Failure and Punishment

[doug*platypus]

I found the following, interesting perspective in Tolkien: A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings by Lin Carter (a fairly short treatise, full of unfortunate mistakes of fact, which deals mainly with listing the various epics and fantasies thorughout history which paved the way for LOTR):
Frodo learns, slowly and painfully, how to become a hero. Nor is he perfect and pure: in fact, he is guilty of three foolish mistakes and is punished for each by a wound from which he is never to completely recover. His first error is folly, and his punishment is the knife wound he suffers on Weathertop; his second, overconfidence, for which his punishment is to taste the sting of Shelob; his third is weakness itself when, at the brink of the Crack of Doom, he does not prove strong enough to hurl the Ring away. His punishment for that greatest of his three sins is the most gruesome of all - the loss of his ring finger when Gollum bites it off to get the Ring from him.
Although I have long known that Frodo was the punching bag of the quest, and that he suffered greatly in striving to achieve the ultimate goal, I had never before considered that some at least of his misfortunes were, in part at least, his own fault.

What do you think of Carter's assertion that Frodo's wounds were inflicted as a sort of punishment for his failures? An argument could be made that his knife wound was only minor because of his bravery in attacking the Witch King, but perhaps he would not have been pinpointed and wounded at all if he had not put the Ring on.

Are there any examples in Tolkien's work where others are hurt as a result of some failing of their own? Boromir perhaps is killed while atoning for his assault on Frodo, protecting the hobbit's kinsmen. Fëanor on his return to Middle Earth arrogantly pressed on towards Angband and was destroyed. His sons all come to grisly ends, some as a direct result of the Oath. Saruman and Wormtongue both find their commeupance in the Shire. Thingol is slain by the dwarves when he refuses to pay them their dues. Are there any others?

What do you think of this device, which seems ultimately to be the (sometimes capital) punishment of sinners by fate?

In contrast to the wounds of Frodo, which Carter seems to indicate are in part deserved, other members of the Fellowship are wounded as a result of bravery, and bear their scars as a token of honour. Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gimli and Gandalf are all wounded in combat. Also, many of the heroes of the Eldar and Edain in the First Age are killed fighting against Morgoth; their deaths are most often heroic and win them great renown.

Is this contrast the reason why Frodo is not held in higher esteem among the hobbits on his return to the Shire? Rather than being wounded in victorious combat, he is struck down as a result of "folly, overconfidence and weakness" (to use Carter's words).

Your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated!

[Raynor]

I don't buy it; he was the chief hero of the quest, he received the "highest honours" from the king; his quest itself has sparked in hobbits a strong interest in their history. In a world where even the valar are subject to errors (letter #212), I doubt that we can ascribe faults to someone carrying the ring, since all his judgement will be bent to a certain extent by the evil power. I take his wounds to mean sacrifice rather than punishment; his merit is even higher considering that he actually fulfilled his mandate:
His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that.

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps the difference arises from the contrast between that old warrior code of honour and battle and glory and the code which Tolkien also upholds here, that even the very small and weak can make a significant difference. While it is true that Frodo has to experience the full significance of being a ring-bearer, I don't think it can be said that Frodo is guilty of trespass, violation, or transgression.

Besides, does the word 'sinner' really belong in LotR?

[mark12_30]

A wild set of assumptions, presumptions, and blind leaps:

If you asked Tokien whether Frodo was guilty of those things-- folly, overconfidence and weakness-- I doubt he would disagree. Gandalf used some of the same words in various places and I think Tolkien also used them in his letters. Consequences happen, and consequences for folly, overconfidence and weakness happen.

However, I also doubt that TOlkien would have attatched any emotional, judgemental, or condemnatory importance to them. For Tolkien, Frodo's virtuies so outshone his weaknesses that Frodo's weaknesses are negligible. Consider the phrasing in Tolkien's letter (191) regarding Mount Doom, in which he implies, "judge not":

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 resistable by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

[Macalaure]

I don't buy it either.
Why was it folly that led to Frodo being stabbed on Weathertop? I doubt he could have escaped the Witch-King even if he hadn't used the ring. On the other hand, his behaviour in the Prancing Pony was folly and all the punishments he received for that were some harsh words by Strider.
The sting was clearly Frodo's fault, though I'm not sure if overconfidence is the right term.
And, as has been stated before, on Orodruin he did all he could, but failed in the end.

What I don't understand is how one makes sins out of these. Folly sure isn't a good thing, but a sin? I think that takes it to far. And failing a task that goes beyond one's abilities while giving every effort is a sin? How do you get such an idea?

Also, there are faults and misjudgements in LotR that are not punished. (Pippin in Moria f.ex.)


Besides, does the word 'sinner' really belong in LotR?I agree. I don't recall having read the words 'sin' or 'sinner' in both LotR and Silmarillion. They always seems alien to me when they are used in the context of Tolkien's works.

[Raynor]

There is only one referrence in Tolkien's works on sins, that I know of, and even that favors Frodo:
Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

[Mister Underhill]

Very interesting thread, doug*p. What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.

[Raynor]

I don't think that Frodo experienced guilt for his errors; any suffering he had after the quest is derrived, in my opinion, from wounds, or the impregnation of the ring. At the entrance of Sammath Naur, Frodo already finds peace after the ring's destruction, and I don't think he fell from that state.

[Boromir88]

I don't know about the Weathertop stab and Shelob's sting...I'll have to go back and look. I certainly don't agree that Frodo was punished for not destroying the Ring. Something we are told that was impossible for anyone's will, and of the time, possibly only Frodo had the strength to get it to Mount Doom.
"Frodo indeed ‘failed’ as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say ‘simple minds’ with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable....
'I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. 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 honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.'~Letter 246
Do you think Frodo had 'failed'. Tolkien leaves the interpretation up to the reader. Since Frodo gave in and didn't destroy the Ring does this make him a failure? Maybe, but let's consider all the circumstances, trials, and most of all unattainable goal of destroying the Ring. Aye, Frodo's quest was a set failure from the start, or at least Frodo himself would not be able to destroy the Ring. What's important that I would like to note here (and why I don't think Frodo is punished for not destroying the Ring) is at the end...his failure was redressed. Frodo did fail to destroying the Ring himself, however two important qualities in Frodo (Pity and Mercy) won him his own salvation and his failure was redressed:
'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.'~Letter 181
Frodo's act of pity and forgiveness to Gollum wins him his own salvation. And it is Eru who rewards him by relieving him of the burden of the Ring and destroying it. In this case of Frodo's failure to destroy the Ring, I don't think he was punished in anyway...I actually think he was rewarded! ;)

There is one failure that comes to the top of my head that is punishable...and that is a failure to fulfill an oath. Oaths have a strong power in Middle-earth. If you make an oath you better be prepared to live up to it or face the consequences. Just ask the Men of Dunharrow or Feanor. :rolleyes: A good exchange between Elrond and Gimli happens which I think highlights the good and the bad of oaths. Of course, Gimli sees the positive side of oaths, and Elrond (being the pessimist he is :p ) sees the negative:
...'You may tarry, or come back, or turn aside into other paths, as chance allows. The further you go, the less easy will it be to withdraw; yet no oath or bond is laid on you to go further than you will. For you do not yet know the strength of your hearts, and you cannot foresee what each may meet upon the road.'
'Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,' said Gimli.
'Maybe,' said Elrond, `but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.'
'Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,' said Gimli.
'Or break it,' said Elrond. `Look not too far ahead! But go now with good hearts! Farewell, and may the blessing of Elves and Men and all Free Folk go with you. May the stars shine upon your faces!'~The Ring goes South
If you fail to fulfill an oath there's no doubt you will be punished. But I don't think Frodo was punished in the sense that Lin Carter argues.

[Bêthberry]

Very interesting thread, doug*p. What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.

This is an interesting way to view d*p's quotation from Carter--not in absolute or omniscient terms but from the character's point of view.

Does Frodo feel a sense of failure? Why? What causes him to put such a high judgement upon himself? Would that cause be related to what motivated him to accept bearing the Ring? Is there a special psychology to being this kind of Ring bearer? Does Frodo begin with a burden of confidence?

As an aside, what specifically are the errors of fact which Carter makes, d*p? Does he list texts which are unrelated or is his conception of "paving the way" for LotR in err? Errors in one area can oftentimes forewarn of errors elsewhere.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Very interesting thread, doug*p. What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.
You made a good point, Mister Underhill. But on second thought however, it might be just the other way around: when I thought about it deeper, it is possible that it was actually Frodo who might have considered himself as if he made a fault (I'm not going for the word "sinner" in this environment, either), although from the "global" point of view he did just his best. In some places in the story, we can see some glimpses of this thinking of Frodo. So actually, it can be also the way that Frodo blamed himself just from the things that Carter names and even might consider his wounds as adequate punishment (which is silly, in my opinion, but never mind that), even though we - as audience - or the world around see that there was nothing better he could do. Or do we? I think there is not much to add to the previous posts, but maybe just one thing: instead throwing in of hundreds of arguments, imagine yourselves arriving at Rivendell. You are a common man or woman, as you are in this world, maybe you are a young elf or even hobbit or a dwarf who has come here because of business. Chances happen that you are invited by your friend to the secret meeting of Elrond's Council. The debate starts, you hear about things you never heard before, just maybe some whispers via rumour about the growing Shadow and terrible things in the lands far from your home. And then, after some time, the question "What shall we do with the Ring now" comes up. A tall man, who seems strong not even physically but also in mind, perhaps a renowned warrior who does not flee from lost battle, coming from the most civilized area of the world, and speaking well and logical, promotes an idea of bringing the Ring to Minas Tirith and using it as weapon along with all the force of its brave soldiers against the Enemy. On the other hand, a weak, weary little hobbit, supported by weary old man speak about going only with a few others, and not even the most powerful of all the elf lords around here, right into the land of the enemy between thousands of Orcs and into the heart of the dark land to destroy the Ring. Who would you believe?
What I wanted to illustrate is that we probably are not even fit to judge Frodo, because most of us wouldn't even know he might have saved us if we lived in Middle-Earth. Most of us wouldn't believe in him - but as we all know as readers, he made it. So I don't care where he failed, but do imagine where he succeeded: what all things he had to do (at first - to choose to go down that path although he had the most luxury house, money and a ring that might have made him invisible, for a start - and to point out that he didn't use this ring almost never!) to come to Weathertop, to Cirith Ungol, to Mount Doom. There can't be any punishment for what he showed here. And if it were, then - what about the rewards for everything else?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Great topic!

First, I agree with Mr. Underhill that Frodo would probably have concurred that his personal misfortunes were the result of his own shortcomings: that he somehow deserved the indifference of the Shire and his own physical and mental pain. I've always had the impression that Frodo never confided in anyone, not even Sam, once he came home to the Shire. He acted as if he was eaten up with guilt, feelings that Tolkien confirmed in one of his letters. There are certainly indications in the story that Frodo expected to die at the end of his journey. When that did not occur, he had a hard time dealing with it. Whether part of him actually felt he deserved to die, it's impossible to say with certainty, but I don't think we can rule that out.

The larger question in terms of Frodo is whether he ever got over that overwhelming guilt. Did the shores of the Blessed Lands eventually restore his sense of perspective? Was he able to accept the fact that he was a small, imperfect creature with flaws who had done the best that he could? Indeed he had done more than any other being in Arda could have done in bringing the Ring to the summit of Mount Doom where it could be destroyed. Certainly, that is the way Tolkien saw it. And I think his stated views merit more consideration than those of Mr. Carter!

