong enough seriously impairs his character. But, perhaps that debate is best left until we actually reach Mount Doom in a year or so's time ( :eek: ;) ).

HerenIstarion

07-02-2004, 02:45 AM

Following OK implications, there are hints of the whole event being Eru's [direct?]intervention:

LoRT Book I chapter 02, Gandalf to Frodo

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. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that maybe an encouraging thought

meant whom by, we wonders?

More hinted at in the Unfinished Tales:

UT, Gandalf reminding himself of events preceeding There and Back Again

But that was not enough for me. I knew in my heart that Bilbo must go with him, or the whole quest would be a failure – or, as I should say now, the far more important events by the way would not come to pass.

UT, Gandalf persuading Thorin to take Bilbo along:

'Listen to me, Thorin Oakenshield !' I said. 'If this hobbit goes with you, you will succeed. If not, you will fail. A foresight is on me, aid I am warning you.'

and, finally:

But that has been averted – because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring not far from Bree. A chance-meeting, as we say in Middle-earth

Ambivalent phrase, this last one - it may imply that is was indeed by chance, but the intonation is such that it implies that what happened may seem to be a chance, but there is more to it just a bit deeper down

davem

07-02-2004, 03:15 AM

But I don't think that we can deny what Gandalf is saying here about the inevitability of the Ring ultimately prevailing (with mortals at least) given sufficient time.

I suppose Tolkien would take the Christian position - we're all 'sinners' & cannot 'save' ourselves - so our failure is guaranteed - unless 'God' intervenes. But that still leaves the question of whether Evil could win out over us if we weren't so 'flawed'. If it could then we have a universe where evil is a power in its own right, potentially strong enough to defeat good in a straight battle (=Manichaeanism). If evil can only defeat us because of our 'fallen' nature, then its our fallen nature itself which brings about our defeat (=Boethianism).

(yes, I know I'm opversimplifying the philosophical complexities there!)

The Saucepan Man

07-02-2004, 05:05 AM

If it could then we have a universe where evil is a power in its own right, potentially strong enough to defeat good in a straight battle (=Manichaeanism). If evil can only defeat us because of our 'fallen' nature, then its our fallen nature itself which brings about our defeat (=Boethianism).But, if Man is “fallen”, doesn’t this in itself imply the existence of evil as a separate power in its own right, since the “fall” of Man could only have been brought about by the intervention of evil (as an element of the external conflict between good and evil)? If so, then it seems to me that there is in practice little distinction between these two propositions. Either way, the inevitability of Man’s ultimate submission to the Ring (as explained by Gandalf in the passage quoted above) is brought about by the interference of an external evil power.

davem

07-02-2004, 05:54 AM

But, if Man is “fallen”, doesn’t this in itself imply the existence of evil as a separate power in its own right, since the “fall” of Man could only have been brought about by the intervention of evil (as an element of the external conflict between good and evil)?

Well, define 'evil'!

Tolkien states (via Elrond) that nothing was evil in the beginning* . My understanding is that the conflict in Middle Earth is not one of 'Good' vs 'Evil' - ie two equal but opposite forces in conflict, but rather of 'Good vs corrupted/marred 'Good'. Which is why I would disagree that:

the inevitability of (as explained by Gandalf in the passage quoted above) is brought about by the interference of an external evil power.

& say that 'Man’s ultimate submission to the Ring' is a choice made by the individual - often under extreme pressure - & not something which happens to them as a result of their will being overwhelmed by an unstoppable force.

This means there is no need to bring in an objectively existing 'Evil' force or power in opposition to Eru (of course there are individuals who do 'evil' things, bwhat they serve is twisted 'Good').

( * - of course, one could get into a deep discussion as to whether the 'nothing' which Elrond refers to here is the Void, in which Melkor went into in search of the Secret Fire, in which case we would have a kind of Manichaeanism - Eru=Good & the Void=Evil. But I don't think Tolkien intended that, & also, it would deny Evil any form of 'existence', & 'Evil' would then simply be an absence of 'Good'.)

The Saucepan Man

07-02-2004, 06:45 AM

Well, define 'evil'!Twisted/corrupted Good works for me (as a definition, rather than a way of life, I might add).

HerenIstarion

07-02-2004, 07:01 AM

Would we than agree on the following:

the inevitability of (as explained by Gandalf in the passage quoted above) is brought about by the interference of an external orignally good, but currently corrupted power.

Sounds a bit silly, even if technically true :)

For further operations on this thread, however, let us agree to have a nomenclature as follows:

Good = original state of everything
Evil = thing originally good, but corrupted

However, to have an external Evil Force, we do not need to deny the aforementioned state of affairs. The manichaean dualism has to be merely moved one step down. So it will be not a battle of equal forces of Good and Evil, but equal creatures of Good and Evil (or formerly good, but corrupted), and Ultimately Good Eru stays above the battle (but interferes, what with the previously mentioned 'Bilbo was meant to be', and 'foresight is on me' stanzas)

There is ultimate interference to happen too, but for the third age it is still in the far future.

The Saucepan Man

07-02-2004, 07:16 AM

For further operations on this thread, however, let us agree to have a nomenclature as follows:

Good = original state of everything
Evil = thing originally good, but corruptedWell, that works for me. But I think that we must bear in mind that many who read LotR do not go on and read the Silmarillion or Tolkien's other works, and have no in-depth knowledge of his beliefs. For many, therefore, there is no definitive explanation of what is meant by Gandalf's oblique references to Bilbo being meant to find the Ring etc. This is harking back to the Canonicity discussion, I know, but these readers will be free to interpret these references as they see fit. They might take this unknown force which meant Bilbo to find the Ring to be fate, or the spirit of Middle-earth, or a good God who is opposed by a co-equal evil God in a duotheistic system, or a monotheistic and omnipotent force of Good, or even one or more of a pantheon of Gods. Or, more likely, they (like me when I first read the book) may simply not think about it too much. :rolleyes: ;)

So, while I think that your definition works in the context of our knowledge of Tolkien's works, it will not necessarily be applicable to all readers.

mark12_30

07-02-2004, 07:30 AM

davem: In Osanwe Kenta Tolkien states that the future is known only to Eru, & so can only be revealed by him. Are we seeing Eru's presence running throughout the story, surfacing in these dreams & visions?

While on a case by case basis this could perhaps be argued against for a few of the dreams, taking the set of them as a logical whole, I quite agree.

