What happened at Mount Doom?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Read this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1310&highlight=doom), this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=588&highlight=doom), this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12299&highlight=doom), and then decide....

[Bêthberry]

How else would Tolkien be able to spend another six chapters concluding the story with the themes he wanted to highlight? :p

[Formendacil]

Gollum fell into the Fire because he slipped. He slipped because Eru willed it. Eru willed it because that's the way Tolkien wrote the story.

I went with A, but it's not the only applicable answer...

[Tuor in Gondolin]

According to "Letters", I don't have a copy with me right now, it
would have to be the last option. He stated, essentially, that that
was the logic of Gollum's developed character.

[The Saucepan Man]

And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell.On the basis of the "facts" as presented to us, the only thing that we can say for certain is that Gollum slipped. There is certainly material to suggest that Eru gave him a little nudge, but the reader is by no means bound to accept that. Indeed, having no knowledge of Eru when I first read the tale, it would have been impossible for me to draw such a conclusion. Option B is therefore dependent upon the individual reader.

Option C is most certainly out of the question as it runs contrary to the stated "facts" and, as for option D, well I can imagine that an alternative scenario, which retained the essence of the story, would have been possible.

Option A it is then.

[Bêthberry]

as for option D, well I can imagine that an alternative scenario, which retained the essence of the story, would have been possible.

Option A it is then.

Just out of curiosity, could you provide us with a brief outline of what you can imagine? Or are you speaking just of logical probability?

[The Saucepan Man]

Or are you speaking just of logical probability?But of course. ;)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

On the basis of the "facts" as presented to us, the only thing that we can say for certain is that Gollum slipped... Option A it is then. I agree and have logged my vote accordingly.

[Lalwendë]

I'm with SpM on this one too. Though I can see that option D, that it was the only 'right' way for the story to end, is also quite a decent choice. I do happen to think that having Gollum trip and fall with the Ring was quite perfect. Gollum could not have functioned without the Ring; as shown in his pursuit of Frodo, he had become virtaully single minded on getting it. What if he had not got the Ring but had seen Frodo chuck it in? I'm sure Gollum would have either jumped in after it or else murdered Frodo there and then in anger.

As I've said so many times before, I love Gollum, he's one of my favourite characters in any book, but he simply could not go on after the Ring was unmade. What's more, he gains a kind of redemption by acting as he did.

He would never have jumped in with the Ring wilfully; he'd have put it on and the Nazgul would have been after him and all hell would have been let loose.

[Gothmog]

Also I agree with previous posters: Gollum tripped and fell. Wether the crucial false step was provoked by some unknown power or not can be discussed, but it's a pure hypothetical question. Only Eru knows ;) But it seems as if it was Gollum's fate to destroy the ring, as Frodo couldn't, not just luck or the chance. To much depended on this event.

This was one of the scenes that I reacted strongest against in the movies. Would Frodo be responsible for Gollums death? The wrestling-to-death idea feels so wrong here. But that belongs to an other thread.

[davem]

The problem with A is that it is too 'coincidental'. It reduces the end of Sauron to a fluke. For an 'accident' to save the whole world from disaster seems beyond belief. There must have been a purpose behind it, or it kind of makes all the struggles up to that point 'pointless'.

The problem with B is that it makes Eru a murderer.

The problem with C is that he didn't jump.

The problem with D is that it doesn't actually make sense :p

I go for option n....

[Formendacil]

The problem with A is that it is too 'coincidental'. It reduces the end of Sauron to a fluke. For an 'accident' to save the whole world from disaster seems beyond belief. There must have been a purpose behind it, or it kind of makes all the struggles up to that point 'pointless'.

The problem with B is that it makes Eru a murderer.

Ah, but Sauron was NOT killed, merely reduced to an impotent spirit. Therefore, to call Eru a murderer is not necessarily incorrect.

Of course, there is the whole issue that there is no reason why Gollum's slip can't both be a completely natural slip AND a fulfillment of the Divine Will...

[davem]

Ah, but Sauron was NOT killed, merely reduced to an impotent spirit. Therefore, to call Eru a murderer is not necessarily incorrect.



I meant Gollum - if Eru was responsible for him 'tripping'...

[Lalwendë]

The problem with A is that it is too 'coincidental'. It reduces the end of Sauron to a fluke. For an 'accident' to save the whole world from disaster seems beyond belief. There must have been a purpose behind it, or it kind of makes all the struggles up to that point 'pointless'.

At the risk of my morning tea 'n' toast, I have to disagree. :p

The 'point' to me is that the whole quest was the true battle, the true heroism. it was the getting there that was the difficult part. That Frodo then could not destroy the Ring and that it was destroyed by accident is beside the point - and in any case, having the Ring destroyed in this way would avoid making a kind of uber-hero, the all-conquering-Ring-destroyer (or something along the lines of grand hyperbole usually found in fantasy). to have that would only replace the Dark Lord with his opposite, an unbearably perfect hero.

If it was a fluke that Sauron ended this way then that is just perfect, as it proves that despite having as much power as anyone could hope for, a simple accident can quite literally bring it all crashing down. It could be a lesson in pride?