However, there is another way of looking at Lin Carter's quote. The first printing of Carter's book was in March 1969. We can sit here and wisely quote the Letters and HoMe because we have access to those things. Like all who first read the book in the 1950's and 1960's, Carter was probably in the dark about a lot of things. It was really, really different then. There was no internet or archival collections. All Carter had were meetings of the Tolkien Society of America, occasional snippets that filtered into the very earliest fanzine publications like the Tolkien Journal, or reports from lucky people who actually managed to speak with the author or get an answer to a letter. Carter's friend de Sprague did this, but I don't think Carter ever met Tolkien.

There were no standard biographies, no published letters or HoMe, and perhaps most importantly no Silmarillion. Until you read the Silm and place LotR against the backdrop of that history, you don't have a full sense of how blazing hard it was to pull off the destruction of the Ring. With only a few exceptions, Silm recounts story after story of great and powerful Elves and mighty Numenoreans who fell flat on their faces when they tried to combat the power of the Dark Lord. It took the intervention of the Valar to get rid of Morgoth. Yet somehow in the Third Age, a time when men were "debased" and Elves "fading" from their lofty beginnings, you manage to get the destruction of the Ring and the demise of Sauron, and the only help the Fellowship had was an istar who was instructed not to utilize his full might (two if you count the scatterbrained Radagast). When the situation is seen in that perspective it's downright amazing that Frodo, with the help of Sam, managed to do as well as he did, despite all his very real personal shortdcomings (and there were many).

Tolkien was surprised to receive many letters where readers berated Frodo for failing since the author's own perspective was so different. I feel it's in this context that Carter's comments can best be understood.

[Raynor]

He acted as if he was eaten up with guilt, feelings that Tolkien confirmed in one of his letters.I don't think that the guilts of which the professor speaks (desire to return as a hero and regret for the ring) are genuine ones - they are called in letter #246 as a flicker of the dark, one blacker than the other. Seeing that Tolkien wanted Frodo to end up "highminded, ennobled and rarefied", coupled with his chosen solitude & dark thoughts, I would say that the hobbits were perceptive and respectful enough to give him the air that he needed, sort of speaking.
With only a few exceptions, Silm recounts story after story of great and powerful Elves and mighty Numenoreans who fell flat on their faces when they tried to combat the power of the Dark Lord.Well, technically, there weren't any numenoreans before the fall of Melkor.
When the situation is seen in that perspective it's downright amazing that Frodo, with the help of Sam, managed to do as well as he did, despite all his very real personal shortdcomings (and there were many). Indeed; also, in the letters, Beren is seen as a precursor to the hobbits, sort of speaking:
The chief of the stories of the Silmarillion, and the one most fully treated is the Story of Beren and Luthien the Elfmaiden. Here we meet, among other things, the first example of the motive (to become dominant in Hobbits) that the great policies of world history, 'the wheels of the world', are often turned not by the Lords and Governors, even gods, but by the seemingly unknown and weak – owing to the secret life in creation, and the pan unknowable to all wisdom but One, that resides in the intrusions of the Children of God into the Drama. It is Beren the outlawed monal who succeeds (with the help of Luthien, a mere maiden even if an elf of royalty) where all the armies and warriors have failed: he penetrates the stronghold of the Enemy and wrests one of the Silmarilli from the Iron Crown. Thus he wins the hand of Luthien and the first marriage of mortal and immortal is achieved.which puts an interesting, clearer, light on Elrond's words at the council:
But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you. But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right; and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together your seat should be among them.

[Bêthberry]

Great post, Child. You have a knack for recovering history! :D



First, I agree with Mr. Underhill that Frodo would probably have concurred that his personal misfortunes were the result of his own shortcomings: that he somehow deserved the indifference of the Shire and his own physical and mental pain. I've always had the impression that Frodo never confided in anyone, not even Sam, once he came home to the Shire. He acted as if he was eaten up with guilt, feelings that Tolkien confirmed in one of his letters. There are certainly indications in the story that Frodo expected to die at the end of his journey. When that did not occur, he had a hard time dealing with it. Whether part of him actually felt he deserved to die, it's impossible to say with certainty, but I don't think we can rule that out.

Very true, I think. I've often wondered how much Frodo had what might be called the guilt of the survivor. What does a child feel whose parents die tragically and young, leaving him orphaned? How much of his loss and bereavement went into his character and into his decision to bear the Ring to Mount Doom?


Until you read the Silm and place LotR against the backdrop of that history, you don't have a full sense of how blazing hard it was to pull off the destruction of the Ring. With only a few exceptions, Silm recounts story after story of great and powerful Elves and mighty Numenoreans who fell flat on their faces when they tried to combat the power of the Dark Lord.

This is an interesting idea. Does that suggest a lack of coherent artistic vision in LotR, that a true understanding of the Ring's power or of the story itself isn't given there, but must be found in another text? Rather than look for clues in primary texts or the real world, does LotR force us to look to other subcreated works? This would mean that LotR, as a story, cannot stand on its own, but for a full appreciation must be read in context of all Tolkien's works.


Tolkien was surprised to receive many letters where readers berated Frodo for failing since the author's own perspective was so different. I feel it's in this context that Carter's comments can best be understood.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know where those readers came from? Were they mainly American? (just as an example) Would it be possible to discern some kind of cultural or social divide which could explain how this interpretation differed so greatly from Tolkien's? What kind of perspective or philosophical outlook gives way to the impression that Frodo should be berated?

As always, Child, you bring up fascinating ideas. And I'm in a rush, so I've written not very entishly...

[Holbytlass]

What do you think of Carter's assertion that Frodo's wounds were inflicted as a sort of punishment for his failures?
punishment:A penalty imposed for wrongdoing
consequence:an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
Many people confuse consequence and punishment, I believe Carter is one of them.

I had never before considered that some at least of his misfortunes were, in part at least, his own fault.
Why was it folly that led to Frodo being stabbed on Weathertop? I doubt he could have escaped the Witch-King even if he hadn't used the ring. The sting was clearly Frodo's fault, though I'm not sure if overconfidence is the right term.
To some extent, if Frodo was found totally faultless in everything then that implies to me that he was a puppet with no thought or opinion or choice of his own.
Interesting, Macalaure, I think opposite. I agree that Frodo would not have escaped the wraiths on weathertop but perhaps they could've held them off long enough for Strider to come. Certainly, if Frodo hadn't put on the ring, they would not have zeroed in on him.
Why do you find Frodo to be at fault with Shelob? Please explain because I still haven't found my books and I only recall that he was delirious and therefore was semi-conscious of his surroundings.
Is this contrast the reason why Frodo is not held in higher esteem among the hobbits on his return to the Shire? Rather than being wounded in victorious combat, he is struck down as a result of "folly, overconfidence and weakness" (to use Carter's words).
Other than a few close friends, Cottons and Gaffer, the others probably didn't even really listen to Frodo's part of the quest. It doesn't sound like he was ever in the mood to talk to people about it and only Sam was there the entire time. As was said in the story, they held in esteem the bravery they witnessed themselves.
What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.
Does Frodo feel a sense of failure? Why? What causes him to put such a high judgement upon himself?
That awful thing "hindsight is 20/20". It's nature to look back and even if we know we did the best at that time there is the critical eye that points out where we went wrong or could've done better. Even Gandalf told Bilbo to keep notes so he could point out his mistakes (the Hobbit) ;).
Would that cause (high judgement) be related to what motivated him to accept bearing the Ring? Is there a special psychology to being this kind of Ring bearer? Does Frodo begin with a burden of confidence?
I don't think Frodo was burdened with confidence-I also don't think he belittled himself either, he was confident in Gandalf's confidence. As for taking on the ring, I think whether he felt fit or not he knew in his heart at the time of councel it would be him.

[doug*platypus]

Interesting discussion so far, everyone! Thanks to all for your contributions. From the wording in the quote given in Post #1 Carter seemed to have taken it as a given that Frodo did commit wrongs, and was punished as a result. I'm sure he would be interested to see that the majority of posters here disagree with him, and that we are all ready to spring to Frodo's defence!

Frodo was, and still remains, my favourite character in the book, and I personally think that if he did do wrong, it was minor and forgiveable. After all, the quest was fulfilled because of his strong will and remarkable resistance to the Ring, with the help of Samwise, and as a direct result (as has been mentioned earlier) of the pity and mercy with which he treated Sméagol. I had never conceived of Frodo as guilty of any real mistakes until reading the Carter quotation.

Bêthberry, the "mistake of fact" which most readily springs to mind is that Carter referred to Éowyn as Théoden's daughter. I can't recall any others, but they were all minor errors in reading that seemed to give the overall impression that Carter may have only read the book once or twice, and not completely soaked in all the details yet.

Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision? ;) I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir).

What do people think of the other folk that I mentioned: Boromir, Fëanor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Thingol. Did Tolkien dish out "just desserts" to these characters as a consequence (thanks, Holbytlass!) of their ignoble actions?

[Thinlómien]

Is it folly that causes Frodo to put the Ring on in Weathertop?
Well, the deed is foolish, yes, but not it's not done out of folly. I don't think putting the Ring on in Weathertop was Frodo's folly, after all, it was the terribly strong presence of the nazgûls added to the Ring's natural lure that drove him to it. I would be ready to hold Frodo irresponsible the same way as people with serious mental illnesses or under heavy drugs.

Is it overconfidence that causes Frodo to get attacked by Shelob?
Overconfidence? Maybe over-delight or over-carelessness could be a better word for it. Anyway, I can't see how Frodo and Sam, or anyone, would have managed to completely fool and flee Shelob. The Hobbits were very lucky and accomplished to get that far and survive that well. If you ask a hobbit to jump three metres to the air, can you really punish him if he jumps 2,5m?

Is it weakness that causes Frodo to fail on Mount Doom?
Yes it is. But it's not Frodo's personal flaw, it's a general human (hobbit/elf/dwarf/orc/whatever) weakness. So again, why should he be punished?

On the other hand, his behaviour in the Prancing Pony was folly and all the punishments he received for that were some harsh words by Strider.And the loss of Merry's ponies (and thus a steed) and Butterbur's money and bedclothes (so maybe guilty conscience for him?), to be nit-picky. :p

If you make an oath you better be prepared to live up to it or face the consequences. Just ask the Men of Dunharrow or Feanor.Or his sons...

[Macalaure]

Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision? ;) I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir).
My personal problem with 'sin' is, that it is a religious term. All the wrongdoings in Tolkien's works (except maybe those which are directly opposed to Eru) are not given a religious perspective, or if so then I haven't seen it so far.
If I follow you correctly, then Frodo's sin was his weakness, his inability to withstand the temptation of the ring at the end. But can you hold somebody morally responsible for something that was outside his ability? Also, it's hard for me to imagine anybody would have had the strength to destroy the ring at that point (Isildur could have, I guess, because Sauron's presence was not present at the time). This could mean, in consequence, that everybody's a sinner because they are unable to entirely resist evil.
nah...


What do people think of the other folk that I mentioned: Boromir, Fëanor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Thingol. Did Tolkien dish out "just desserts" to these characters as a consequence (thanks, Holbytlass!) of their ignoble actions?
Surely not. I can't think of one character in LotR or Silm who doesn't meet the end they deserve. It's all "right", if you know what I mean. But I don't think we need 'sins' for this. There seems to be a general understanding in the books about what is good (pity, f.ex.) and what is bad (betrayal, f.ex.), morally/ethically, without anything remotely like the Ten Commandments or something.
If Tolkien doesn't call the wrongdoings sins, I just see no reason why we should.


Why do you find Frodo to be at fault with Shelob? Please explain because I still haven't found my books and I only recall that he was delirious and therefore was semi-conscious of his surroundings.
And that was his fault, I think. You don't walk into Mordor like that. As I said, overconfidence is the wrong word, but Shelob wouldn't have gotten him otherwise. It's not a moral fault or a sin, but it was Frodo's bad.

[The Saucepan Man]

I don’t think that Frodo can be seen as having ever been guilty of moral wrongdoing, so I would agree that “sin” is an inappropriate word to use in the context of his struggles.