H-I-- what's the quote from Letters again? "...that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named..."

:cool:

And-- nah... welll..... oh, I can't resist.
*cough*

Good is good.
:p

Mirkgirl

07-02-2004, 09:50 AM

((Exuse my poor English.))

Reading the thread (yeah it took a while) I feel the urge to jump into some thoughts that aren't exactly chapter based... but first I want to give Tolkien a credit for being a great author (:

What I really like about this chapter is how it shows the yearnings of both Frodo and Sam for something more. Frodo is almost ready to leave the "well-trodden" paths, while in Sam we only see some distant wish to meet the Fair Folk. Both seem not to find what they need in the Shire, both seem to feel surronded of people who just don't "get it" (that there's something more than just hobbits, that the world doesn't end with Bree). Both "pictures" of the unsatisfied hobbits are done almost poetically and touch us deeply. After this we expect these two to find an adventure and can forgive some long-ish explaining of the history of this little piece of metal. For a moment the mood gets really down with Frodo's understanding that the real journey won't be a jolly adventure, as Bilbo's were. At the end Tolkien again doesn't fail to reward us for the patience, with Sam's funny comments (eavesdropping, something unnatural) and at last his enthusiastic "Me go and see the Elves and all! Hooray!" After all can a journey not be jolly with hobbits in it?

On the nature of effects of the Ring, I have to agree with what you all (seem to) have agreed on. The Ring uses the bearer's desires and gives power enough to fulfil them. But the Ring is an entity of its own, it lets the bearer believe he/she is in command but actually the Ring leads him/her to its own aims. We should not forget that the Ring is nothing else but Sauron. The whole idea of Tolkien's world is that you CANNOT do good with evil means and the ring is simply an embodiement of this theorie.

So, the temptation is greater for the powerful - those who are used to wielding power & ordering things - Sam gives up the Ring with almost no struggle, because he has never had any real power, nor desired any.
I agree with this, but only up to a point. I believe that the main thing that made Sam so ringproof (well... not the best word) was that his deepest desire wasn't to turn the world into a garden but to help Master Frodo. And this is something which no ring, no matter how treacherous, can use. (:

While on this topic, we see Sam's self-denial in this chapter already:
Don't let him hurt me, sir! Don't let him turn me into anything unnatural! My old dad would take on so.
Facing the danger, he thinks of his dad and not of himself.

if Sauron were somehow destroyed and the Ring left, what would happen to it?
Is this possible? I thought it was impossible to destroy Sauron while the Ring exists, as the Ring is, in a way, part of him? Actually is it possible to destroy a Maia completely for that matter?

Why Tolkien felt the need to 'darken' all his characters is an interesting question?
Well for me, this is one of the things that made me love the books. There are no angels, no superheros. Everyone fails at times, fears failure at times, acts foolish or reacts (almost) too late. Everyone has flaws, but exactly fighting them, succeding despite them is what makes one a hero. Actually this is why I dislike most (not all!) RPGs and Fan-fics... they tend to have too flawless characters, elves before all. (:

Excellent post about the practical philosophy of the book... sometimes we forget what all this is about going too deep indeed (: the ancient chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" comes to mind.

One more thing on why the Ring doesn't seem to affect the hobbits that much. Undisputed it's their nature of keep-to-yourself, their apparant lack of wish to dominate... but is it all? This quote made me think about it
But there is only one Power in the world that knows all about the Rings and their effects; and as far as I know there is no Power in the world that knows all about hobbits.
The Ring's powers are given to him by his creator, but he didn't know much about the hobbits. Is it possible that it was a bit of a loophole? Not that it actually matters just some food for thought I guess (:

I'll shut up now... sorry for boring you to tears if you read all this (:

davem

07-02-2004, 10:15 AM

Mirkgirl

Can't argue with anything you say - except:

. Everyone has flaws, but exactly fighting them, succeding despite them is what makes one a hero. Actually this is why I dislike most (not all!) RPGs and Fan-fics... they tend to have too flawless characters, elves before all. (:

I recently wrote a 'fanfic' with a flawed Elf as a central character:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=29&t=000057

(in fact, some of the writing is pretty flawed too, but I did my best!)

Mirkgirl

07-02-2004, 10:34 AM

That's why I said "most (not all!)"... I know there are some good ones :)
Well what's left for me after this shameless plug ;) *goes to read*

Fordim Hedgethistle

07-02-2004, 11:06 AM

Goodness – I get distracted for a few days by an RPG and look what happens in this thread! So much to catch up on *goes back to read and read and read; returns exhausted *

Whew! OK, a lot of work but well worth it. I have my own tuppence worth on a couple point points:

Desire vs pity – Durelin, you were the first to, quite wisely I think, introduce the idea that the more effective way to talk about this chapter (and the Ring?) is in terms of desire versus pity rather than good versus evil. I think that much of what this chapter turns on is the sense that Frodo and Gandalf do not know fully what is going on, what the Ring is about, and what is going to happen (“even the very wise cannot see all ends”). To that end, the chapter (and I think the book) quite carefully steers clear of the thorny and impossible issue of good and evil, choosing instead to tackle the more manageable (mortal? practical?) issues of lived experience/existence (thank you Esty for pointing out the proverbial almost folkloric wisdom of this chapter!).

I think that the conversation between Frodo and Gandalf takes place against the rather certain backdrop that good and evil exist, that they are different things, but that their true nature cannot be grasped or understood by limited beings such as themselves. Gandalf has a better understanding of good and evil, but not an absolute understanding. (Whenever I hear someone claim that they know for a certainty what good is, I shiver and head the other way; ditto for someone who claims to know with absolute certainty the nature of evil.) The Ring is evil, but what that means is entirely secondary to the question of what are they to do with it (the former being unknowable, the latter being a lived-question that needs to be addressed by mortal/human action) – that is, they do not sit around debating what is Right, but attempt to arrive at an idea of what is the right thing to do.

One thing they do decide is that contrary to the desires that the Ring both prompts and responds to is pity, the OED definition of which I provide here to make a point:

A feeling or emotion of tenderness aroused by the suffering, distress, or misfortune of another, and prompting a desire for its relief; compassion, sympathy.

The key thing about pity is that it is a feeling that is prompted by or in response to another person (not the self) that engenders the “desire” to aid the other. The Ring is all about fulfilling self-ish desire; pity is all about directing desire outward from the self and to the other. It’s a lovely idea that once more shows the symmetry of Tolkien’s views.