[Formendacil]

I meant Gollum - if Eru was responsible for him 'tripping'...

That begs the question then, of whether Eru is to be considered a murderer for killing off his own creatures- made by Him, and Him alone, and subject to his will. If one thinks of the fate of Ar-Pharazon and his men as "murder", then he's guilty.

For that matter, if the very fact that he made Men (and Hobbits) mortal- thus killing even the healthiest of them in the end, is murder, then we have a major killer here...

But I would contend that IF Eru "fated" Gollum to trip, that does not mean that he killed him. As far as fate goes, if Gollum was fated to trip, then Frodo was fated to go to Valinor, Isildur was fated to lose the Ring and die, and Turin was fated to kill himself.

I don't personally think that Eru "pushed" Gollum (ie. Murdered him), but I do sense His hand in it...

[tar-ancalime]

I'll take choice "e":

The story had to end this way because otherwise (assuming Frodo had destroyed the Ring), they would have had to let Gollum take the ship West from the Havens as a Ringbearer.

Joking aside, I agree with Lalwende when she says:

If it was a fluke that Sauron ended this way then that is just perfect, as it proves that despite having as much power as anyone could hope for, a simple accident can quite literally bring it all crashing down. It could be a lesson in pride?

I've got more to say but I haven't had any coffee yet, so it's not coming out in coherent form.

Sentences.

Paragraphs.

I'll try again later.

[davem]

But I would contend that IF Eru "fated" Gollum to trip, that does not mean that he killed him.

Well, it must mean something pretty close to that. Maybe Eru willed that the Ring was going to go into the Fire at that point & Gollum just happened to be holding onto it at the time - it pulled him in?

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem, to draw on your argument from the Feanor - Self-Important? thread, might it be that Eru willed that Gollum be the instrument of the Ring's destruction but that Gollum had free-will as to precisely how he would play his part? Once he chose not to destroy it willingly or to aid Frodo in doing so, then the "accident" was the only means of bringing about that which was fated to occur.

The problem, of course, is that this sets Gollum an impossible task, as not even Frodo could bring himself to destroy the Ring willingly.

Another thought occurs to me. Was there perhaps a way in which Gollum could "accidentally" have destroyed the Ring without falling into the Crack of Doom himself?

Bêthberry asked me:

Just out of curiosity, could you provide us with a brief outline of what you can imagine?I did give this some thought. One alternative which (I think) would maintain the essence of the story would be to have Gollum trip while triumphantly holding the Ring and lose his grip on it. The Ring then rolls over the edge of the Crack, but Gollum doesn't follow it in. Having had his life preserved well beyond his natural life by the power of the Ring, Gollum then dies of old age with its destruction. Would that fit the bill? Eru could certainly not be labelled a "murderer" in those circumstances as Gollum would have been bound to die with the detruction of the Ring, whatever else happened. There might even be scope for Gollum to renounce his sins, thereby setting up the possibility of his redemption, in his dying words to Frodo.

Any thoughts?

[drigel]

Whats worse for Eru, being a murderer, or subjecting the poor soul of Gollum to hundreds of years of pain and suffering?

[Eonwe]

hmmm. i don't quite get the whole "eru is a murderer" arguement. Sauron was created as a fair being, a maia, to server the Valar. He was corrupted by Morgoth, but in reality, he made the choice to forsake the Valar (and Eru's will). Then, he was pardoned by the Valar, when they had every right to throw him into the Void. (And i think this would have been in concordance with Eru's will, just as it was to have Morgoth thrown into the Void.) But he scorned the Valar's free pardon and sank back into his old rebellion. I think any of these things are worthy of the wrath and doom of eru.

And i don't think that Eru can be guilty of "subjecting the poor soul of Gollum to hundreds of years of pain and suffering". Gollum could do anything he wanted. He could have thrown it away, or he could have not murdered Deagol (which is why, according to Gandalf, the ring had such a malicious effect on him, as oppsed to Bilbo's more benine effects), he could have passed it on, or any number of things. The fact is, he wanted to keep the ring, and this caused him to forsake all the things he loved (family, sunlight, trees, fields, etc.) and hide under teh mountains, where he was transformed into what we know of as gollum.

Now, obviously the ring was a huge tempteation, but it was not unconquorable. Gandalf had nothing to do with it, even when it was freely offered him. Same for Galadriel. So i think that the blame for gollum falls squarely on his shoulders. Especially when he could have stayed nicely in Mirkwood eating elvin food and sleeping in elvin comfort. Like sauron, he decided to return to rebellion and misdeeds.

I don't think you can hold Eru responsible for the choices gollum made. I think the slipping into the Cracks of Doom were the direct results of passed actions on Gollom's part. (if he had only left deagol alone, if he had only stayed in mirkwood, etc.)

[drigel]

Eonwe good points. I brought that question up because of the Eru as murderer topic. It's the whole free will issue, and how/why evil is allowed to happen. It's all so subjective and relative. Its a very human debate especially concerning the ringbearers. But, for arguments sake, let's conjecture.