That said, he is not a “perfect” hero. He does succumb to folly and misjudgement on occasion, as indeed do almost all of the characters on the side of good (even the likes of Gandalf and Aragorn). Which, is as it should be, in terms of their believability as characters. And also in terms of the credibility of the story itself.

The impact of LotR largely turns on the reader believing in the sheer power of the evil with which the protagonists are faced. Sauron is only indirectly portrayed in the tale, largely by “proxy” through his minions and through the Ring itself. So, it is imperative that the Ring, as the principal evil “character” in the story, is seen and accepted by the reader as a powerful, practically irresistible, force for evil. This is portrayed through the effect that it has on the other characters, notably the likes of Gollum, Boromir and Galadriel, but also directly through its effect on Frodo - in scenes such as those which take place in Bree, on Weathertop and on the final struggle through Mordor towards Orodruin.

The most important scene, in this regard, is of course that which takes place at Sammath Naur. I distinctly remember thinking, when I first read the story, what an anticlimax it would be if, when Frodo and Sam finally reached the Crack of Doom, Frodo simply tossed the Ring in. At the same time as being shocked and horrified by Frodo’s “failure” to do so, I was also relieved in a way that this object of great evil and power was not so easily destroyed. It kind of justified the rest of the tale, if you know what I mean. The manner in which the Ring does meet its end is a masterpiece of story-telling, since it manages to avoid anticlimax, while nevertheless achieving a satisfactory resolution of the Quest.

Frodo did not sin and nor (in terms of what was, or could be, expected of him) did he fail. But neither, thankfully, was he the perfect, all-conquering hero. Frodo’s frailties are an important aspect of the literary effect of the tale, as they contribute both to his credibility as a character and to the portrayal of the sheer power of the Ring and (by implication) its maker.

[Bêthberry]

Would that cause (high judgement) be related to what motivated him to accept bearing the Ring? Is there a special psychology to being this kind of Ring bearer? Does Frodo begin with a burden of confidence?

I don't think Frodo was burdened with confidence-I also don't think he belittled himself either, he was confident in Gandalf's confidence. As for taking on the ring, I think whether he felt fit or not he knew in his heart at the time of councel it would be him.

By burden of confidence I meant he lacks confidence. He is a loner, he has a few close friends, but not a wide social group. Even before the journey to Rivendell, he is distanced from the majority of hobbits. He lacks at least social confidence and a sense of closeness with these denizens, despite his very strong love for the Shire and for his fellow hobbits. My musings wondered if this insecurity or lack of confidence is what, ironically, empowers him to accept the burden of Ring bearer. He who belongs tangentially accepts the act which will make him the supreme saviour. Yet when he returns, he is just as much a loner as before. He never wins the kind of relationships which Sam's close network provide. As I said before, what is the role of his bereavement in his psychology?



Bêthberry, the "mistake of fact" which most readily springs to mind is that Carter referred to Éowyn as Théoden's daughter. I can't recall any others, but they were all minor errors in reading that seemed to give the overall impression that Carter may have only read the book once or twice, and not completely soaked in all the details yet.

Well, that just strengthens the suggestion that he based his interpretation of Frodo on a flimsy reading, then, eh?


Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision? ;) I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir).



Well, I suppose we could consider how much Tolkien's "long defeat" partakes of Catholic ideas of human fallibility. However, his mythology lacks an "original sin" on the part of either humans or hobbits. As I suggested on The Silm chapter by chapter discussion, there is no "fall" among the children.

Another reason why it seems to me that the word 'sin' does not belong in Middle-earth is its connotations. While philosophically it can be argued that the word merely denotes separation from God, it is a word highly marked by extreme connotations of wickedness and depravity. There's something morbid about it which does not seem to me to fit with Middle-earth's sad longing and recognition that evil will always be with us.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry,

I think you've hit the nail on the hand when you draw attention to the connotations of the word "sin". It's possible to have a simple definition of sin that only mentions the commission of illegal or immoral actions. But even if we lay aside questions of depravity or deliberate intention, there is another thorny question involved. Most definitions of "sin" have a religious underpining and are inextricably tied to the concept of God.

Here are some definitions:

answer.com: A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Theology.
Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

Columbia Uni. Press: sin, in religion, unethical act. The term implies disobedience to a personal God, as in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and is not used so often in systems such as Buddhism where there is no personal divinity.


Britannica: Wrongdoing, particularly the breaking of moral or religious rules. In the Hebrew scriptures, sin is viewed as a hatred of God or defiance of his commandments. The New Testament regards sinfulness as the inherent state of humanity, which Jesus came into the world to heal. Christian theologians divide sin into actual and original sin. Actual sin, consisting of evil acts, words, and deeds, is in turn divided into mortal sin, in which the perpetrator deliberately turns away from God, and venial sin, a less serious transgression committed without full awareness of wrongdoing.

If we accept definitions like these, then we've got a problem that is much bigger than Frodo. Since sin requires disobedience to or estrangement from God and/or disobedience to the known will of God, I don't see how Frodo or any other man of the Third or Fourth Age could possibly sin. There was such a huge gulf between Eru and his created world. How can you hate God or reject his will when you don't even know him or his commandments?

God's commandments may be etched in men's hearts as moral law, but men of Arda had little sense of where those commandments were coming from. It would be possible for a Valar or a Maier to sin, or perhaps even a being like an Elf or Balrog who had once lived in the Blessed Lands and had more of an idea who Eru was. But how can we hold men of Middle-earth accountable in terms of deliberate sin when knowledge of God was so limited to them? Men knew more about the Dark Lord and his minions than they did about Eru or the Vala. This isn't surprising since the former regularly showed their faces in the world, while the latter had almost wholly withdrawn by the beginning of the Third Age. Men and women of Arda could actively fight for evil or good, transgress or uphold the innate moral code, or display character flaws, but they could not sin in the way we use that word, even a lowlife like Wormtongue.

Just consider this discussion in terms of Frodo. The closest that Frodo came to knowing "God" was seeing the light reflected in the eyes of the Elves or having deep discussions with Gandalf. Most hobbits and men wouldn't even have known that much. When Frodo saw the men of Gondor stand at the table and turn to face Numenor and the West in the manner of a blessing (Eru isn't even mentioned, mind you!), he felt ashamed for his lack of knowledge. How could God hold man accountable for that which he doesn't know? As to what happened to Frodo in the Blessed Lands, whether his understanding and knowledge increased, that is a story that we can only guess at.

P.S. If someone wants to hold my feet to the fire and insist I use the term, I'd prefer the Catholic concept of 'venial sin'.

[Raynor]

Tolkien was in fact "annoyed" by the fact that readers perceived that Middle Earth had no religion:
The only criticism that annoyed me was one that it 'contained no religion' (and 'no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of 'natural theology'. The odd fact that there are no churches, temples, or religious rites and ceremonies, is simply part of the historical climate depicted. It will be sufficiently explained, if (as now seems likely) the Silmarillion and other legends of the First and Second Ages are published. In his 1971 BBC interview, Tolkien stated that God/Eru is mentioned in LotR, the probable referrences being:
- Lor bless you, Mr. Gandalf, sir! said Sam. Nothing! Leastways I was just trimming the grass-border under the window, if you follow me.
...
- I heard a deal that I didn't rightly understand, about an enemy, and rings, and Mr. Bilbo, sir, and dragons, and a fiery mountain, and – and Elves, sir. I listened because I couldn't help myself, if you know what I mean. Lor bless me, sir, but I do love tales of that sort.- Lawks! said Merry, looking in. The stone floor was swimming. You ought to mop all that up before you get anything to eat. Peregrin, he said. Hurry up, or we shant wait for you.Interestingly enough, these referrences are made by common people. There are also various other referrences to fate or good fortune, made all the way by Sam, Gildor, Elrond, Boromir, Aragorn or Galadriel. All in all, I would say that Frodo did have the required knowledge (arguably on a profane level) to make an informed decision whether an act was sinful or not.

Moreover, in the Fourth Age that Child mentioned, it is speculated by Tolkien that the worship of Eru will be renewed, in the sense that more than it was so at the end of the third age:
It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard.

[Holbytlass]

By burden of confidence I meant he lacks confidence
Oh. I saw it as a person who has confidence may be burdened with always having to be confident, even in a situation they feel they are not. In that case I agree with what you stated, except I think Frodo was even more of a loner when he came back. He certainly isolated himself which consequently worsened his situation.
What is the role of his bereavement in his psychology?(Bb)
One thing we have to keep in mind is that the ring was literally ripped from his hands and destroyed at the peak of his lust for it. At the time when he fully gave himself-heart, mind, body, soul to it by "claiming" it as his own. That certainly will and did leave emotional scarring. Hence Frodo's pining away for the ring even though he knows it was for the greater good of himself and MiddleEarth that it was destroyed.
Did Tolkien dish out "just desserts" to these characters as a consequence of their ignoble actions?
Did Boromir really have to die? In terms of consequence, Boromir's actions of trying to take the ring from Frodo caused Frodo to utterly fear him and fear what the ring's influence would be on the others so he left the fellowship. Frodo still feared him untill he found out about his death from Faramir. And I would hazard a guess that he thought better of Boromir when told how his death came about in helping his friiends.
Boromir protected Merry and Pippin because Aragorn (in book) told him to go after them and help fix the mischief he caused when everyone was scattering in a panic to find Frodo. As we know he dies fighting for them. His death may be a blessing in disguise because it definitely raises his esteem in everyone's eyes and Boromir being a warrior/protector died in probably the way he has always wished. I think it was ablessing also because I don't think Boromir could really live with himself for succoming to such weakness-bullying and taking away something from some one half his height, third his weight and less fighting skills, a noble warrior would never do that. Now this would be a person who would beat himself up for the rest of his life- a person with my definition of having a "burden of confidence".

[Raynor]

One thing we have to keep in mind is that the ring was literally ripped from his hands and destroyed at the peak of his lust for it. At the time when he fully gave himself-heart, mind, body, soul to it by "claiming" it as his own. That certainly will and did leave emotional scarring. Hence Frodo's pining away for the ring even though he knows it was for the greater good of himself and MiddleEarth that it was destroyed..I don't think that his free will had the tinniest bit to do with his claiming of the ring; I also believe that we can safely attribute his regret of the ring to the power of evil. Were it not for the ring's ability to affect minds, I think he would have cast it away and lived happy with it.

[Holbytlass]

I don't think that his free will had the tinniest bit to do with his claiming of the ring; I also believe that we can safely attribute his regret of the ring to the power of evil. Were it not for the ring's ability to affect minds, I think he would have cast it away and lived happy with it.
That's where I respectfully disagree. IMOP, there was a definite line and Frodo crossed it, from having to have it and claiming it. Bilbo had to have it, Gollum had to have it and even though Gollum toyed with the idea of claiming it (Gollum the great and making fat hobbits crawl) he knew there was a difference and did not; perhaps that could be argued since Gollum was shouting "it's mine" while falling off the cliff, but I stand by he was excited to have it in his possesion and not actually claiming it .
I agree with you that the ring affected minds but if free will really wasn't involved at all then Frodo would have lived happily after it was destroyed. I can see where Frodo would have been reluctant because of the ring to destroy it and still needed Gollum's intevntion for the deed to be done but since Frodo claimed it whether by punishment or consequence he suffered moreso.