To go a bit further – if we ‘recover’ the sense of pity (as Professor Tolkien always liked to do) the root of pity is the Latin pietas, from which we now have “piety” and whichmeant, in part, “dutifulness; affectionate loyalty and respect.” In other words, the recovered meaning of pity stressed the obligations of the self to the other, which again is the exact opposite of what is entailed by the Ring (thinking of oneself above all others).

Sam – Mark 12_30, I too have always fallen in love with Sam every time he shouts “Hooray” and then bursts into tears; but your bringing it out here has cast a fuller light on that moment, for something very much like it occurs at least twice more: first, when the bard of Gondor steps forth at the end and sings the Lay of Frodo of the Nine Fingers (Sam cries aloud with joy and then bursts into tears – that moment always gets me misty, and is doing so now); and second in the very last line of the book, when Sam provides the moment in which we as readers both smile and weep (at least I do, “Well, I’m back” – misty again).

We’ve already noted the foreshadowing in the first couple of chapters in relation to Gandalf and Frodo, and the foreshadowing is almost uniformly of bad things (the pain of the journey, the price that Frodo will have to pay for his quest). But with this moment, Sam is foreshadowing the joy that will come with the fall of Sauron – he is expressing for us that joy that cuts so deep that it moves us to tears (dare I say “eucatastrophe”?) This is only fitting and right, as that joy will be most fully felt by Sam and – on his behalf – by the reader, and not Frodo or Gandalf (who will be happy, but who will leave Middle-Earth to the care and love of Sam).

“The Shadow of the Past” – Last point! H-I, way back in post #25 had some wonderful thoughts on the nature of shadows, to which I would like to add just a couple more ideas. The title of this chapter is full of a rich ambiguity. Does it mean the shadow cast by the past on the present (shadow-as-absence)? Or does it mean the return of the Shadow that is from the past (shadow-as-presence)? Or does it, and I prefer this option, mean both at the same time?

Lhunardawen

07-03-2004, 01:57 AM

*catches breath* Here I am, late again.

As usual, I haven't the time to read everyone's posts, as much as I desire. But I was able to pick up a little in the discussion.

For some reason I have always loathed Gollum. Maybe it is basically because of how he looks, the way he speaks, to something deeper like his treachery. But reading the chapter again, I have finally felt the pity that Bilbo felt for him, the reason why he stayed his hand and did not kill him.

He could be hated for killing Deagol, but the Ring is the only thing to blame, for its beauty has blinded him to murder. The following line, especially, almost brought me to tears in pity for Gollum:

So they called him Gollum, and cursed him, and told him to go far away; and his grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole.
He wandered in loneliness, weeping a little for the hardness of the world,...

Doubtless he would have done something to prevent this disowning, if only the power of the Ring had not subdued him.

I was also amazed by Frodo's intense love for the Shire and its inhabitants, allowing himself to be exiled to save it.

Finally, mark12_30, I feel the same way as you do about Sam's devotion for Frodo. Although, frankly, at first I laughed out loud, thinking that Sam's initial reason for coming with Frodo is to see the Elves. But even if that is true, it wouldn't hurt, because eventually he has shown what he can do in his loyalty to Frodo.

HerenIstarion

07-03-2004, 02:08 AM

Mark, I would be glad to be of service

Here is the quote:

Letter #192 to Amy Ronald, 27 July 1956

Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'

cheers

davem

07-03-2004, 02:54 AM

For some reason I have always loathed Gollum. Maybe it is basically because of how he looks, the way he speaks, to something deeper like his treachery. But reading the chapter again, I have finally felt the pity that Bilbo felt for him, the reason why he stayed his hand and did not kill him.

He could be hated for killing Deagol, but the Ring is the only thing to blame, for its beauty has blinded him to murder. The following line, especially, almost brought me to tears in pity for Gollum

I think the strangest change Tolkien makes in the drafts of this chapter is how he makes Gollum more & more of a monster. In the first drafts he's not a murderer- there's only Digol, who finds the Ring, makes a nuisance of himself, & gets exiled for it. By the end he's the murderer of his best friend & a canibal (eating babies! ).

Is it a case of as Frodo becomes more 'saintly' his 'shadow', Gollum, must become darker - another 'shadow' there. Or perhaps Tolkien felt that Gollum must be made as monstrous as possible in order to emphasise the necessity for, & value of, pity, by requiring us to pity a true 'monster'. We are presented with someone for whom there is absolutely no reason to feel pity. But Tolkien seems to be saying that we should feel pity. So, it doesn't matter what an individual does, its somehow 'obligatory', according to the 'Wise' to feel pity for them, & to show mercy. Why? Simply because that is the opposite of what the Enemy would do? We establish our allegiance to the 'Good' by such things - not by fighting the 'bad' guys, using force of arms to defeat them - but by our moral choices - pity, compassion, mercy, forgiveness - even if those things are not deserved?

(Oh, finally, as no-one's mentioned him :'Mad Baggins' -

The second disappearance of Mr. Bilbo Baggins was discussed in Hobbiton, and indeed all over the Shire, for a year and a day, and was remembered much longer than that. It became a fireside-story for young hobbits; and eventually Mad Baggins, who used to vanish with a bang and a flash and reappear with bags of jewels and gold, became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after the true events were forgotten.

I just find it fascinating how Tolkien is depicting the way folklore is created. And its totally believable. It also makes you wonder how other 'legends' arose, & how much basis they have in fact. I'm also struck by the statement that Mad Baggins 'became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after the true events were forgotten'. Strange to think that for ordinary Hobbits their only memory of the events of the end of the Third Age was this strange character & his adventures. As a side issue, I also find myself wondering about the characters in poems like the Stone Troll, & the others in the Red Book (well, the ones in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil ;) ). Is it possible that some of these characters & events have a similar origin to the character of 'Mad Baggins'?

Fingolfin II

07-05-2004, 02:53 AM

Davem wrote-

Or perhaps Tolkien felt that Gollum must be made as monstrous as possible in order to emphasise the necessity for, & value of, pity, by requiring us to pity a true 'monster'. We are presented with someone for whom there is absolutely no reason to feel pity. But Tolkien seems to be saying that we should feel pity. So, it doesn't matter what an individual does, its somehow 'obligatory', according to the 'Wise' to feel pity for them, & to show mercy.