If one subscribes to the idea that it's all free will, then the only other strength to the argument is chaos. It was a dumb-luck random event that Deagol saw something shiny in the river. Bilbo's hand fell on to the ring by sheer coincidence. Bilbo being on the Quest of Erebor just a happenstance, etc.

No example of free will there, right? Dont even bring up what the ring willed (lol). The insertion of magical or fantastic elements just muddies up the picture to me. In this case, IMHO, the only thing the ring brings to the story at this point is that it is an actual physical manifistation of Evil on earth. The "free" choices made at Mt Doom by Frodo and Gollum are exactly the same: we are fallen creatures all of us.

I dont read a lot of preachy overtones in the works, but I do subscribe to the idea that Gollum's life and death, as was Sauron's, Aragorn's, Galadriel's, Morgoth's etc etc were all part of Eru's plan. They all intertwine and they all had a purpose to fufill. Eru nudged Gollum, as much as he whispered in Gandalf's ear that Bilbo needed to go on the Quest.

I go for A and B :smokin:

[mormegil]

I choose that Eru willed it because of one main factor. As I have stated elsewhere if there is anyone that had right to know the will of Eru it would be Manwe. Well Manwe wasn't in Middle-earth at the time but his servant was. That to me means that Gandalf, as Manwe's servant and obviously the most "righteous" of the Istari, would be the logical choice for the recipient of what Eru's will would be. I believe he knew a bit of the will of Eru when he said

I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells
me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and
when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not
least.

It is obvious here that Gandalf has some inkling here of Eru's will though he knows not what part Gollum will play he knows that Eru's will is set that Gollum will play a part.

And I don't believe that this makes Eru a murder in the least. His will is divine and without fault. Therefore when he gives life it's also his to take away whenever he deems it fit.

[Lhunardawen]

There's certainly more to this poll than meets the Eye. (Haha. :rolleyes: )

As Formendacil had very cleverly put it, options A, B, and D are valid, at least for me. A and B have been already explained and debated upon. In my opinion, D is not exactly nonsensical. Come to think of it, had Frodo in any way willingly thrown the Ring, that would make him a hero far more than Gandalf or Aragorn had been, or could ever be. Frodo then would have done something Isildur had not done, Saruman would have not done, and Gandalf admitted he could not have done. The concept of the Fellowship and their division (physically) would not make sense if in the end Frodo swept all victory into his hands.

But if we're talking direct cause, it would be A of course.

[davem]

And I don't believe that this makes Eru a murder in the least. His will is divine and without fault. Therefore when he gives life it's also his to take away whenever he deems it fit.

No, its not. For one, Eru is not God, but a character Tolkien created, so we can sit in judgement on Him & analyse his behaviour just as freely as we do any other character in the story. Secondly, without repeating what I've just posted (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=422976&postcount=58) on the CbC thread on Mount Doom, Eru cannot just be absolved of responsibility for His actions. If His Rules are truly Good, they will apply to everyone - including Eru Himself.

[Lalwendë]

For one, Eru is not God, but a character Tolkien created, so we can sit in judgement on Him & analyse his behaviour just as freely as we do any other character in the story.

A good point worth remembering. Unless there are any Eruists around here to offend, we can say what in Angband we like about him. ;)

But seriously, to me when it is said that the hand of Eru was involved in the demise of Gollum and the Ring, it is the same as saying it was Fate which made it happen. And to say it was God or Fate or Eru which caused something to happen is a way of expressing that which we cannot explain.

Really, the chance that Gollum tripped up, and the idea that Eru caused it to happen are two sides of the same coin. We can either say "wow, how lucky for Middle-earth that Gollum fell over his own feet" or we can say "whoa, it was Fate" or we can say "Eru caused this to happen". Really, saying that Eru had a hand in it, is just trying to fix a solid point in the chaos of chance; we can either accept chance or attribute it to higher powers.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Interesting voting and comments so far – to be honest I thought that option B would be way out in front, and that option D would attract hardly any attention at all (although I would have bet a month’s salary that Bethberry was going to vote that way – old narratologists die hard… ;) )

My vote, for what it’s worth, is option C, which looks as though I shall once again be in the extreme minority. I know that it may appear mad to say that Gollum jumped in to the fire on purpose, but hear me out.

In “The Black Gate is Closed,” Frodo says to Gollum:

‘You swore a promise by what you call the Precious. Remember that! It will hold you to it; but it will seek a way to twist it to your own undoing. Already you are being twisted. You revealed yourself to me just now, foolishly. Give it back to Smeagol you said. Do not say that again! Do not let that thought grow in you! You will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last need, Smeagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care, Smeagol!’

Frodo shows a high degree of prescience here insofar as he correctly predicts, in a way, what will happen at Mount Doom, for in “the last need” he does indeed put on the Ring and Gollum goes “into the fire.” It’s interesting too that Frodo tells Gollum that if he puts on the Ring “such would be my command” (that Gollum jump from a precipice or into the fire – or maybe both…).