[Raynor]

IMOP, there was a definite line and Frodo crossed it, from having to have it and claiming it.I don't see that line, really, at least not in this context. I admit that there may be "silent" desires, which, even if very strong, are refulated, but not in this case. I believe that every ringbearer that ever had it and call it precious, _my_ precious, was claiming it also; I would say that all of them would have gone a long way, to put it mildly, to protect their exclusive ownership of the ring. The fact that the claiming (or wielding the ring or whatever) didn't result in actual mastership of the ring (for these ringbearers) is another matter altogether.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Raynor,

Although this is a side road, I wanted to respond since this bears on the discussion of whether "sin" can be legitimately applied to Middle-earth. The whole question of the extent to which Eru was known by Arda's inhabitants has always intrigued me, so please forgive me if I run on a bit. This is as much for myself as you. I also wanted to add that I don't believe there is a simple "right" answer here, although it's valuable to search for one.

First, this is a very different question than the one we usually raise: to what degree LotR was "Catholic" in its revisions. I do agree that Tolkien gradually incorporated much Christian and Catholic content and symbolism into the later revisions of his book. Eru's hand and providence stand behind much of the story, but it was generally a hidden hand. The reader, if so inclined, could see it; the characters less so.

Tolkien never introduced a clear set of religious or theological beliefs to the men of Middle-earth. We are in a pre-revelation world, although one where men were expected to act according to an innate sense of goodness. We see morals and philosophy but no modes of worship other than Meneltarma, which I'll get to in a moment. The only exception to this pre-revelation rule were the stories by Andreth and Adanel found in Morgoth's Ring written in the last years of Tolkien's life.

Eru is consistently portrayed as a distant King who does not interfere after the music is laid down. There are exceptions. Tolkien stated that Manwe did consult Eru and very rarely Eru would decide to bend the rules of the natural world such as he did for Beren and Luthien. The author also wrote that "the cases of Luthien (and Tuor) and the position of their descendents was a direct act of God." (When Tolkien wanted to be direct, he certainly could!)

Rather, it's the Valar who maintain all contact with the peoples of Middle-earth, although they had drastically cut back on this by the Third Age. Moreover, Tolkien was in a dicey spot. He didn't want to suggest that the peoples of Arda were "worshipping" the Valar. Even the "prayers" offered by the men of Gondor were not diected at Eru or the Valar, but were simply a moment to face west and remember Numenor and the lands of Elvenhome that lay beyond.

The real question to me is what did "men" know of Eru? How often did He enter into their mind? Just how big was that gulf? The Elves would have known who Eru was through the tales of the Silmarillion even if they had not been present in Valinor; the "good" men of Numenor and Beleriand might also know something if only because they came in contact with Elves. I assume this kind of information and belief would have been passed down in families into the Third Age. But such families were a minority.

I'm not comfortable using colloquial expressions as "proof" that God was part of the life of the average hobbit. The book also contains a reference to an express train but no one would say that this was a literal fact in the Shire. Rather I get the feeling that the author uses such off-beat "archaic" references to convey a particular feeling to the reader.

These quotations in the Letters may be helpful. It suggests that at least the "good" men knew of the existence of God but that he was a very remote presence even in their lives:

There are no temples or churches or ganes in this world among "good" peoples. they had little or no religion in the sense of worship. For help they may call on a Vala (as Elbereth) as a Catholic might on a Saint....But this is a primitive age: and these folk may be said to view the Valar as children view their parents or immediate adult superiors, and though they know they are subjects of the King he does not live in their country nor have there any dwelling. I do not think Hobbits praced any form of worship or prayer (unless through exceptional contact with Elves). The Numenoreans ....were pure monotheists, But there was no temple in Numenor (until Sauron introduced the cult of Morgoth). The top of the Mountain, the Meneltarma or Pillar of Heaven, was dedicated to Eru, the One, and there at any time privately and at certain times publicly, God was involked, praised and adored: an imitation of the Valar and the Mountain of Aman. But Numenor fell and was destroyed and the Mountain engulfed, and there was no substitute. Among the exiles, remenents of the Faithful who had not adopted the false religion nor taken part in the rebellion, religion as divine worship seems to have played a small part.....

Let me digress back to Frodo, which is where the whole question of "sin" started. Frodo was definitely quieter and more reflective than the average hobbit (though he had rowdy moments as well.). Both he and Sam verbally invoke Elbereth in tough situations. Sam tells us that there was a light in Frodo's eyes, and Gandalf also saw a light shining through his body, like a tiny sliver of one of the Silmarils. Part of the story of the trek to Mordor was the growth of that light and presumably the awareness that lay behind that light as well as Frodo's capacity to feel pity and mercy. These two are surely linked. Frodo had heard the stories of the ancient Elvish lore from Bilbo when he lived with him. If any hobbit should have been aware of Eru, it was definitely Frodo. Yet when he has dinner with Faramir and saw his men rise to face West, he is filled with a feeling of sadness. Frodo feels ashamed that the Shire has no observence like this and that he knows nothing of such things.

That to me is poignant. The "very best" hobbit knows enough to grieve for the great gulf that stands between him and the light, but he can not bridge that gap on his own without the support of his community. As good and decent as hobbits are, that kind of support does not exist for Frodo. It's surely one of the reasons why he's eventually compelled to leave for the Havens. On one level Frodo needs healing; on the other he has outgrown the Shire. And if the gulf is wide for Frodo, it's much wider for the average hobbit. And of course even this limited knowledge was not available to the Men of the east and others who followed Sauron.

Good and evil definitely existed in Arda and people chose sides but the word "sin" doesn't apply. In a pre-revelation world, Eru is too distant a figure: the gulf between man and deity is fixed. There's so much that these men and hobbits do not know or understand. In a religious sense, "sin" can only exist when there is a willful rejection of God. In my mind, there can be no true rejection until God chooses to reveal himself in a more direct manner. Tolkien surely sensed this when he chose to write out the Athrabeth in the final years of his life. It was a personal testament to his desire to somehow bridge that gap, written in terms familiar to him in the "real" world.

[Raynor]

Eru's hand and providence stand behind much of the story, but it was generally a hidden hand. The reader could see it; the character less so.I disagree; I believe that all the characters that referred to fate/good fortune , that I mentioned previously, had a pretty good idea what actually lay behind.
Tolkien never introduced a clear set of religious or theological beliefs to the men of Middle-earth. We are in a pre-revelation world, although one where men were expected to act according to an innate sense of goodness. We see morals and philosophy but no modes of worship other than Meneltarma, which I'll get to in a moment.I would argue that we do have the elves who infuse Men with the knowledge of true religion, sort of speaking:
In their association with the warring Eldar Men were raised to their fullest achievable stature, and by the two marriages the transference to them, or infusion into Mankind, of the noblest Elf-strain was accomplished, in readiness for the still distant, but inevitably approaching, days when the Elves would 'fade'. The doom of the Elves is to be immortal, to love the beauty of the world, to bring it to full flower with their gifts of delicacy and perfection, to last while it lasts, never leaving it even when 'slain', but returning – and yet, when the Followers come, to teach them, and make way for them, to 'fade' as the Followers grow and absorb the life from which both proceed.We also have Eonwe, herald of Manwe, teaching the numenoreans, giving them knowledge:
Eonwe came among them and taught them; and they were given wisdom and power and life more enduring than any others of mortal race have possessed.I also think that other heralds of the valar kept in touch with the numenoreans, even at the start of their dissent; the faithful numenoreans that made it to the shores did bring with them the knowledge of one true god:
But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Numenor, who had refused to take pan in the rebellion (though many of them had been sacrificed in the Temple by the Sauronians) escaped in Nine Ships under the leadership of Elendil and his sons Isildur and Anárion, and established a kind of diminished memory of Numenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so. Eru is consistently portrayed as a distant King who does not interfere after the music is laid down.
I disagree:
Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past. Then Manwe sat silent, and the thought of Yavanna that she had put into his heart grew and unfolded; and it was beheld by Iluvatar. Then it seemed to Manwe that the Song rose once more about him, and he heeded now many things therein that though he had heard them he had not heeded before. And at last the Vision was renewed, but it was not now remote, for he was himself within it, and yet he saw that all was upheld by the hand of Iluvatar; and the hand entered in, and from it came forth many wonders that had until then been hidden from him in the hearts of the Ainur. Even the "prayers" offered by the men of Gondor were not diected at Eru or the Valar, but were simply a moment to face west and remember Numenor and the lands of Elvenhome that lay beyond.I don't think so; besides letter #156 concerning the renewing of worship, on a larger scale, we also have the worshipping of Eru, in its peculiar form, in Numenor.
The book also contains a reference to an express train but no one would say that this was a literal fact in the Shire. Then again, I think we have enough grounds to call this a false comparison, the express train being part of other Middle-Earth anachronisms, such as golf, football, or pipweed (IIRC, tobacco came to Europe after Columbus), all these being secondary and adding to the colour of the story - while referrences to God are on a whole different level.
In my mind, there can be no true rejection until God chooses to reveal himself in a more direct manner.Imo, a more direct manner is something very subjective; what can that be, even in our real world? A prophet, a burning bush, someone who calls himself his son? Isn't His manifestation something in the eye of the beholder, in fact? Haven't most of the heroes experienced miracles? What is a significantly direct manifestation? For me, Gandalf is enough of a direct manifestation or proof of His existence, as it is. What about the fall of Gollum?
Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', 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). Now, we could interpret damnability and salvation in pure atheistic moralistic terms, but that would mean to ignore the writer and his expressed intention.
That to me is poignant. The "very best" hobbit knows enough to grieve for the great gulf that stands between him and the light, but he can not bridge that gap on his own without the support of his community. As good and decent as hobbits are, that kind of support does not exist for Frodo. It's surely one of the reasons why he's eventually compelled to leave for the Havens. On one level Frodo needs healing; on the other he has outgrown the Shire. And if the gulf is wide for Frodo, it's much wider for the average hobbit. And of course even this limited knowledge was not available to the Men of the east and others who followed Sauron.Errr, where the heck is that passage about facing the west?:confused: Anyway, I don't think that knowledge, in and of itself, is the ultimate factor of communion with Eru - rather serving Him, which is not something that is impossible; the numenoreans and, arguably, the Men of the First Age at its begining, knew about Eru (the later - directly apparently); but in both these cases, Men fell. In most, if not all, religions, the emphasis is on the feeling rather than on the form. I am sure that there, as well as here, if one truly aspires to Him, it is not in vain.
The Voice said:

- Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you.

[The Saucepan Man]

- Lor bless you, Mr. Gandalf, sir! said Sam. Nothing! Leastways I was just trimming the grass-border under the window, if you follow me.
...
- I heard a deal that I didn't rightly understand, about an enemy, and rings, and Mr. Bilbo, sir, and dragons, and a fiery mountain, and – and Elves, sir. I listened because I couldn't help myself, if you know what I mean. Lor bless me, sir, but I do love tales of that sort.

- Lawks! said Merry, looking in. The stone floor was swimming. You ought to mop all that up before you get anything to eat. Peregrin, he said. Hurry up, or we shant wait for you.I don't see any grounds for concluding from these passages that Hobbits had any particular knowledge of Eru.

They could simply be colloquialisms that were picked up from travellers and fell into common use in The Shire without any real knowledge on the part of those using them of what it was they referred to. I think that it is Bilbo, in The Hobbit, who refers to the king while heading into the wilderness, despite the fact that there had been no king in those parts for many, many years. Bilbo would have had little conception of who the king was or what he stood for.

"Lor'" and "Lawks" could even refer to an earthly lord, rather than Eru. And even if they did originally refer to Eru, there is nothing to suggest that the Hobbits using these phrases knew that. Many people today use phrases like "bloody" and "blimey", and even "lawks", without actually knowing how they originated or what they originally meant.

[Bêthberry]

What is the role of his bereavement in his psychology?(Bb)
One thing we have to keep in mind is that the ring was literally ripped from his hands and destroyed at the peak of his lust for it. At the time when he fully gave himself-heart, mind, body, soul to it by "claiming" it as his own. That certainly will and did leave emotional scarring. Hence Frodo's pining away for the ring even though he knows it was for the greater good of himself and MiddleEarth that it was destroyed.