I don't feel 'obliged' to feel pity for Gollum- I just do. This is because Gandalf shows us that there is a chance for redemption, and more than anything, that Gollum's 'darker side' (i.e. murdering his friend, eating babies, etc.) is because of the Ring's effect on him and in doing this Tolkien wants to highlight the marked impact the Ring has on it's bearers.

'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.'

Gandalf says this to Frodo to show him that he should feel some empathy for Gollum, who is- to my mind- a tragic villain. I think that it is also foreshadowing of what Frodo himself is to become under the influence of the Ring, as no one in Middl-Earth can overcome it's temptation (apart from Sauron and Tom Bombadil). Gandalf says that even though Gollum is someone to be despised for his heinous crimes, he is also someone to be pitied for what has driven him to commit these crimes and his distressed mental state.

On a side track, I think that HerenIstarion's note on the chapter structure and content of the first three chapters of Books I and II (Post #2) is very astute and no doubt intentional, in order to create a consistency and common structure if you like, for the reader to follow-

Not only names are somehow interrelated, but the context is neatly up to match what happens in each book. So to say, in the first chapter of each book all is relatively peacefull, but inner tension builds up, in relative second chapters nothing much happens (not a feat often seen in modern writing!), just people talk(in retrospective), the third relative chapters deal with conclusions following retrospective conversation in second chapters and the rest of each book is the quest itself.

Davem, your comments about 'Mad Baggins' are very true and I think that you are right when you say-

I just find it fascinating how Tolkien is depicting the way folklore is created. And its totally believable.

Tolkien has a way of bringing characters to life and making them seem so much like people we know that it is quite amazing. I never thought I would identify so well with a character called 'Bilbo' or 'Frodo' for that matter!

Guinevere

07-05-2004, 01:35 PM

Very good point about the importance of pity, Fordim !
'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.'
"No message" in LotR , huh ? Well, for me this is certainly a message!

I also agree very muchwith Davem's remarks about "Mad Baggins"!

There seems nothing left for me to say, except that I'm a bit puzzled by a small detail at the end of the chapter:
Sam says "Lor bless you, Mr Gandalf, sir!" and "Lor bless me, sir" . How does that expression fit into Middle-earth ? Just another anachronism like clocks, postoffices etc.? Otherwise Hobbits don't seem to have any religion at all!

Evisse the Blue

07-05-2004, 01:56 PM

Sam says "Lor bless you, Mr Gandalf, sir!" and "Lor bless me, sir" . How does that expression fit into Middle-earth ?
Aha! Yes, I wondered about that too. I came to the conclusion that it's either a slip of Tolkien's, or a 'translation' of a particular hobbit interjection. In the same way that the hobbit names were 'translated' in English, to make them more familiar, a specific hobbit interjection (which may or may not have included a mention of divinity) was rendered as that.

The discussion on pity brought to mind an older thread I started where I was trying to argue that feeling pity for the villains made one more vulnerable to their vile deeds. I still believe that, to an extent, but I agree that in Tolkien's world it all turns out for the common good and pity is redeeming.

davem

07-06-2004, 02:24 AM

The discussion on pity brought to mind an older thread I started where I was trying to argue that feeling pity for the villains made one more vulnerable to their vile deeds. I still believe that, to an extent, but I agree that in Tolkien's world it all turns out for the common good and pity is redeeming.

This is a point really worth considering. The early 'version' of Gollum - Digol - who isn't either a murderer or a canibal, is easier to feel pity for. The later one isn't. There's no reason why we should pity him. So, the 'highest' form of pity, like mercy, is pity & mercy for the undeserving. Tolkien has created a monster in Gollum & yet asks us to feel pity for him. Is this equivalent to asking us to feel pity for Saddam Hussain, or Osama Bin Laden, or Hitler? The Ring may be responsible for Gollum's seduction to evil, yet what is the Ring, if not a symbol of desire for power, control, domination.

Tolkien seems to be saying that we are obliged to do the 'right' thing - show pity & mercy to all, & leave the rest to the 'Authority'. Perhaps his philosophy is that if we do the right thing the Authority can work through us & bring about a good result, whereas if we don't do the right thing it can't.

As to sympathising with evil characters & so becoming more vulnerable, perhaps Tolkien is simply saying that we shouldn't judge, & that we only have to follow the right path & trust that the Authority will bring things to a good end.

mark12_30

07-06-2004, 06:21 AM

I like lmp's take on this. The Shire is modeled on Edwardian England. Clocks, umbrellas, blessings, and all. In Edwardian England, the Rules had a firmly religious base, whether it was remembered by the individual or not.

Just so the Shire; The essential Goodness comes from the moral foundation set up by Eru in the king's lands eons ago in Numenor, which oozed over intot he laws brought to Gondor and Arnor, and thence to the Shire with "The King" and "The Rules"-- even if the "Why" of the morality is forgotten. The religion is indeed (in the case of the hobbits) entirely forgotten, but evidence of its foundation apparently still lingers, just like their references to The King and The Rules. They linger like dusty mathoms.

Mirkgirl

07-06-2004, 08:53 AM

Being a bit more practical (or cynical) I always saw that pity/mercy repays. Whether in straightforward sense or the higher power intervene (Gollum helping them find the way and destroying the ring at the end) or simply it makes you feel good in your skin and thus less vulnerable (Bilbo and the ring). However it's just a matter of opinion I guess.

The reason for this post is a lot more trivial... I just wanted to post one quote which is from the other end of the book (exactly the second chapter from back too), but still, I believe, belongs to be discussed together with this one.

from "The Scouring of the Shire"
- No, Sam! - said Frodo. - Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me. And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.
Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. - You have grown, Halfling, - he said. - Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. You have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go and I will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you health and long life. You will have neither. But that is not my doing. I merely foretell.
Do not kill when it's not needed. It doesn't mean be weak and let your enemies harm you, it simply means do not kill for the sake of revenge only. Also we understand that even revenge can be sweater with the enemy alive ;)

Essex

07-23-2004, 06:19 AM

To go back to an earlier point raised by Squatter, regarding Sam's point about the 'Tree-men'

After a few readings of lotr, I finally picked up on this. To me, Tolkien inserts this passage and what transpires later to add yet another example of Loss in this novel. To me, Loss is a central theme to LOTR, whether it be Frodo losing the Shire, Sam losing Frodo, Elrond losing Arwen, Gollum losing the Ring, etc. But for this example, I'm talking about the Ents losing the Entwives.