Now, I’m not arguing that when Gollum gets the Ring he remembers this conversation and concludes that Frodo’s order now automatically applies, and so he must throw himself into the fire. That would be too simple (although it is tempting to see the last shred of Gollum that may be Smeagol at work here – that bit of goodness awakened and nurtured by Frodo is so horrified by Gollum’s betrayal, and so terrified of being lost forever, that it sub- or unconsciously makes Gollum step too far…I don’t really buy this, but it’s an interesting idea at the very least).

OK, so what is my argument then… Well, I suppose that I would say that this option (Gollum jumped in on purpose) contains within it all of the other options. First, yes it was an accidental slip insofar as Gollum did not think “I must go into the fire now with the Ring.” But, his fate is also part of The Plan, so Eru was there making sure that good triumphs over evil. But He was not in command of it all – as Gandalf points out time and again, there is no puppet master in the sky; all the events and actions of the story are the result of free will – so Gollum wasn’t pushed, but it wasn’t really just an accident. That's why I quoted that conversation from earlier, since it's prettly clearly laid out there, well in advance of the story's climax, that Frodo putting on the Ring will entail Gollum's destruction. So either this is the wildest coincidence ever (and there's no such thing as coincidence in a fictional tale under the control of an author) or there's some kind of cause and effect relation between Frodo claiming the Ring and Gollum dying.

Finally, option C also includes option D insofar as by having the tale end this way (with Gollum going into the fire accidentally-on-purpose) Tolkien was able to leave the fabric of his story whole, without reducing it with gross over-simplification. As Bethberry has pointed out in the CbC thread, the journey up Mount Doom is a complex and subtle re-enactment of the soul’s journey – to have the conclusion of that quest clearly rendered as the result either of accident or design would be to remove the complexity of that moment and of the whole tale’s exploration of the relation between free will and fate, moral action and choice, guilt and culpability, forgiveness an fault.

If Gollum had clearly jumped on his own, or if an angelic minister had come to throw him in – would this moment be even a bit as interesting and powerful as it is? I daresay that in the end, the whole enchantment of the story hangs upon this moment insofar as we know that Gollum went in “on purpose” but that, in the end, what that purpose may be is hard (if not impossible) for us to really understand.

[Bêthberry]

(although I would have bet a month’s salary that Bethberry was going to vote that way – old narratologists die hard… ;) )



You know, Fordie, I don't think I've ever voted on any of your other polls, but when I realised you probably set that choice just for me, well, I had to acknowledge your efforts some how and voting for any of the others, well, it just didn't seem to do justice to your efforts. ;)


Bêthberry asked me:

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, could you provide us with a brief outline of what you can imagine?

I did give this some thought. One alternative which (I think) would maintain the essence of the story would be to have Gollum trip while triumphantly holding the Ring and lose his grip on it. The Ring then rolls over the edge of the Crack, but Gollum doesn't follow it in. Having had his life preserved well beyond his natural life by the power of the Ring, Gollum then dies of old age with its destruction. Would that fit the bill? Eru could certainly not be labelled a "murderer" in those circumstances as Gollum would have been bound to die with the detruction of the Ring, whatever else happened. There might even be scope for Gollum to renounce his sins, thereby setting up the possibility of his redemption, in his dying words to Frodo.

Any thoughts?

Well, that certainly would satisfy various of the themes of redemption, but then again, that works against that very satisfying--narratologically--scene where Gollem almost repents but is cut off from his chance by a good man who means well but whose efforts at that moment foreclose goodwill--one of those catastrophic moments Tolkien discusses in his letters.

I suspect also that, narratologically, having Gollem simply die of old age once the Ring is destroyed would lack some of the climactic energy and shock which his fall into the Crack of Doom has. It might also fail to give an emotional satisfaction to those who like to see villians get their comeuppance. Of course, here the narratological imperative runs counter to the moral impulse.

[davem]

That's why I quoted that conversation from earlier, since it's prettly clearly laid out there, well in advance of the story's climax, that Frodo putting on the Ring will entail Gollum's destruction.

But wouldn't that make Frodo the murderer? He tells Gollum 'If I put on the Ring you will be cast into the Fire, & he then puts on the Ring?

I think that leaves Frodo even more in need of forgiveness.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I can't vote, because options 1, 2 and 4 all apply. Option 1 - obvious. He slipped. Duh.

Option 2 - Well, of course, it was Eru's will that he slip. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring -- by who? Eru obviously. And, the Gandalf quote about Gollum having some part to play before the end has already been cited.

Option 4 - This is THE only way the Ring could have been destroyed, and is also the only way the climax can wrap up perfectly; both of those are IMHO. Tolkien says that Gollum COULD have, in another situation, voluntarily cast himself and the Ring into the Crack. I disagree (the author IS after all sometimes wrong in his Letters), putting forth the premise that the will of the Ring prevails over all others, especially at Mount Doom.

And it is perfectly fitting that, after all that Frodo and Sam and Gandalf and Aragorn and all the rest do, in the end the destruction of the Ring is beyond their power. One slip from the one least likely (in theory) to destroy it -- and Middle-earth is saved.