Oh dear, I am not doing a very good job being specific, am I? The bereavement I referred to was the one I mentioned earlier, that of the survivor child whose parents have died while he was young. What effect did that loss have on his psychology?

As to this discussion between Child and Raynor, I think it shows the difficulty in agreeing what texts are applicable. doug*p's original post began with LotR and Frodo and then considered ifThe Silm provided characters who were treated differently than Frodo is. Using The Silm to explain LotR is a different matter.

We can quote the Letters and HoMe and the Silm 'till the entwives come home, but how relevant are those texts in terms of elucidating Lord of the Rings? Either that story stands on its own, and we consider just the evidence given there, or it becomes an incomplete story which makes sense only by recourse to these other undeclared texts. This is the perennial conundrum in Tolkien.

EDIT: oops, cross posted with the Pan Man

[Holbytlass]

Oh dear, I am not doing a very good job being specific, am I? The bereavement I referred to was the one I mentioned earlier, that of the survivor child whose parents have died while he was young. What effect did that loss have on his psychology?
Sorry, I'm terrible at not referring back to what one has said before ( :rolleyes: at myself).
Do we know how young Frodo was? I can't help but think that if Frodo was 1-3 years old there may not be much psychological impact compared to if he was 4 years on up with him not having any or very very few independant memories. Did Frodo have a 'death wish'?

[Lush]

I adore this thread.

Per Frodo - I think Tolkien does a good job of highlighting, within the character, some common symptoms of PTSD, found in survivors of great catastrophes, retired soliders, etc. It strikes me that everything that happens to Frodo is a kind of "reality check" that comes when one envisions a great epic - people can still get damaged and traumatised in great epics. It's not all waving banners and grandiose speeches.

As for whether or not Frodo is being punished - well, the very nature of these ordeals is punishing; perhaps this is the point that Tolkien is making. No one can go through something like that with perfect composure and zero mistakes. I think that perhaps the reason why one might think that Frodo is at fault is because the story is so heavily Hobbit-centered. The Hobbits are very fleshed out, very real, and they are shown to us close-up in almost all their dealings. Hence the cracks are more apparent.

It may be wise to explore the character of Sam further. Does he endure less "damage" because he is ultimately more resilient? Or is it because he bears less responsibility (i.e., he's not carrying the Ring all this time)? It fascinates me - how alike and yet different Sam and Frodo are, and what that may mean.

What's also interesting to me is whether or not Frodo's negative experiences ultimately outweigh his positive ones... He really does seem to hit a wall when he comes back to the Shire. In a weird way, his departure almost reminds me of Celebrian, even though it is seen as a gift, what happens to him at the end.

[Raynor]

I don't see any grounds for concluding from these passages that Hobbits had any particular knowledge of Eru.Ok, so what do you think are the referrences to Eru/God in LotR which Tolkien mentioned in his interview? Tolkien was a religious person, he intended his work to reflect his principles and convictions - I don't see how he can achieve that by portraying an atheist world with atheist heroes. He did say that various interpretations that downplay the existence of God/religion in LotR "annoy" him and given who he was and what he believed in, I think it is understandable.
Do we know how young Frodo was? I can't help but think that if Frodo was 1-3 years old there may not be much psychological impact compared to if he was 4 years on up with him not having any or very very few independant memories.He was born in 2968 and, IIRC, his mother died in 2980, which would make him 12 years old at that time.

[Macalaure]

Ok, so what do you think are the referrences to Eru/God in LotR which Tolkien mentioned in his interview? Tolkien was a religious person, he intended his work to reflect his principles and convictions - I don't see how he can achieve that by portraying an atheist world with atheist heroes. He did say that various interpretations that downplay the existence of God/religion in LotR "annoy" him and given who he was and what he believed in, I think it is understandable.
I don't know what these references could be because I honestly haven't looked for them so far and probably don't intend to. But if those are the ones, then god in the LotR is really nothing more than that: mentioned, in the sense that the name appears. In the three instances you give the name is used in ways that, as SpM said it already, in no way indicate a deeper knowledge or understanding of what was behind it. It was used in everyday sayings, colloquial expressions that don't carry a specific meaning and even seem replaceable to me, though I'm sure Tolkien would tell me otherwise. The hobbits, of course, aren't atheists in the sense of denying the existance of a god but, to me, they appear to just never have thought about it. Whether intended or not, they seem atheist in this respect, that they simply don't have a particular religion and don't see any need for one. To me they seem like children in this regard, who might say Lor or Lawks as well, but who just as well don't connect a lot with those words.

I think, though I can't give quotes or anything to back it up, that to Tolkien, God and Christianity were so natural that he made them peek out everywhere in the book, but nothing more. It was evident enough for him, and he didn't see the need to put it in there with a heavier hammer. Unfortunately, this results in the possibility for even an attentive reader to completely miss the existance of it, because though it is underlying most of the time, it is of no pivotal importance to the tale itself. I think it's an interesting question whether Tolkien would have made it more clear if he had foreseen this, or if he still would have shyed away from it for fear of allegory and "parody", as he put it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Ok, so what do you think are the referrences to Eru/God in LotR which Tolkien mentioned in his interview?I have no idea. I have no doubt that they are there if Tolkien said that they are. Quite possibly, he simply meant the oblique references to Eru in terms of fate, providence etc. Or he could have been referring to the phrases that you have identified. Even if this was the case, however, it does not follow from their use of such phrases that Hobbits would have had any conception of Eru as God. Child, I think, has made out a good case for the proposition that they did not.

Tolkien was a religious person, he intended his work to reflect his principles and convictions - I don't see how he can achieve that by portraying an atheist world with atheist heroes.I am not saying that Hobbits were atheists, in the sense that they actively denied the existence of Eru. Rather, since Eru had little direct relevance in their day-to-day lives, I don’t see them as really giving much, if any, thought to the matter. It was simply not important to them. Much like my own general approach to the question of God’s existence. ;)

He did say that various interpretations that downplay the existence of God/religion in LotR "annoy" him and given who he was and what he believed in, I think it is understandable.Well, it may have annoyed him, but it was not something which he could control. Indeed, by excluding any direct reference to Eru in LotR and minimising the references to his existence and role in the tale, it might be said that he allowed his readers to overlook his own interpretation of his work as an implicitly religious one. I don’t doubt that the references are there, for those who are inclined to pick up on them. But, for those who are not, they are not a necessary aspect to one’s understanding and enjoyment of the story. When I first read LotR, long before most of the additional material now available had been published, I had no conception of Eru and gave little, if any, thought to the role of religion in Middle-earth. These things were simply not necessary to my enjoyment of the story. Indeed, had overt reference been included, such that I could not have blithely overlooked them, it might well have put me off, as I dislike being preached at. First time round (aged 14), I gave up on reading the Silmarillion in consequence of the overly biblical nature of its opening chapters.

It’s not a question of denying or downplaying the author’s intentions, but rather of being given the freedom to react to the work in a way that is appropriate and relevant to me. Having since read the Silmarillion and the other available materials, I am obviously aware of, and understand, Eru’s place in the story. But it does not follow from this that this fictional God has any particular relevance to me outside the fictional world that he presides over. And nor does it incline me to alter my view that the Hobbits of the Third Age were not particularly religious beings.

Edit: Cross-posted with Macalaure, whose thoughts are along similar lines to my own.

[Holbytlass]

He was born in 2968 and, IIRC, his mother died in 2980, which would make him 12 years old at that time.
Thanks, Raynor.
Wow, twelve. That does make a huge difference on his bereavement psychology(Bb). It may not be a direct cause of his loner-ness, certainly a factor because it sets him apart. And that would definitely be a sobering experience the death of ones parents in an already taboo situation (being on the water) with some suspicions of murder (one pushed the other in).
Maybe he did feel like (at that age) there would be more to his life than that of hobbits in general. Of course, there's Bilbo and Gandalf feeding into him how special he is so by the time the council comes around he does feel like he could and should be the one to take it. I don't mean that in a cocky sort of way but an affirmation sort of way.


Would agnostic be more appropriate describing the hobbits in general than atheist?
Tolkien was a religious person, he intended his work to reflect his principles and convictions - I don't see how he can achieve that by portraying an atheist world with atheist heroes.
In the context that I think you mean, the 'principles and convictions' being his Catholicism I thought Tolkien didn't want that-to be overtly Catholic in his story. Otherwise, it implies that if a person doesn't believe in a god, a catholic god then that person doesn't have principles or convictions and fictional characters can't be written with them.


I don't see Frodo as being punished by Eru. To be punished by a deity would take an act by that deity, all his suffering is in consequence of his behavior, decisions and things beyond his control that he experienced-punished in the way Lush suggests because of the ordeal being punishing in nature.
Does he (Sam) endure less "damage" because he is ultimately more resilient? Or is it because he bears less responsibility (i.e., he's not carrying the Ring all this time)?
The biggest factor to me being the difference is that their experiences were different. Sam was there the whole time but as stated he bears less responsibility and didn't make decisions that were never his to make (putting ring on at Weathertop) and some just luck-Shelob could've stung him instead of Frodo.

[Raynor]

But if those are the ones, then god in the LotR is really nothing more than that: mentioned, in the sense that the name appears.I disagree; this view would ignore all the turns of events, as we, or even the characters see them, that show the finger of God. Ignoring the underlying, invisible, struggle between higher good and evil is, imo, ignoring the logic of this universe. Although hobbits are repeatedly referred to as vulgar, I don't think that 'vulgarised' forms of referrences are necessarily void, in general - and esspecially in this particular case. We even see that the opposite is true in the cases of Denethor and Saruman - they are supposed to have the highest knowledge among Men and Istari, and still, they fail in hope and turn into weapons of evil. Frodo was raised by Bilbo, who in turn was in contact with the elves of Rivendell, and visites them even after the quest from the Hobbit; Gandalf also had him under his protection and guidance; given the logic of the story, I believe he had a spiritual sense of good and wrong. Concerning Frodo and Gollum, Tolkien stated that:
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.Personally, I believe that Tolkien was presenting a rethoric dilemma - I doubt he considered folly on behalf of Frodo, quite the contrary being the case:
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. 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' (as one critic has said [- although He is called “the One” in Appendix A, The Numenorean Kings ). See Vol. I p. 65:

'"Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker."' (Gandalf to Frodo.) [The simple minds] tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is present in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God.Tolkien further says in that letter that Frodo was given grace by God on two sorts of occassions: “first to answer the call (at the end of the Council) after long resisting a complete surrender” – in the book, it is stated that:
At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice. – I will take the ringAnd secondly, “later in his resistance to the temptation of the Ring (at times when to claim and so reveal it would have been fatal), and in his endurance of fear and suffering”. Even Frodo as ringbearer is unique in his time:"few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. cf Letter #192; "Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision" cf letter #181. In the end, I guess a book reflects the reader; some aknowledge elements Tolkien put and intended to be seen and some don't and what is "objectively" close to a correct interpretation changes from age to age and place to place. I, for one, contently accept the professor's view.

[Macalaure]

I disagree; this view would ignore all the turns of events, as we, or even the characters see them, that show the finger of God. Ignoring the underlying, invisible, struggle between higher good and evil is, imo, ignoring the logic of this universe.
I'm not ignoring the underlying struggle between good and evil, but if we take the LotR alone, then it's not clear where 'good' comes from. It's just there. You can feel that there's some "higher force" behind certain events, but though it's clear what Tolkien meant that to be, I don't think it is unambiguous to an unbiased reader.