We hear Treebeard's story to Merry and Pippin in TT, but unfortunately the hobbits were obviously not present at the Green Dragon when Sam spoke about the Tree-men, and did not hear of the story from Sam's cousin Hal. (As to the 'sex' of the tree-men, they could well have been entwives instead of ents of course, what does Hal know....)

If only they had heard this, I hoped.

And I know I'm getting ahead of myself here mentioning ROTK but.....

To add to Treebeard's sadness in Many Partings, as he says goodbye to the Company, Aragorn throws a spanner in the works:

Treebeard's face became sad. 'Forests may grow,' he said. 'Woods may spread. But not Ents. There are no Entings.'
'Yet maybe there is now more hope in your search,' said Aragorn. 'Lands will lie open to you eastward that have long been closed.'

Sam! Are you listening to this? Tell treebeard to look West, not East!!

And to add a twist, it seems Treebeard is only talking as an aside to Merry and Pippin as they drain their bowls: 'Well, good-bye! And don't forget that if you hear any news of the Entwives in your land, you will send word to me.'

Talk to Sam, Treebeard! Talk to Sam! He'll remember......

But no, Tolkien leaves Treebeard in his sadness, and gives us another melancholic example of Loss, foreshadowed by Sam in the Green Dragon in Bywater at the begining of the story......

Estelyn Telcontar

01-21-2008, 03:36 PM

"The Shadow of the Past" gives the story depth after the light-hearted beginning, and the sinister foreshadowings become known facts. I'm amused by "Mad Baggins", reminding us how legends grow, starting with some truth and distorting it over time. There's also an echo of the first chapter's account of the death of Frodo's parents in the opinion that Bilbo must have drowned as well.

There are many memorable lines in this chapter - the Ring poem, of course, and Gandalf's wise words on deciding what to do with the time given us, and on deserving death, and on being chosen for a task. Those phrases are of enduring worth and an important part of what makes the book such worthwhile reading - and rereading.

We also get a foreshadowing of Frodo's later inability to throw the Ring into Mt. Doom - he can't even throw it into his fireplace in the comparative security of his home!

I like Sam's "eavesdropping" pun - do you think it was on purpose or accidental?

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-22-2008, 06:33 AM

Indeed, the Shadow of the Past is at first touching the dark things as themselves, though very carefully at the beginning, with good resonances of the Hobbit: Sauron is mentioned as "the Dark Power that was driven from Mirkwood", and Saruman the White is mentioned in connection with the White Council (yay! I remember when I read this for the first time, I thought something like "what silly Saruman? And White? That's going to be some boring all-good leader in the background" - something like the way many people see Manwë or so, you know: the one who sits in the back and does nothing, though he is the goodest of all good. Oh, how mistaken I was! And I'm happy for that :) ).

I never noticed how fast Gandalf jumps to the topic concerning the Ring. The flow of the story is slow, gentle all the time: this happens, that happens, yada yada, Sam talks with Ted Sandyman, Gandalf arrives as usual, the and Frodo greet each other, and suddenly boom, "Your Ring is dangerous, there were many rings like that in Eregion." Who? What? Why? Total shock. No one knows what Eregion is, no one knows that there were more Rings like that, Gandalf suddenly overflows us with information. The name "Sauron" is mentioned without warning. On some two pages, we learn about Sauron, Mordor, the Three/Seven/Nine, we learn about the Ringwraith - I would call the two pages that follow after the Ring-verses "intensive course of M-E arcana". Yet I never had the feeling of confusion when reading this, unlike for example the story about Fëanor and Fi(-nwë, -narfin, -ngolfin, -nrod etc.).

As to Sam's eavesdropping, I always thought it was intentional "playing dumb" (as Gandalf tells him). Anyway, Sam is just wonderful and his words at the end of the chapter always make me laugh. :)

Also one thing I did not consciously realise until now: I always had the feeling that the Ring-script is supposed to be read from right to left. Does anyone of you have the same feeling when you look at it?

Rumil

02-23-2008, 07:57 AM

Hi all,

another well-discussed chapter, and the crucial one for the plot after all.

Typically I'll try and pick up a few minor points.

But now Frodo often met strange dwarves of far countries, seeking refuge in the West. They were troubled and spoke in whispers of the Enemy and of the Land of Mordor

I think this shows dwarves of the Eastern houses, for surely those of Erebor or the Iron Hills would not be considered 'strange' by Frodo? Therefore they must have had quite a journey from the mountains of the East (Yellow Mountains?) perhaps disturbed by Sauron's increasing domination of the East.

Another thing is that 'queer folk' were crossing the Shire and more being turned back by the Bounders. If these were refugees, then where were they coming from? Perhaps they were the first scouting parties of Saruman's spies?

davem

02-23-2008, 08:35 AM

Sam fell on his knees, trembling. 'Get up, Sam!' said Gandalf. 'I have thought of something better than that. Something to shut your mouth, and punish you properly for listening. You shall go away with Mr. Frodo!'
'Me, sir!' cried Sam, springing up like a dog invited for a walk. 'Me go and see Elves and all! Hooray!' he shouted, and then burst into tears.

From Njal's Saga:

Then Gunnar rode from the Thing west to the Dales, till he came to Hjardarholt, and Olaf the Peacock gave him a hearty welcome. There he sat half a month, and rode far and wide about the Dales, and all welcomed him with joyful hands. But at their parting Olaf said, "I will give thee three things of price, a gold ring, and a cloak which Moorkjartan the Erse king owned, and a hound that was given me in Ireland; he is big, and no worse follower than a sturdy man. Besides, it is part of his nature that he has man's wit, and he will bay at every man whom he knows is thy foe, but never at thy friends; he can see, too, in any man's face, whether he means thee well or ill, and he will lay down his life to be true to thee. This hound's name is Sam."

After that he spoke to the hound, "Now shalt thou follow Gunnar, and do him all the service thou canst."

The hound went at once to Gunnar and laid himself down at his feet.

Well, it made me think.....

Pervinca Took

01-29-2012, 10:55 AM

Samr of Brennu-Njal's Saga makes me think of Sam of LOTR too. Although I suppose Sam doesn't immediately see that Strider is not an enemy and means them harm, not good, and he can have a bit of a blind-spot when it comes to Gollum, too. It's partly the jealous/possessive side of Sam's love, the pride and possessiveness which Tolkien saw as inevitable in someone who provided such service as Sam did. But it's also Sam's long habit of caution and innate common-sense, of course.