Finally, though I realize it is not the topic, I would like to say that I see no difference between Eru and God, any more than I see a difference between Aslan and Jesus. Sure, He's in a different world, with different situations to deal with, but where's the real difference? We can infer from The Silmarillion that Eru is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. We know from the Athrabeth that Tolkien was apparently so concerned with the connection between M-E and our own world (at one point) that he detailed Eru's Incarnation. Eru is God. There is no doubt in my mind that Tolkien would agree. His God (and mine) transcends worlds, and reaches even into the ones that we humans create. "God is the Lord, of angels, and of men -- and of elves."

Sorry, I know that's off-topic, but it is related to the topic, since Eru's authority has been called into question. And it still can be, since you may not (and some obviously do not) agree with me. Perhaps a separate thread should be begun on this topic???

[davem]

Finally, though I realize it is not the topic, I would like to say that I see no difference between Eru and God, any more than I see a difference between Aslan and Jesus. Sure, He's in a different world, with different situations to deal with, but where's the real difference?

The difference is that, at best, Eru is Tolkien's take on God. Eru can't be the same as God, because he has no power to act beyond Tolkien's intention. Tolkien could have Eru do whatever he wanted Him to. To say that God=Eru is mistaking the map for the territory.

Also, is that the only one to one correspondence you see in the book? Do you see Frodo, or Aragorn as Christ? I think Eru=God is at the most extreme end of allegorical interpretation of the Legendarium. Tolkien's mind (anymore than any created being's) could not encompass the fullness & complexity of God - he would have to be greater than God in order to do that. He could only possibly know as much of God as God chose to reveal to him & 'you can't get a quart into a pint pot', as my old gaffer used to say ;)

[Formendacil]

The difference is that, at best, Eru is Tolkien's take on God. Eru can't be the same as God, because he has no power to act beyond Tolkien's intention. Tolkien could have Eru do whatever he wanted Him to. To say that God=Eru is mistaking the map for the territory.

Also, is that the only one to one correspondence you see in the book? Do you see Frodo, or Aragorn as Christ? I think Eru=God is at the most extreme end of allegorical interpretation of the Legendarium. Tolkien's mind (anymore than any created being's) could not encompass the fullness & complexity of God - he would have to be greater than God in order to do that. He could only possibly know as much of God as God chose to reveal to him & 'you can't get a quart into a pint pot', as my old gaffer used to say ;)

Okay, let's imagine this differently, then. Supposing that I was an artist, and I wanted to draw a picture of God caring for a repentant sinner. The sinner is not an allegory of any person or experience I personally know, or even that I don't know, just a sinner. His features might be based off of people I know, and his expression might be borrowed from somewhere. Same thing with the image of God.

Once I am done, I have a picture of God caring for a repentant sinner. It is not an allegory, nor is it a true story or a representation of one. It is, for all intents and purposes, a story.

So, I ask you then, is the God in my picture different than the God in Heaven? Yes, I agree that he is insofar as he is a painted object in my painting and the creator of all things in Heaven. However, within the confines of the painting, within the image, is there any reason to say that it is NOT as much God to the painted man as God Himself is to me?

What you seem to be saying, Master Davem, is that it is not possible for Man to write about God. I would put forward that this is a false premise. Man has been writing about God for thousands of years. He's the main character in the Bible.

And if God can be written about in a non-fiction work, even though none of the writers or the others characters can really, or did really, understand Him, then why is it so impossible for him to be written into a fictional work as well?

You base your premise that one CANNOT say that Eru is God because no one can know God completely. Well, as far as that goes, you can't know me completely. You can't know Mister Underhill completely. You can't even know Lalwende completely. It is a fact of human nature that we can NEVER know someone completely, entirely, totally.

Does that stop us from writing about them? No. Look at the abundance of biographies and, more pertinent to the discussion, historical novels, many of which were written by people who weren't even born at the time they occured. But they include real people, and they are, within the book, intended to be everything to the other characters (real or fictional) what they were to the people of their own time and period.

If it is possible then to write a fictional novel about fictional characters that incorporates real people into a story, with those real people being everything to the fictional characters that they were to their own contemporaries, then why is it so impossible to wriate a fictional epic about fictional characters that incorporates God into a story, with God being everything to that fictional world that he is to ours?

[Holbytlass]

I put Gollum's slipping to be the work of the ring. A horrible side-effect is the ring got itself destroyed. I come to this conclusion because of the promise made by Gollum to Frodo by the ring.

"It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!" Frodo to Gollum.

Since Gollum broke his promise to serve Frodo, the ring punished Gollum.

[drigel]

Both Form's and Davem's points have validity. I am guilty as anyone in illustrating a point that is really, at best, a conjecture, or a conjecture to the author's intention of the subject. Knowing what I think the author had originally invisioned as far as the Legendarium goes, I am translating a certain "theology" (of my own imagination) into LOTR. Fact is, there is (as, of course, totally intended by the author) no mention of Eru in LOTR. There is mention of Varda/Elbereth, which connects the whole deific structure that the Ainulindalë, Valaquenta, and the Akallabêth references (I think the Akallabêth most important to this subject - as it is the direct source of the accounts of Elendil and co., Of the Rings of Power, plus - the kicker IMO to the subject - the relase of Vala gaurdianship of Ea, and its breaking).