Although hobbits are repeatedly referred to as vulgar, I don't think that 'vulgarised' forms of referrences are necessarily void, in general - and esspecially in this particular case. We even see that the opposite is true in the cases of Denethor and Saruman - they are supposed to have the highest knowledge among Men and Istari, and still, they fail in hope and turn into weapons of evil. Frodo was raised by Bilbo, who in turn was in contact with the elves of Rivendell, and visites them even after the quest from the Hobbit; Gandalf also had him under his protection and guidance; given the logic of the story, I believe he had a spiritual sense of good and wrong.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Of course vulgarised forms aren't necessarily void, but these particular instances occur when Sam fears Gandalf might turn him into something unnatural and when Merry complains about the mess in the bathroom. Both scenes have a very nice comedic value. There are many non-comical and non-vulgar scenes including hobbits, all of which don't contain references of this kind.
Neither does the knowledge of Saruman and Denethor lead to good, nor does the ignorance of the hobbits lead to evil. They can have a feeling for good and evil nevertheless, just like Child put it. Frodo's above average knowledge (hobbit-wise) of things makes him a wiser person, but not necessarily a better one.


In the end, I guess a book reflects the reader; some aknowledge elements Tolkien put and intended to be seen and some don't and what is "objectively" close to a correct interpretation changes from age to age and place to place. I, for one, contently accept the professor's view.
I guess there are just more than one valid interpretations of the work, Tolkien's own being one of them. Isn't that, after all, one of the reasons the LotR has found such a huge, and diverse, readership?

[Raynor]

Frodo's above average knowledge (hobbit-wise) of things makes him a wiser person, but not necessarily a better one.The argument wasn't that he was better, only that he had what it takes to recognize something as sinful or not; he considered them to be able to overcome any horror, by grace and refusal to compromise or submit - I see in both these a sign of their faith.
I'm not ignoring the underlying struggle between good and evil, but if we take the LotR alone, then it's not clear where 'good' comes from. It's just there. You can feel that there's some "higher force" behind certain events, but though it's clear what Tolkien meant that to be, I don't think it is unambiguous to an unbiased reader.I don't share your view, which doesn't mean I don't respect it. I don't know what an unbiased reader is, what kind of background one would require to qualify as such - for all I know you and I could be looking at the same thing, be it a flower or whatnot, and interpret it in completely different ways. Imo, we have various events, and actual referrences, made by characters throughout the story or by scribes in the appendices, which identify the source of good (even Sauron is said by Gandalf, in the Last Debate, to be only a servant or emissary). While the religious truths appear "not in the known form of the primary 'real' world" (the alternative we know that Tolkien considered to be a fatal mistake) they are there. And I think we should also take into consideration that the separation between LotR and Silmarillion was not one Tolkien intended - he actually stated in letter #124 that LotR is a sequel to the Sil, not the Hobbit.
My work has escaped from my control, and I have produced a monster: an immensely long, complex, rather bitter, and very terrifying romance, quite unfit for children (if fit for anybody); and it is not really a sequel to The Hobbit, but to The Silmarillion.
...
...though shelved (until a year ago), the Silmarillion and all that has refused to be suppressed. It has bubbled up, infiltrated, and probably spoiled everything (that even remotely approached 'Faery') which I have tried to write since. It was kept out of Farmer Giles with an effort, but stopped the continuation. Its shadow was deep on the later pans of The Hobbit. It has captured The Lord of the Rings, so that that has become simply its continuation and completion, requiring the Silmarillion to be fully intelligible – without a lot of references and explanations that clutter it in one or two places.

Ridiculous and tiresome as you may think me, I want to publish them both – The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings – in conjunction or in connexion. I had in my letter made a strong point that the Silmarillion etc. and The Lord of the Rings went together, as one long Saga of the Jewels and the Rings, and that I was resolved to treat them as one thing, however they might formally be issued.) The Silmarillion explains the nature of Shelob, the balrog, many things of the Council of Elrond, the referrence to Earendil, Elbereth, high-elves, etc; we have the Silmarillion now, just as his author intended and, in his letters, he directed many of his readers to it. To treat them separately, to interpret one while disregarding the other, doesn't, Imo, do justice. We may be free to do so, but, at least nowadays, I believe it amounts to an argument from willful ignorance.

[Lalwendë]

There are a couple of good points that have already been made here. Firstly, as SpM said, had Frodo 'succeeded' and thrown the Ring into the fire then the whole story would have ended in an anti-climax. Instead, Tolkien chooses to end the core tale on a knife edge, and succeeds in adding incredible tension at that point, through the three (four?) way conflict which was going on. By choosing to have the core tale end up in this way he also deals with the end of Gollum in a masterly way; could Gollum really have gone on without the Ring?

Something else that Tolkien does by having Frodo claim the Ring is to show us that in his world, there are no perfect heroes. Tolkien did not write Mary-Sues; his characters are human. Note that his characters are usually at some point shown to have failings, even Aragorn displays arrogance at Edoras, Gandalf is sarcastic, Sam has a bad temper, Galadriel has a lust for power.... Had Tolkien not given his characters failings they would have been insufferable. So having Frodo 'fail' in fact elevates him.

Again, SpM brings up the point that Hobbits are none of the following things: Christians, Eruists, Atheists, Agnostics. They are just Hobbits.

Remember that even if Hobbits do use words like Lawks, it means little in the context of the wider Middle-earth. In the opening chapters of LotR there are plenty of what we might think are anachronisms. I think rather than trying to express religious concepts, Tolkien in fact included words such as Lawks to represent dialect. I think that Tolkien said somewhere that he had his ordinary Hobbits use the dialect of English rural farmers in the general area of the old West Midlands counties of Worcestershire and Shropshire. Indeed, talk to any British person with a dialect for long enough and they will use words like Lawks without ever having any conception of what those words might mean. And just to round that one off, there's no evidence that Lawks comes from Lord in the sense of God anyway; it can just as easily come from lord in the sense of the Squire, the local Lord, who serfs would have had to swear allegiance to.

Anyway, anachronisms. The world of The Shire can be seen to form a kind of 'bridge' or 'step' from the recognisable into the wholly unrecognisable. I read about Bag End and think of comfortable suburban bungalows, I know what a Mayor is, and I instantly recognise the social status of Frodo and Sam and all that this implies on a silent level. I know what cases of silver spoons are, and I use umbrellas. But I have (or had!) no idea what Elves where, why they live so long, nor had I ever encountered a demon of shadow and flame or anything quite so freaky as a Palantir. Words like Lawks are used as the peoples in this Shire, this bridging point, are like us, they use language which reflects ours, unlike the other peoples who speak in high and formal ways, and who never use the word Lawks; in fact it could be as much a comment on (or signifier towards) the social status of Hobbits in comparison to 'noble' Elves and Numenorean descendents as much as anything else.

Anyway, Tolkien says (in a letter to his publisher):

The only criticism that annoyed me`was one that it 'contained no religion'...It is a monotheistic world of 'natural theology'. The odd fact that there`are no churches, temples, or religious rites and ceremonies, is simply part of the historical climate depicted. It will be sufficiently explained if... The Silmarillion and other legends of the First and Second Age are published. I am in any case myself a Christian; but the 'Third Age' was not a Christian world.

He also said:

I do not think Hobbits practised any form of worship or prayer (unless through exceptional contact with Elves).

So Tolkien is saying there is 'religion' but not Christianity; this 'religion' clearly includes Eru as the one God of Ea, but there is no Church. No hierarchy. The Elves and a few descendants of Numenor's faithful still retain vestiges of 'worship', the Elves appealing to Elbereth, the Numenoreans remembering their noble past now sunk beneath the waves, but otherwise, it's all this 'natural theology', with peoples working out for themselves (i.e. without a priest) what's the right and wrong way to behave in this world they have been born into.

[Lush]

...and some just luck-Shelob could've stung him instead of Frodo.

You know, it very well may be luck, but I was under the impression that these dark creatures like Shelob (and the Watcher in the Water, etc.) were constantly drawn to the Ring. Perhaps Sam's luck has to do more with not being "chosen."

Note that his characters are usually at some point shown to have failings, even Aragorn displays arrogance at Edoras, Gandalf is sarcastic, Sam has a bad temper, Galadriel has a lust for power....

... Eowyn is suicidal, and even characters who are seemingly so simply drawn (well, in comparison to some of the other ones, I personally love our elf-boy, but I'm easy like that) i.e. Legolas and Gimli, have issues of prejudice they need to initially deal with.

So having Frodo 'fail' in fact elevates him.

You know, I never thought about it this way, but now that you mention it, it makes perfect sense. Stylistically, Frodo is a better character for this. Also, there is something about the proceedings at Mt. Doom that make me love him, really love him, in a way that the events leading up to the climax do not. It might have something to do with the fact that I've always taken issue with the way that Frodo and Sam speak to each other - and have been tempted to skim their storylines as the result. But Frodo's "failure" at Mt. Doom really casts their banter, their individual character quirks, in a whole new light.

[The Saucepan Man]

To treat them separately, to interpret one while disregarding the other, doesn't, Imo, do justice. We may be free to do so, but, at least nowadays, I believe it amounts to an argument from willful ignorance.I don't think that anyone is seeking to argue that the events described in LotR should not be interpreted in the light of the history relayed in the Silmarillion (although there is, I suppose, an issue over the extent to which the published version reflects Tolkiens true intentions, but that's another debate). Even though I first read LotR without gaining (or needing to gain) any understanding of Eru and his role in the story, I fully accept, having read the Silmarillion, his place as the fictional God of a fictional world. But it does not follow from that that Hobbits were necessarily particularly religious beings, nor that they had any solid understanding, or awareness even, of this God.

However, going back to the original question, I don't see why the concept of "sin" should not exist in Middle-earth, simply because there was no formalised religion. In a world where good and evil exist not just as concepts, but as well delineated causes, it is perfectly possible for its inhabitants to act in a way which we would describe as "sinful", ie contrary to the cause of good. And it is equally possible for them to judge what is a "sin", whether or not they would use that precise word, and whether or not they have any conception of the deity who is the source of good.

So, yes, I would say that, regardless of their state of religious awareness, Hobbits would be able to perceive, and indeed commit, "sin". But, no, I would not say that Frodo "sinned". He may, as I have said, have acted in folly and displayed poor judgement at times (as do almost all of the characters), but he did not sin. Even at Sammath Naur, he had, as Tolkien makes clear in his Letters, achieved all that was, or could ever have been, expected of him. He was overwhelmed by an external, evil force which neither he nor anyone else in Middle-earth (Bombadil excepted) had the power to resist - even Gandalf feared succumbing to the Ring's evil. If it was a "failure", it was a blameless one, but it was not a "sin". Only a cruel, merciless and uncompassionate God could have considered it as such, and Eru is most certainly not portrayed in those terms.

It follows that Frodo deserved no punishment for his actions. Such folly as he may have committed is vastly outweighed by his achievement. And, quite rightly in my view, he received no punishment from those on the side of good, whether that be Eru or anyone else. He may have felt grief, regret and loss, but those feelings were self-imposed, and the only other torments that he suffered where inflicted on him by the agents of evil. From the good, he received only compassion and the opportunity to find healing in Aman - a just reward for his efforts.

[Bêthberry]

No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but the were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.

'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'

What a strange phrasing that bolded part is! Who or what is it in LotR that is said to use a dominating will?

As we read this passage, for just the slightest time, there is the possibility that the Ring has called to Frodo and prompted his offer. However much we come to understand that Frodo voluntarily took up the task that is appointed for [him]--as Elrond sententiously describes it--there is this frission of fear that the Ring has already begun to work its will upon Frodo.

To dismiss this potential guess and flat out say, no question, this is Eru here is to miss this subtle suggestion of the Ring's sway. It is no more than a passing possibility, but nonetheless it is a possibilty that increases the tension of the text.