Thinlómien

09-23-2016, 02:05 PM

So, Legate and I are sitting on our sofa, reading this chapter and discussing Gandalf. He's a major presence in this chapter - probably half of the narration is actually his monologue. I love his voice and he's a great character but never tell me Gandalf is a boring goody two shoes mentor character. He's a horrible besserwisser, very arrogant (despite being humbler than say Saruman) and quite ruthless.

Every time I read this chapter I find his treatment of Gollum a little more off-putting, basically everything from the torture to the loathing way he talks about him. He implies Gollum deserves Frodo's pity, yet he has very little pity for Gollum himself. Also, Gandalf isn't exactly known for "the end justifies the means" attitude - that's more Saruman's cup of tea - but when I think of him and Gollum, I think maybe he should be.

Another thing I was paying attention to - okay this will probably take us a bit off topic and would probably merit a thread of its own - was the difference between Bilbo and Frodo as Ringbearers, and how important it is that Bilbo gave the Ring away freely - even Frodo, the steadfast pacifist martyr could not do it. (Well, he went through a lot worse things than Bilbo ever did and was under an entirely different strain, but this is still thematically and symbolically important.) Gandalf also stresses that the Ring had so little power over Bilbo because his first deed as a Ringbearer stemmed of pity.

Now this made me think, what was Frodo's first significant deed wearing the Ring? I think of Weathertop and stabbing the Witch-King. Is that why Frodo had such a difficult relationship with the Ring? But Frodo act courageously and in self-defense, in Elbereth's name and against the Dark Powers. It's hard to think of that as a bad thing.

Lastly, a small thing. Did Gollum really eat human babies?! :eek:

Legate of Amon Lanc

09-23-2016, 02:28 PM

Every time I read this chapter I find his treatment of Gollum a little more off-putting, basically everything from the torture to the loathing way he talks about him. He implies Gollum deserves Frodo's pity, yet he has very little pity for Gollum himself. Also, Gandalf isn't exactly known for "the end justifies the means" attitude - that's more Saruman's cup of tea - but when I think of him and Gollum, I think maybe he should be.
It certainly sounds quite scary there, what he does to Gollum. What does "I put the fear of fire on him" mean, anyway? Gandalf is being awfully vague, that is most certainly not a normal expression and I would like to know what he means there. Somehow I don't think it just means picking up a torch and waving it menacingly. It feels like something... deeper.

When I read this now, I have been also thinking that the expression reminds me of something else, something creepy someone else does, maybe some Ringwraith later on. Then I realised: it reminded me of what happens to the squint-eyed Southerner in one of the versions of the Hunt for the Ring in the Unfinished Tales. When running an errand for Saruman, he stumbles upon the Nazgul who are riding North, and they question him, learn where the Shire is, learn that Saruman is a double-crosser and afterwards, they "reprogram" this Saruman's agent and send him to Bree where he teams up with Bill Ferny. The phrase I am interested in, however, is:
[The Witch-King] put therefore the Shadow of Fear on the Dunlending, and sent him on to Bree as an agent.
Super-creepy, right after some awful mind-torture, and just the fact that I am even able to connect this with what Gandalf did to Gollum does not shed very good light on Mr. Scary Wizard. Huh. *shudders*

Gandalf also stresses that the Ring had so little power over Bilbo because his first deed as a Ringbearer stemmed of pity.

Now this made me think, what was Frodo's first significant deed wearing the Ring? I think of Weathertop and stabbing the Witch-King. Is that why Frodo had such a difficult relationship with the Ring? But Frodo act courageously and in self-defense, in Elbereth's name and against the Dark Powers. It's hard to think of that as a bad thing.
Tsk-tsk. I can think of at least one earlier one: in the Barrow. His friends are lying there, seemingly dead, he wakes up, and he thinks that he could run away, imagines himself being free and grieving for them, but being alive. Then he decides not to. Actually, now that I said it, it feels much more so like a parallel to Bilbo's "first deed", isn't it? There is a similar moral dilemma present, similar feel. I don't know if that was intentional parallel - it is still quite a well-hidden episode, as we can see for example just from the fact that you forgot about it, and I think you wouldn't be alone (even though PJ and company are surely partly responsible for this)... but in any case, a parallel it is.

And, of course, it points towards Frodo's future choices, and indeed, his whole journey: it is about self-sacrifice, about sticking with his friends (or not - it is also a reversal of his future choice at Amon Hen where he does choose to abandon his friends - in order to protect them. Again).

Lastly, a small thing. Did Gollum really eat human babies?! :eek:
And animal babies. But yes, Frodo's disgust with Gollum after hearing the story is perfectly understandable then - and he voices the disgust repeatedly, I have noticed this time, almost a bit too many times one might think, but under these circumstances, quite appropriately.

Thinlómien

09-23-2016, 02:41 PM

Tsk-tsk. I can think of at least one earlier one: in the Barrow. His friends are lying there, seemingly dead, he wakes up, and he thinks that he could run away, imagines himself being free and grieving for them, but being alive. Then he decides not to. Actually, now that I said it, it feels much more so like a parallel to Bilbo's "first deed", isn't it? There is a similar moral dilemma present, similar feel. I don't know if that was intentional parallel - it is still quite a well-hidden episode, as we can see for example just from the fact that you forgot about it, and I think you wouldn't be alone (even though PJ and company are surely partly responsible for this)... but in any case, a parallel it is.

And, of course, it points towards Frodo's future choices, and indeed, his whole journey: it is about self-sacrifice, about sticking with his friends (or not - it is also a reversal of his future choice at Amon Hen where he does choose to abandon his friends - in order to protect them. Again).Very interesting. I actually originally thought of an even earlier thing: Frodo putting on the Ring to test Tom Bombadil. Not very noble or wise - but surely no a significant deed either?

But I think you might be onto something here. I'm looking forward to that chapter now.

Boromir88

09-23-2016, 11:22 PM

There is a lot of things I'm finding I want to comment on in this chapter. Where oh where should I begin?

The previous posts in this thread discussed a lot about Frodo's motivations, and will, for accepting the Ring. Some have even said he's selfish, judgmental and cowardly. I sympathize the most with Frodo's choices in this chapter, if anything it's Gandalf who comes off as a manipulator and not flawless and not the "goody two shoes mentor," as Lommy puts it.