Where some might read magic, or good story-boarding, I read the nuance of the Divine influence in ME. Not elf divine or Manwe divine, but Divine. Very discretely and subtely inserted into the story by the author. The Valar can no longer ride in and save the day at this point, or any point after the breaking, even though it's always been one of their own that's caused all the evil.

So, I read LOTR as it's written, a novel. It's part of the whole (legendarium), but it's more than history of events written by a scribe. It's translated from it, and been fairy taled. It's closed circuit, as it were. More than a hobbit's tale - it is a study of the human condition, life and death and the divine.

Any direct parallels to our God are up to the reader to decide. But, there is only One..,,

[davem]

However, within the confines of the painting, within the image, is there any reason to say that it is NOT as much God to the painted man as God Himself is to me?

What you seem to be saying, Master Davem, is that it is not possible for Man to write about God. I would put forward that this is a false premise. Man has been writing about God for thousands of years. He's the main character in the Bible.

But your picture is not a picture of God qua God, but a representation of your image of God, which is your invention.

I suppose a Christian would say that the Bible is not a case of men writing about God, but of God telling Men about Himself. As to whether its actually possible to write about God, according to many mystics it simply isn't (cf The Cloud of Unknowing & Dioysius the Areopagite). Even if Tolkien meant Eru=God, we are still free to question whether he was right in his portrayal, so we can question his depiction of the Deity - just as we could question whether your painting of God is a fitting depiction - I may think its completely wrong (a Muslim or Jew, for instance, would find it blasphemous, as their faith rejects all graven images). So Eru, as an idea of Tolkien's, is open to question. Would God behave like Eru? I think that would require some pretty heavy proof.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Ok, that's it, I am now officially renaming this poll:

How many Downers can dance on the point of an Eru?

[davem]

Ok, that's it, I am now officially renaming this poll:

How many Downers can dance on the point of an Eru?

I think that would depend on whether Eru has a physical aspect, or is pure Spirit :p

[Formendacil]

But your picture is not a picture of God qua God, but a representation of your image of God, which is your invention.

I suppose a Christian would say that the Bible is not a case of men writing about God, but of God telling Men about Himself. As to whether its actually possible to write about God, according to many mystics it simply isn't (cf The Cloud of Unknowing & Dioysius the Areopagite). Even if Tolkien meant Eru=God, we are still free to question whether he was right in his portrayal, so we can question his depiction of the Deity - just as we could question whether your painting of God is a fitting depiction - I may think its completely wrong (a Muslim or Jew, for instance, would find it blasphemous, as their faith rejects all graven images). So Eru, as an idea of Tolkien's, is open to question. Would God behave like Eru? I think that would require some pretty heavy proof.

Fine then, we shall change a few thoughts...

So Eru is not a perfect image of God. That is granted. No one knows God perfectly, so no one can make a perfect image of Him.

However, if Eru is intended to be God within the Legendarium, with all the powers and attributes of God, an assumption that seems likely, then any queries concerning Eru's workings withing the Legendarium should logically be answerable by looking at God.

If Eru+Arda = Image of God+Earth, then the actions of Eru should equally the actions of God as they would most likely occur in the same circumstances.

Of course, the image of God varies from religion to religion, from sect to sect. Tolkien was, however, a very orthodox, and well-read, Catholic. As the creator of Eru, if Eru=Image of God, then Eru ought to have all the attributes of the God of Catholicism.

[Celebuial]

I like to think of Eru as Tolkien himself... He created beings from his own conscious and created a 'world' or universe... Maybe Eru is really just an artist creating things for no reason other than it feels good for him to do so? I think that maybe if he is viewed as some kind of Deity things become a little too complicated...We start to ask all these questions, like is he responsible for this? And did he have a hand in this? Why did he will this to happen? And then we start to think of all the moral implications, is he a murderer? And such like. If we call him and artist it's much easier to say that everything is his creation and it is as if he is the author writing a novel, so everything happened that way just because it seemed good to him for it to do so.

I think that Gollum slipped. Obviously if Eru is the author of the Middle-Earth novel than he also willed it, but primarily in my opinion, Gollum slipped and that's all there is to it.

[davem]

However, if Eru is intended to be God within the Legendarium, with all the powers and attributes of God, an assumption that seems likely, then any queries concerning Eru's workings withing the Legendarium should logically be answerable by looking at God.

If Eru+Arda = Image of God+Earth, then the actions of Eru should equally the actions of God as they would most likely occur in the same circumstances.
.


Well, they should. I suppose we can either compare Eru with God (specifically the Catholic conception of God) & ask if He lives up to that comparison - if its a good comparison or not - or we can treat Eru as a character in His own right & ask what kind of 'God' He is & analyse His motives & behaviour.

Is Eru morally Good - ie does He do things that we consider to be 'Good' things - protect the weak, feed the hungry, heal the sick, guide His children in the ways of 'righteousness', etc, or is He 'merely' (as Celebuial suggests) an 'artist'?