One of the ways in which Evil is made so powerful and dominant in the story is by means such as this, where we do not always know at the time which way the moral balance falls.

btw, SpM, I did point out that philosophically 'sin' would fit. However, I still believe that in our primary world the word is freighted with such weight of, as I said, loathesome depravity and disgusting wickedness, that its tone is out of place in the sub-created world.

[Farael]

Well, here are my two cents.

I was going to write something about my perspective on Christianity on LoTR, but it was leaning my whole post far from what I actually wanted to say.

It has been proposed so far that Frodo was punished by his shortcomings, that he was punished by his sins, but the way I see it, he was not punished at all. What happened to Frodo IMO (and I think Bethberry has hinted at it already) is not punishment but rather he was marred by his confrontation with evil (Is marred the proper word to use? please someone get back to me on that). That is a common theme that we see all through The Si-il and LoTR. Those who stand up to face evil, come out unharmed. Even when in the end they have grown "greater" and "wiser" it is so through much pain and peril, and I think none of the characters is wholly unmarred after the experience.

So, I have to agree with SpM. Frodo's change is not due to the powers of "good"... it is because of the powers of "evil", and their skill to corrupt all that they come in contact with. Even if this 'contact' is fighting against them.

[The Saucepan Man]

btw, SpM, I did point out that philosophically 'sin' would fit. However, I still believe that in our primary world the word is freighted with such weight of, as I said, loathesome depravity and disgusting wickedness, that its tone is out of place in the sub-created world.Actually, I would hold to the opposite view. In Middle-earth, good and evil are pretty well-defined. In almost every situation which Tolkien portrays, the good guys are opposed to the evil guys, and there is generally little difficulty in identifying which side any particular individual falls on. Anything that is done to further the cause of the good guys may be categorised as good, and therefore virtuous. Anything done to further the cause of the evil guys is evil, a transgression of good and so a sin. For the reader, at least, it is generally fairly easy to tell which is which.

Not so in the real world, at least to one such as I with no strong religious conviction. Transgressions, such as theft and even murder, are not necessarily attributable to evil, but have circumstantial causes or contributing factors – poverty, addiction, childhood abuse etc. Although they may be crimes in the legal sense, there may be said to be mitigating factors, from both a legal and a moral perspective. Those who were at one time considered terrorists latterly become labelled as freedom-fighters, world statesman or founding fathers. I therefore, would find it much easier to categorise a transgression as a “sin” in Middle-earth than I would in the real world.

That said, acts do occur in Tolkien’s tales which might be regarded as transgressions, but which are committed with good intentions or have a good outcome. I have in mind, for example, Bilbo’s “theft” of the Arkenstone and Eowyn’s disobedience to Theoden. Both of these acts have good, indeed essential, outcomes, yet they might strictly be regarded as “sins”. Both Bilbo and Eowyn are wounded for their troubles (Eowyn almost fatally so). Does this represent “punishment” for their “sins”? If so, it is fleeting, since ultimately, both are rewarded. Bilbo is forgiven by Thorin and gains his fair share of Smaug’s horde. Eowyn’s feelings for Aragorn are replaced with stronger feelings for Faramir, whom she meets while healing from her wound. I am sure that there are a number of other, similar examples.

Are these transgressions against “absolute moral truths” or exceptions to them? If the former, do they deserve greater punishment or are the outcomes just? If the latter, how are the peoples of Middle-earth to judge what is acceptable and what is not? By the intentions of those committing them? By the outcome? Or does this introduce an element of moral relativity to Middle-earth?

And where does this leave poor old Turin, whose intentions throughout were mostly good, but whose acts generally led only to doom and disaster, both for himself and for any others whose paths he crossed?

[Bêthberry]

I therefore, would find it much easier to categorise a transgression as a “sin” in Middle-earth than I would in the real world.

You obviously do more loyering in Britain-land than watching American televangelists. And it is the appalling, abject, humiliating contemptibleness which they apply to the word 'sin' which is/would be so out of place in Middle-earth, despite as you say the moral universe it entails. Despite his characters' errors and mistakes, Tolkien never denies them dignity. Not even poor old Lobelia. Or, I would even argue, pathetic Wormtongue and Saruman himself.


And where does this leave poor old Turin, whose intentions throughout were mostly good, but whose acts generally led only to doom and disaster, both for himself and for any others whose paths he crossed?

Well, where does it leave one of the prime tragic heroes he ressembles, Oedipus?

[Raynor]

Are these transgressions against “absolute moral truths” or exceptions to them?I think that the quote I gave previously on post #6 (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=499814&postcount=6) applies in these cases; a deed is not a sin, depending on the intention of the doer. While the case of Eowyn, as depicted in LotR, may seem a little morally ambiguous, or at least more so than Bilbo's, in the HoME XII version of the Tale of Years, credit is given too to her love of her father:
She for love of the King rode in disguise with the Rohirrim and was with him when he fell. And it is the appalling, abject, humiliating contemptibleness which they apply to the word 'sin' which is/would be so out of place in Middle-earth, despite as you say the moral universe it entails.Then again, even in LotR we have Frodo all to eager to deal death to Gollum for his wicked deeds, something which Gandalf thoroughly disapproves. Although Frodo is far more likeable than his real world counterparts, in both realms we find opinions which are extremely ..."unchristian", if I may say so; good enough that there are other points of referrence - Gandalf in the books, and true (as in positive) spiritual teachings, in our world. And may I note that Frodo changed deeply from the time of the "Shadow of the Past "to the time when it became crystal clear that Gollum will rob him (about "Mount Doom"); he spared Gollum's life, against what would seem better judgement, which defines true pity.

[Thinlómien]

Note that his characters are usually at some point shown to have failings . . . Gandalf is sarcastic . . . So sarcasm is a fault? :confused: I'd rather see it as a nautral thing, just one type of humour. (Disclaimer: That was not sarcasm... and this is not either... nor this...nor that... and so on... :p)

I previously thought the word "sin" should not be applied to ME, since it's so strongly tied with Christianity and the Christian God. But, yesterday, while reading, I came across this (and I swear it was pure chance): Sam says: "It's a sin to wake you, Mr Frodo." (The Great River, FotR) Now, there's the tiny chance I'm mistaken since my copy was in Finnish and I forgot to check from the English one, but I don't see why any other word than "sin" should have been translated as "synti" (the Finnish word), since "synti" is as biblical as "sin".

Now, if the characters in the LotR use the word "sin", is there any reason for us not to use it when describing them and their actions? Yet, I interpret Sam's words not as "it's against God/Eru to wake you" but as "it's a horrible deed to wake you" where the word "sin" is used as a synonym of "horrible deed" rather than as a biblical term.

So, what was my point? I'm not sure anymore. :rolleyes:

[Raynor]

My english version reads "it's a shame to wake you"; but even if it were sin, I don't think it would have been relevant to our discussion in this context, as you have pointed out.

[littlemanpoet]

from the last section of The Council of Elrond

No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but the were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.

'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'
What a strange phrasing that bolded part is! Who or what is it in LotR that is said to use a dominating will?

As we read this passage, for just the slightest time, there is the possibility that the Ring has called to Frodo and prompted his offer. However much we come to understand that Frodo voluntarily took up the task that is appointed for [him]--as Elrond sententiously describes it--there is this frission of fear that the Ring has already begun to work its will upon Frodo.

To dismiss this potential guess and flat out say, no question, this is Eru here is to miss this subtle suggestion of the Ring's sway. It is no more than a passing possibility, but nonetheless it is a possibilty that increases the tension of the text.

One of the ways in which Evil is made so powerful and dominant in the story is by means such as this, where we do not always know at the time which way the moral balance falls.Hmm.... Hmmmm....! Well now.... Hroom hoom, even...! ;) It's just that the Ring is not in the habit of 'pronouncing some doom long foreseen'. It's not just a "dominating will", but one that rules; for it is a ruler that pronounces dooms, not a lord of rings. And sententious or not, Elrond is one of Tolkien's "truth speakers" in LotR. So there is a real appointing going on, and not by any Elves, not even by Gandalf.

The passage has the character of a hard task appointed being reluctantly accepted. In fact, Frodo wishes with all his might to stay at Rivendell, the implication being that someone else can take the Ring to Mount Doom. So no, I don't dismiss your potential reading, Bêthberry; rather, considering the way the context of the passage reads, I just don't buy it. The passage shows that this is not the Ring at all, which, if it could speak, would most likely be trying to get Frodo to flee with the Ring from all these VIPs. The only possibility is that the Ring is, perhaps, trying to get the weak Frodo to go in the general direction of where the Lord is. But that's at the most. And even if one allows for that, there's still the greater will that is pronouncing a doom, appointing a ringbearer, and Frodo is both bound by destiny and free to accept that destiny, and does so. So in my opinion it doesn't so much increase the tension of the text as flout the context. Sorry.

[Raynor]

I agree with lmp's interpretation. In the Shadow of the Past, Gandalf says that:
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.So someone else was at work, meaning for Bilbo to find the ring and Frodo to have it; I think it is only natural to presume that this someone (who is not the ring maker, directly or indirectly I might add) also wanted Frodo to carry the ring to Mount Doom. If so many people were strangely summoned to the Council, how come no other stood up to carry the ring? It seems to me that all of them where searching inside, but none found the calling - save Frodo. Not even Boromir, who was probably the most susceptible to the ring's corruption, is not enticed, for better or for worse, to take it at that moment.

[Lush]

In Middle-earth, good and evil are pretty well-defined. In almost every situation which Tolkien portrays, the good guys are opposed to the evil guys, and there is generally little difficulty in identifying which side any particular individual falls on. Anything that is done to further the cause of the good guys may be categorised as good, and therefore virtuous. Anything done to further the cause of the evil guys is evil, a transgression of good and so a sin. For the reader, at least, it is generally fairly easy to tell which is which.

But this is why I like Gollum; because his character challenges and complicates this structure. In my opinion, he does this more so than Bilbo and Eowyn. Of course, he's never really as "good" as either of the two, but there are moments that disclose his capacity for being good. And whether or not he is punished when he dies in the end is also something worth pondering...

[Aiwendil]

Lush wrote:
But this is why I like Gollum; because his character challenges and complicates this structure. In my opinion, he does this more so than Bilbo and Eowyn. Of course, he's never really as "good" as either of the two, but there are moments that disclose his capacity for being good. And whether or not he is punished when he dies in the end is also something worth pondering...

This is true; I also like Gollum for this reason. And another example of a morally ambiguous Tolkien character is my personal favourite - Turin.

But, to utter my catch phrase, there's a distinction we ought to make. To say that Tolkien's characters are often morally ambiguous is a very different thing from saying that Tolkien's world is morally ambiguous. Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct. There is never any question of what ends should, morally speaking, be sought, though there is often some question concerning, first, how best to go about achieving those ends, and, second, whether a particular character will in the event seek that end or not.

[Raynor]

Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct.If I may be so bold to say, they are mixed in all people:
The Fall or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. Trees may 'go bad' as in the Old Forest; Elves may turn into Orcs, and if this required the special perversive malice of Morgoth, still Elves themselves could do evil deeds. Even the 'good' Valar as inhabiting the World could at least err I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.

[Thinlómien]

Morally ambiguous? What about one of my favourites, Maedhros? When you think of it, there are actually more of these characters than you first think there are.

My english version reads "it's a shame to wake you"So maybe the Finnish translator is trying to promote Christian agenda? :eek: ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

To say that Tolkien's characters are often morally ambiguous is a very different thing from saying that Tolkien's world is morally ambiguous. Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct. There is never any question of what ends should, morally speaking, be sought, though there is often some question concerning, first, how best to go about achieving those ends, and, second, whether a particular character will in the event seek that end or not.This is a very good point, and it elaborates on what I was trying to say in my previous post. While there are morally ambiguous characters in Tolkien’s world, the world itself is not morally ambiguous. It is generally fairly straightforward to tell when a character is acting in the cause of good and when he or she is acting in the cause of evil. Boromir, for example, acts in the cause of good by joining the Fellowship and contributing towards its goal, yet acts in the cause of evil (assisted by the seductive wiles of the Ring) when he assaults Frodo. Subsequently, he redeems himself by acting again in the cause of good, when he gives his life attempting to protect Merry and Pippin and makes his deathbed confession to Aragorn.