Not only because of his threats to get info out of Gollum, but also he's got a bit of a temper. The previous chapter we are hinted that the wizard isn't as kindly and gentle as he seems:

That was Gandalf's mark, of course and the old man was Gandalf the Wizard, whose fame in the Shire was due mainly to his skill with fires, smokes, and lights. His real business was far more difficult and dangerous, but the Shire-folk knew nothing about it.

Now in The Shadow of the Past, he basically scares Frodo into leaving The Shire and taking the Ring. When I read it this time, Gandalf is rather rude to Frodo, he doesn't sound understanding of Frodo's frustration and peril that has been forced upon him.

'It is not,' said Frodo. 'Though I am not sure that I understand you. But how have you learned all this about the Ring, and about Gollum? Do you really know it all, or are you just guessing still?'

Gandalf looked at Frodo, and his eyes glinted. 'I knew much and I have learned much,' he answered. 'But I am not going to give an account of all my doings to you. The history of Elendil and Isildur and the One Ring is known to all the Wise. Your ring is shown to be that One Ring by the fire-writing alone, apart from any other evidence.'

'And when did you discover that?' asked Frodo, interrupting.
'Just now in this room, of course,' answered the wizard sharply.

The italics are Tolkien's influence and I really think Gandalf comes off in a bad tone, it's belittling and rude. Reading between the lines it comes off as Gandalf saying "I don't have to explain myself to you (Frodo)" and "I know more than what I'm telling you, but I'm going to tell you only what I think is necessary for you to know." Then he gets cross with Frodo for being scared of taking the only choice that Gandalf pushes Frodo into making. Manipulative much?

Also, this isn't the only time Gandalf casually mentions a threat of fire to get information out of someone:

'"Butterbur they call him," thought I. "If this delay was his fault, I will melt all the butter in him. I will roast the old fool over a slow fire." He expected no less, and when he saw my face he fell down flat and began to melt on the spot.'

'What did you do to him?' cried Frodo in alarm. 'He was really very kind to us and did all that he could.'

Gandalf laughed. 'Don't be afraid!' he said. 'I did not bite, and I only barked very little. So overjoyed was I by the news that I got out of him, when he stopped quaking, that I embraced the old fellow...'~The Council of Elrond

Whether Gandalf would ever torture someone to get information he wants, is not the point. It's the fact he has apparently no problems making people think he will roast them if they don't. After Bilbo's 2nd disappearance from the Shire, Gandalf's reputation plummets. He's no longer a kind old wizard who serves as a main party entertainment. He's a "nuisance and a disturber of the peace."

"Some people are actually accusing me of spiriting Bilbo away, or worse. If you want to know, there is supposed to be a plot between you and me to get hold of his wealth."~A Long-expected Party

But in the meantime, the general opinion in the neighbourhood was that Bilbo, who had always been rather cracked, had at last gone quite mad, and had run off into the Blue. There he had undoubtedly fallen into a pool or a river and come to a tragic, but hardly an untimely, end. The blame was mostly laid on Gandalf.~The Shadow of the Past

I think it's great character building that even though the town gossip is absurd and not what actually happened, there is a grain of truth to every rumor. It's important we see this darker, manipulative Gandalf. Ironically what happens at the end of this chapter is basically what Gandalf was accused of doing at the end of the previous chapter. It goes to show why Gandalf would be a most terrible and frightening Ring-bearer. He has no second-guessing of letting people think he will roast them for information. He all but tells Frodo he has the power to break his mind:

Gandalf laughed grimly. 'You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make" you - except by force, which would break your mind...'

It's Gandalf's restraint and rejection of using that power which is his redemption. Although, it's certainly frightening that he uses the threat of his power to intimidate others to get the results and answers he wants. Yep, I definitely sympathize with Frodo in this chapter.

Boromir88

09-24-2016, 09:11 AM

Other points I took away from the chapter this time around...

I always noted Frodo's disgust and disbelief when Gandalf tells him that Gollum was not so different from hobbits. Frodo simply can't believe there is any connection to someone so vile and done as many awful deeds as Gollum has done. I know how much this changes when Frodo encounters and spared Gollum's life. They are both so closely tied by the Ring, but I really took notice for the first time that there is a connection between the two that doesn't involve the Ring. In the same way that Bilbo and Gollum were familiar with the same riddles, in this chapter we see Frodo shares Gollum's inquisitive mind to discover new paths:

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 walking in the hills and woods under the starlight. Merry and Pippin suspected that he visited the Elves at times; as Bilbo had done.

So it went on, until his forties were running out, and his fiftieth birthday was drawing near: fifty was a number that he felt was somehow significant (or ominous); it was at any rate at that age that adventure had suddenly befallen Bilbo. Frodo began to feel restless, and the old paths seemed too well-trodden. He looked at maps, and wondered what lay beyond their edges: maps made in the Shire showed mostly white spaces beyond its borders. He took to wandering further afield and more often by himself; and Merry and his other friends watched him anxiously. Often he was seen walking and talking with strange wayfarers that began at this time to appear in the Shire.

Frodo's restlessness is described twice as "wandering." He gets no more enjoyment walking the "old paths that seemed to well-trodden," he wanders further from home and mostly on his own. I only recently connected Frodo's "wandering" to a trait similar to Gollum's. Yes, Gollum stayed hidden in his mountain cave, but he had the same wandering spirit to discover secrets and pathways:

'All the "great secrets" under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night: there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering. He was altogether wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything, and the Ring most of all.'

Gollum leaves the mountains and continues on wandering, actually tracing Bilbo's paths and then answers the "summons" to Mordor where the are new paths and secrets he discovers in his aimless wandering. Frodo doesn't want to see it yet, but there is more connecting the two than the Ring. Or this wandering that leads to no purpose could be an effect of the Ring as well?

Ted Sandyman is one of the more humorous characters to me. Without a doubt he's obnoxious and annoying, but every time I read Ted's dialogue, I just can't stop picturing the ultimate internet troll. "I didn't see it, so it can't be true! You said Hal saw it? Well he's always saying he saw something."

"Walking trees! No way, what he saw was just an elm tree."
But there are no elm trees in this area
"Then he couldn't have seen an elm tree!"