The danger of thinking Eru=God is that we project our beliefs about God onto Eru (God is Good, Eru is God therefore Eru is Good) without stopping to ask ourselves if Eru's behaviour is Good.

In short, I think Eru=God is 'assuming that which is to be proved'.

[Reg Pither]

I could only vote for number 1 in the poll, as it is the only one that is indisputable. However, as others have pointed out, it's probably a mixture of 1, 2 and 4.

As for the Eru=God idea, it's not something I've ever thought about much, but my take on it is that Eru is less like the benevolent Christian God that we all know and love (!), but slightly more like the chaotic Gods of Greek and Roman legend - specifically Zeus/Jupiter. So, while I know it's probably a bit lazy (and possibly sacrilegious by Mr Marley's exacting standards ;) ), but Eru=God (but not our God) works for me as a general rule.

[Rhod the Red]

He slipped, in my view. It wasn't intentional. He was dancing, the silly thing and slipped over the edge.

[ninja91]

In my opinion, he jumped on purpose. I think that he wanted the ring for himself, and if not for himself, he wanted the ring to have no owner. And I think that the Smeagol part of the creature was so thoroughly tormented that he chose to end his pain right there, at the same time possessing the ring. That is how I see it.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

If I have time, I would like to post some extended quotes from Tolkien's Letters that have bearing on this thread, for the benefit of those who either do not possess this valuable resource or do not have it readily at hand. This first excerpt features little perhaps that is directly applicable to the question of this thread, but nonetheless provides necessary background and context.

The final scene of the Quest was so shaped simply because having regard to the situation, and to the 'characters' of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, those events seemed to me mechanically, morally, and psychologically credible. But, of course, if you wish for more reflection, I should say that within the mode of the story the 'catastrophe' exemplifies (an aspect of) the familiar words: 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'

'Lead us not into temptation &c' is the harder and the less often considered petition. The view, in the terms of my story, is that though every event or situation has (at least) two aspects: the history and development of the individual (it is something out of which he can get good, ultimate good, for himself, or fail to do so), and the history of the world (which depends on his action for its own sake) -- still there are abnormal situations in which one may be placed. 'Sacrificial' situations, I should call them: sc. positions in which the 'good' of the world depends on the behaviour of an individual in circumstances which demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal -- even, it may happen (or seem, humanly speaking), demand a strength of body and mind which he does not possess: he is a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will': that is against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under the duress.

The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostasized' -- and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a traitor, not honoured. Believe me, it was not until I read this that I had myself any idea how 'topical' such a situation might appear. It arose naturally from my 'plot' conceived in main outline in 1936. I did not foresee that before the tale was published we should enter a dark age in which the technique of torture and disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and the Ring and present us with the practical problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.

But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly [/b][footnote: Not quite 'certainly'. The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum over the brink, when about to repent.][/b] betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end -- but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing that any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours -- since it is clear that he & Sam never concealed the precise course of events. Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privatee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Smeagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Continuing...

If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved -- by Mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.

Corinthians I x. 12-13 may not at first sight seem to fit -- unless 'bearing temptation' is taken to mean resisting it while still a free agent in normal command of the will. I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord's Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not 'arrange' the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance of repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge.) In the case of those who now issue from prison 'brainwashed', broken, or insane, praising their torturers, no such immediate deliverance is as a rule to be seen. But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

And the very next Letter:

By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem even to have observed it. But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event. And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere 'fairy-story' ending in which the hero is indomitable? It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome -- in themselves. In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted. Gandalf certainly foresaw this. See Vol. I p. 68-9. Of course, he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later -- it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life.

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' [note: Actually referred to as 'the One' in App. A III p. 317 1. 20. The Numenoreans (and Elves) were absolute monotheists.] (as one critic has said). See Vol. I p. 65. A third (the only other) commentator on the point some months ago reviled Frodo as a scoundrel (who should have been hung and not honoured), and me too. It seems sad and strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good will are tortured, 'brainwashed', and broken, anyone could be so fiercely simpleminded and selfrighteous.

[The 1,000 Reader]

My belief of what happened at Mount Doom follows like this:

Frodo used all of his spirit and will to make it to Mount Doom.

Eru handles the rest.

However, I believe that when Eru took matters into his own hands, he was preventing further tragedy. Though it would have broken his heart to do so, Sam may have gained hold of Frodo and tossed him in. They could also both fall into the fires. I believe that Eru's intervention finished the quest in a way which would cause no more terrible harm: the twisted Gollum would take the ring and, to spare Frodo from knocking Gollum in, whether through struggle or will, and to spare Sam from killing the one his master had faith in, Eru simply made Gollum fall off. No additional pain for the hobbits, and Gollum died in the most merciful way he could.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

However, I believe that when Eru took matters into his own hands, he was preventing further tragedy. Though it would have broken his heart to do so, Sam may have gained hold of Frodo and tossed him in. They could also both fall into the fires. I believe that Eru's intervention finished the quest in a way which would cause no more terrible harm

A sound hypothesis. One can imagine Sam torn, appalled
at Mr. Frodo and his virtual insanity, and also thinking of
Rosie, the Gaffer, etc. But would he have just dispatched
Frodo or fallen in (deliberately) as part of his desperate
effort to get rid of the Ring?
Hmm.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Well, there's also the fact that Eru could have also done that as a way to ultimately humiliate Sauron.