I just want to yell at Sam to stop feeding the troll. :p

Formendacil

07-20-2018, 06:12 PM

I had nothing to say for "A Long-Awaited Party," and then somehow a whole grocery list of thoughts occurred for "The Shadow of the Past." Skim-reading through the thread (and getting side-tracked here or there), it fascinates me that I had so many thoughts that WEREN'T already touched on in this thread's 14-year history!

1. The narrator is very coy about whether or not Frodo actually meets Elves--we're definitely supposed to think he does, but it's interesting to me that we're never directly told it. And since it's definitely a new experience when Frodo meets Gildor & Co, he's not meeting High Elves. It's kind of a pity we don't see any of these meetings. If they're not High Elves, are they Elves of Eriador or Elves from beyond heading for the Havens? If they're Elves of Eriador, does that mean they're Nandor--or are we talking about Sindar--or is it even right in a post-Lindon, post-Eregion, post-Last Alliance, end-of-the-Third-Age era to make those distinctions?

2. On a similar note, I'd love to know more about the Dwarves streaming towards the Blue Mountains. They're presumably not Longbeards, which would give us the only real post-Nauglamír look at non-Longbeard Dwarves. Where did these Dwarves live before? What roads did they take to Eriador? It seems unlike they came through Gondor or Rohan, given the attitude of Éomer on first encountering Gimli (he lumps him with Legolas a creature out of legend), and there are distinct obstacles in coming through Mirkwood. Could they have lived in the Grey Mountains?

And what if some of them ARE Longbeards? Could there be Dwarves (remember, they're a race characterised as businessmen more than warriors) who see the way the wind is blowing in Erebor and DON'T want to see things hit the fan? If they're non-Longbeards and if they're coming from further East than Erebor, are they going right past Dáin's kingdom and making the hard journey through Mirkwood and over the mountains and what does THAT say?

Both these questions are the kind of RPG fodder that I find fascinating (and would love to see explored).

3. "His [Gandalf's] hair was perhaps whiter than it had been then, and his beard and eyebrows were perhaps longer."

Just how long ARE Gandalf's eyebrows? I think it's The Hobbit that says they stick out below the brim of his hat, but apparently that wasn't long enough--Tolkien says they might even be longer. If you have no concept of hyperbole, this is downright comic.

4. The whole concept of this thread (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=579653) came up--and in short, it's kind of a chicken-and-egg question: which came first, the full poem ("Three Rings for the Elven-kings..."), which Gandalf says is a poem known to the wise, or are the two verses engraved on the Ring older?

If the poem came first, does it fit with Sauron's personality to quote someone else's poetry on his magnum opus. Actually, scratch that: it's not even possible for the poem to have existed pre-the One Ring, because why would a poem exist in which the One Ring is referenced before the One Ring existed.

But, on the other hand, why would there be a poem "long known in Elven-lore" that has a direct quote from the One Ring? Even granting that the Ring is certainly important enough to have lore about preserved, would the Elves *REALLY* directly quote Sauron? (There's more about the poem in "The Council of Elrond"--or in "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" about these lines being Sauron's... but no more to clarify why the Elves would preserve his words directly in their lore.) I think the reason this bothers me a little is that the Elves are *so* offended when Gandalf recites the Black Speech in Rivendell--and, granted, the lore isn't preserved in the Black Speech, but it is still Sauron's own words and they're distinctly triumphal. And it's not as if the Elves preserved those words alone--someone, presumably an Elf, took the trouble to build a whole longer poem around them. It's almost like the most edgy kind of musical sampling you can imagine.

5. "I wish it need not have happened in my time" is one of those really identifiable moments, and Gandalf's advice has a LOT of applicability here. Give it enough time and the easily read-in allegory that has always been possible (though disavowed) will turn to some kind of golden prophecy: "Oh, Tolkien was prophecying the events of the 2020s. Frodo's dismay is that of any millennial born in the 1980s and 1990s, who remembered the golden years and Bilbo [i.e. the Greatest Generations] tales of adventures. Gandalf's advice is a prescient comfort to those who would have to face the Digital Takeover and the Fall of Democracy."

6. Ending on a creepy note: "Then why didn't he track Bilbo further," asked Frodo. "Why didn't he come the Shire?"

Gandalf answers that Gollum meant to and got distracted, and while it certainly wasn't GOOD news for Middle-earth that he ended up in Mordor, I still kind of feel that we were spared the horror story of Gollum making his way by pitch blackness down the East Road, propagating the same horrors in Bree and Buckland that he left in the Wilderland and Dale. Can you imagine him creeping up to a quiet Bag-End some dark night and trying to murder Bilbo in his sleep? Gives me the shivers--but I'll admit that if the Amazon Lord of the Rings series turns out to be an anthology of What If? alternative stories and this is one, I'll be all in.

Boromir88

08-07-2018, 06:19 PM

4. The whole concept of this thread came up--and in short, it's kind of a chicken-and-egg question: which came first, the full poem ("Three Rings for the Elven-kings..."), which Gandalf says is a poem known to the wise, or are the two verses engraved on the Ring older?~Formendacil

Could it be the lines engraved on the One Ring were just a later addition to the poem. The original being:

Three Rings for the Elven-Kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Then at some point the "One Ring" verses were just added on later. I don't think it would be unheard of. Bilbo's "The Road goes ever on and on" alters throughout the story.

In A Long-Expected Party Bilbo says: "Pursuing it with eager feet"

In Three is Company Frodo changes "eager feet" to "weary feet".

And finally in Many Partings, Bilbo changes the last couple lines:

"Let them a journey new begin
But I at last with weary feet
Will turn towards the lighted inn,
My evening-rest and sleep to meet."

Granted Bilbo's road poem is not the same as a poem "long known in Elven-lore." And there is this underlying theme from the Elves that they're simply fighting the "long defeat." Fighting the long defeat is depressing and sad to think about, but the moral being there is always hope, even if it's just a fool's hope. It's why all the good and wise characters are pretty clear they're not prognosticators.

Gandalf advices Frodo that "not even the very wise can see all ends."

Elrond counsels against an oath being placed on anyone in the Fellowship, because who knows what decisions each member of the Fellowship will have to make. Gimli says sworn word will strengthen a quaking heart. Elrond responds "or break it."

Galadriel tells Frodo she's not in the future-telling business. Her Mirror cannot predict the future.

I guess this is me saying in a roundabout way, it might be depressing the Elves would include Sauron's triumph in making the One Ring, but it's also kind of Elven if you think about their "fight the long defeat" theme.