[Elu Ancalime]

I voted for "Eru", but instead of "Eru willed it", I would say "It was Fate, which is Eru." Eru didnt just pick on gollum, but the Ring had to be destroyed. This kind of ties in with D, but D is more in a sense of Literature. Eru probably did not have 'declared' "Gollum will fall", but he might have 'declared' that"Gollum will no come in the way of the destruction of the ring" or "whatever it takes to destroy it." I kind of agree with 1,000 Reader. All of the "Candidates" work with each other, but it is not a bad poll.

And then it jumps into the theory of a planned universe and free will and stuff and Eru=God and interesting tangents like that. We should just have a tangent thread where we drift from one topic to the next. XP :smokin:
________
Help love (http://www.love-help.org/)

[Rikae]

I voted for option 3, and as for my reasons, Fordim already explained them quite well.

As far as why, or how consciously, I find it interesting to speculate about - was it the oath he had made on "the precious" and broken? Was it (as I'm inclined to believe) the hatred of the ring that coexisted with his love for it: the "Smeagol" side of him hating what it had done to him? Or was it as another poster suggested on the "hero of the third age" thread, love for Frodo?

[Boromir88]

I could see it being Option C, had Gollum actually, truly and fully repented. In Letter #94, 96, and 246, Tolkien stresses that Gollum nearly repented...and he would have fully repented had it not been for Sam's harsh words at the crucial moment (when Sam mistakes Gollum's 'pawing' at Frodo). Had this happened, and Gollum truly repented from the Ring, here's what Tolkien felt like Gollum would have done on Mount Doom:
"But possession satisfied I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo’s sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss"~Letter 246
However, in the story that we are given, Gollum didn't truly repent, so I don't think Option C...he jumped in voluntarily, was what really happened....as it is set up as a 'what if scenario' by Tolkien.

Somebody remarked that Option A seems to coincidental and I think that's a good way of putting it. I mean here's this long journey reached by Frodo and Sam, and Gollum just happened to slip in...story over. What's the lesson here, what's the importance of this moment during the Ring's destruction? (If you think there is one). I just don't think it's Tolkien's style to simply have the Ring's end, along with Sauron's, based on something as accidental as a slip. But, I'm often somebody that tries to look deeply into everything...as if there's some coded message. :rolleyes:

I did vote for Option B, but I think it can also go hand and hand with Option D. I chose B instead because I think it goes better with two key morals of the story that are set up from the very beginning over the book...and that is Pity and Mercy. These two are stressed from the very beginning of the book with Gandalf's warning about don't be too eager to pass out death and judgement...also stressing the importance of Bilbo's Pity towards Gollum when he gets the Ring. It continues with Aragorn, Theoden, and others offering to spare Grima's life, despite the horrible treacheries he has done. Then our heroes go on to offer Saruman his own redemption. Therefor I think Pity and Mercy are themes that would continue throughout the story...and I think they certainly do.

Frodo spares Gollum's life and this is the important fact that Tolkien stresses. Elladan has quoted these in full above, but I'll just take a few brief exerpts to illustrate my point. If we look at this Letter (#192) by itself, it certainly looks like Eru destroyed the Ring (along with Gollum) simply because he felt like doing it, and because he COULD do it:
Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power and will, 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' (as one critic has said)
Taking this quote by itself it looks like Eru just got involved because he could do it and he wanted to, but I think this is taken out of context without some other Letters to go with it (181 and 246):
'But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'savation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would ceratinly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical beleif in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end- but by a 'grace' that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil, deed was the most beneficial thing any one could have done for Frodo! By a situation , created by his 'forgiveness',he was saved himself and releived of his burden.'
''Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest hounour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.''~Letter 246
It wasn't such a simply matter as Eru felt like destroying the Ring so it was done. He decided to step in because Frodo had failed in his attempt...however Eru felt like Frodo deserved to have that failure redressed, to have it absolved and relieve Frodo of the Ring, because of Frodo's Pity towards Gollum.

Now, the conflict comes that all these quotes are from Letters Tolkien wrote about after writing the books and reflecting upon how he felt about them. So, whether somebody reads the story and feels the same way is up to them. I do think that Pity and Mercy are consistant re-occuring themes throughout the entire books, therefor because of Frodo's Pity it was Eru who decided to step in and cause Gollum's fall...destroying the Ring.

Also, if we think about Option B, it wouldn't be all that unusual, or something that would strike me as 'out of the ordinary.' Considering this wouldn't have been the first time Eru would have stuck his hands into the fate of Middle-earth...As he was the one who took up the Valar's mission of sending the Istari and sent Gandalf back with a power boost to deal with Theoden and Saruman. ;)