Gollum is an interesting case in point, since his motives are mixed at one and the same time. He acts both in the cause of good (by guiding Frodo and Sam towards Mordor) and in the cause of evil (by luring them to Shelob’s lair). His intentions are both good (he willingly serves Frodo) and evil (he wants the Ring for himself). He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions? It was, of course, his final act which brought about the destruction of the Ring, albeit unwittingly so.

In my earlier post, however, I was particularly interested in the actions of those characters who are not generally considered to be morally ambiguous. Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good. Where do these acts fit within the moral framework of Tolkien’s world?

I think that the quote I gave previously on post #6 applies in these cases; a deed is not a sin, depending on the intention of the doer.

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.I am not sure that Bilbo was consciously serving Eru when he stole the Arkenstone, nor that Eowyn was doing so when she disobeyed Theoden. Might it not better be said that acts are not sinful when committed with good intentions? Given that Eru is the source of good, it has much the same meaning, but admits scope for good acts by those who are broadly unaware of the existence of Eru.

However, there is a problem. If wrongful acts may be committed, provided that they are committed with the intention of furthering the cause of good, does this not open up the scope for a philosophy whereby the end may be seen as justifying the means? And is that not how Saruman started off down his wrongful path? He genuinely considered what he was doing was for the greater good and that that end was justified by the means that he used. It might even be said that he did his best as he saw it with the conscious intent of fulfilling his mission to defeat Sauron and thereby serving Eru. Yet, he was misguided.

[Raynor]

He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions?Apparently, Tolkien too can't clame ultimate insight:
Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', 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. Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good.I don't think that anyone can judge with "horse spectacles". What is good and evil certainly has a bit of flexibility and it depends, as I quoted above, on the level we consider things. Anyway, we certainly have to make a decision between two evils at a certain time, and chose the lesser one, sort of speaking; and refusing to chose in such a situation would probably be the greater evil of all. Bilbo had to choose between letting things move their way or trying to improve the situation as he best saw fit, in the name of what he genuinely believe was a general good - and he did so with an amount of positive, self sacrifice, which I believe is an ultimate redemption on his part. In the case of Eowyn I don't know how much we can enquire; her desire to die is somewhat more evident in LotR than her love for her father (as said in HoME).
If wrongful acts may be committed, provided that they are committed with the intention of furthering the cause of good, does this not open up the scope for a philosophy whereby the end may be seen as justifying the means?Now, while end justifying the means is one of the main pillars of consequentialism, I don't think that this is what I initially argued for. On earth, each and every possible law can be interpreted in more than one way - depending on the interpreter. But I believe that the only valid judgement on sin resides with God (or well, Eru in our debate), and he will take into consideration the true intention of the doer, regardless of what the doer might argue he was working for.

[littlemanpoet]

In my earlier post, however, I was particularly interested in the actions of those characters who are not generally considered to be morally ambiguous. Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good. Where do these acts fit within the moral framework of Tolkien’s world?Perhaps it is helpful to consider that the moral framework of Tolkien's world partakes of Northern sensibilities every bit as much as Catholic. By that I mean that loyalty, even in secret disobedience of a positive command, is considered to be truer than the obedience of remaining at home and not with one's lord. This would be the case of Eowyn. I'm not sure that I have sufficiently described in what way this is particularly Northern, as I'm floating a conjecture, but it seems to best fit the situation.

Bilbo's case could be considered equivalent to a small army at war in which a spy or burglar is considered to be held to his contract to the side he is allied with rather than to the moral code that war sets aside by virtue of its nature.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

This is a phenomenal discussion, among the best I've seen on the Downs, which is saying a lot.

Gollum is an interesting case in point, since his motives are mixed at one and the same time. He acts both in the cause of good (by guiding Frodo and Sam towards Mordor) and in the cause of evil (by luring them to Shelob’s lair). His intentions are both good (he willingly serves Frodo) and evil (he wants the Ring for himself). He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions? It was, of course, his final act which brought about the destruction of the Ring, albeit unwittingly so.

Well, Gollum does have mixed motives at times, but the evil wins out over the good, certainly in his conversation with himself, and also in Sam's roughness outside Torech Ungol. I don't think we can say he deserves to be rewarded because the good sometimes fought with the bad within him. When he leads Frodo and Sam to Mordor, he accomplishes a good deed, but he does it with the wrong motives. Same thing with the destruction of the Ring at Sammath Naur, though there obviously wasn't much of a moral conflict by that point. And as the quote above shows, Tolkien makes it abundantly clear that Gollum's being the agent of divine providence does not make him innocent.

[Lotrelf]

Frodo, punchbag of the quest? :oI do not feel he was a punchbag because he was attacked by his enemies, for anyone else bearing the One Ring would be worse. As for Mr. Carter's statement(s), I disagree with him. I had heard somewhere else too that "Frodo's Weathertop wound was kinda his fault," and that he deserved it. His wound on Weathertop, more than a punishment, to me, is a process of him and his companions becoming something else. Yes, he was weak, and not strong enough to resist the Evil; but without that "folly" would the quest have been achieved? I doubt very much. After this wound he resisted all Nine alone and proved himself to be the best Ring-bearer. This also helped his friends to understand the real weight of the quest.
Shelob thingy-- how is that over-confidence? His trust in Gollum is what Mr. Carter considers his over-confidence? Or his decision to go into her lair? If I remember correctly, Gollum had told them there was no other way, did the hobbits have to go another way without knowing anything and getting lost in the Enemy's land? How?
His failure on Mount Doom and later his suffering is a punishment? I always saw it differently. I felt Frodo was rewarded with the most precious gift by going into the West. Souron and Gollum suffer terribly because of the Ring, unlike Frodo who suffered least as compared to the other two. If he were weak, he'd be punished, not rewarded. Reward and punishment is respective thing. What I see as reward, in this case, someone else may see as punishment. His wounds and sufferings, like everyone else's were the sign of his bravery and self-sacrifice, instead of deserving.

[Galadriel55]

I was almost finished typing my awesome post when the computer decided to delete it. ><

Firstly, I want to say that I did not read all the posts, but I agree with Lotrelf. I say that there's a huge difference between a punishment and a consequence. Even on a basic level - a punishment is done purposefully (!) by someone or something (who? Eru? fate? some little angel on your shoulder with a checklist of sins?) with the intention to either restore justice (BS) or teach a lesson (like Frodo doesn't actually know). Secondly, one is punished for something wrong. What has Frodo done wrong? What is he punished for? For being a human being? His faults are not sins. His faults are not even faults.

For one thing, folly was never one of his qualities. Ever. It was not folly ("let's put on the Ring and see what happens! Oooh, shiny!") that made him put on the Ring, but a lack of wisdom and experience. The act could be considered folly from an objective or retrospective point of view, but not the same folly as that which drives Pippin to throw the rock in Moria. It it a fault to be susceptible to the Ring? It wouldn't be the Ring if it was. Frodo putting on the Ring was a consequence of universal susceptibility to the Ring and the pressure of being surrounded by the Nazgul. Being stabbed was a consequence of that. I see no fault and no punishment. Considering that he was the strongest person in ME in terms of resisting the Ring (the discussion about Gollum aside), the whole of Middle-earth would have to be punished.

Since when is being overjoyed to see an opening out of Shelob's lair and rushing to get out a sin? If you think it is, I dare you to spend a day or two wandering in sme pitch-black musky caves, and se if you don't rush for the first opening or light that you see. And overconfidence? "I can openly run all the way thrugh Mordor completely unharmed!" was the last thing one could expect to be in Frodo's mind at that time. He was blinded by the joy of getting out of Shelob's lair - a completely normal and human emtion. As a consequence he did not look behind him, and as a consequence was stabbed by Shelob. The whole reasoning of Lin Carter is flawed from the start: there is no fault, there is no overconfidence, there is no punishment.

Finally, the last scene she addresses, when Frodo does not throw the Ring away at Sammath Naur. Number one. It is not weakness that makes him hesitate. If he was weak, he would not have been on this quest, or he would have given in a long time ago. He is not weak, he is just not strong enough, and no one in Middle-earth is. Number two. The fight between him and Gollum is a climax of the whole story, and the climax of their relationship. Both begin with greed and desire for the Ring, but when Frodo snaps out of his trance does he only fight for the Ring's sake? or maybe he recalls his greater purpose and fights for ME? or he remembers his former connection with Gollum, and fights for Gollum's sake as well? Whatever you think the significance of the scene is, it is not a punishment. It does not happen because it is willed by someone due to Frodo's hesitation. Yes, it comes about as a consequence of his hesitation - Gollum has time to catch up - but not as a punishment. The build up to this scene from all perspectives begins back in the Shire, when Frodo learns of both the Ring and of Gollum. How can it be a punishment of something that occurs much later? Number three. The loss of a finger is only Frodo's most gruesome consequence in physical terms. If Lin Carter thinks this is his most severe wound, she's missed the whole point of the book. Nuff said.

I don't see any of these as a punishment, and I don't see any of these as a fault. The whole concept implies that either Frodo is expected to turn into a saint, or everyone in ME is watched over constantly and punished for stepping out of line even in the slightest. Moreover, things do not happen because they come about, but because some omnipotent creature (Eru) or concept (fate) sits up there somewhere and makes them happen. By that logic, Saruman gets killed necessarily, as a punishment and not a consequence of his deeds, and Wormtongue is killed necessarily for the same reason. Boromir dies necessarily and purposefully. Everything loses its beauty and its meaning - all the subtle but overwhelming emotions in all these people, and their choice to act the way they did that lead up to their end. I prefer to think that Saruman dies as a consequence of his cruelty, not as a punishment for it. I prefer to think that Wormtongue dies as a consequence of the war-like attitude of the hobbits, who unlike Frodo do not have as much empahy or pity for "enemies". I prefer to think that Boromir sacrifices himself to absolve his guilt. What is the point of all of this, and so many other beautiful stories, with Lin Carter's philosophy? I just can't accept it.

[Ivriniel]

I found the following, interesting perspective in Tolkien: A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings by Lin Carter (a fairly short treatise, full of unfortunate mistakes of fact, which deals mainly with listing the various epics and fantasies thorughout history which paved the way for LOTR):

Although I have long known that Frodo was the punching bag of the quest, and that he suffered greatly in striving to achieve the ultimate goal, I had never before considered that some at least of his misfortunes were, in part at least, his own fault.

What do you think of Carter's assertion that Frodo's wounds were inflicted as a sort of punishment for his failures? An argument could be made that his knife wound was only minor because of his bravery in attacking the Witch King, but perhaps he would not have been pinpointed and wounded at all if he had not put the Ring on.

Are there any examples in Tolkien's work where others are hurt as a result of some failing of their own? Boromir perhaps is killed while atoning for his assault on Frodo, protecting the hobbit's kinsmen. Fëanor on his return to Middle Earth arrogantly pressed on towards Angband and was destroyed. His sons all come to grisly ends, some as a direct result of the Oath. Saruman and Wormtongue both find their commeupance in the Shire. Thingol is slain by the dwarves when he refuses to pay them their dues. Are there any others?

What do you think of this device, which seems ultimately to be the (sometimes capital) punishment of sinners by fate?

In contrast to the wounds of Frodo, which Carter seems to indicate are in part deserved, other members of the Fellowship are wounded as a result of bravery, and bear their scars as a token of honour. Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gimli and Gandalf are all wounded in combat. Also, many of the heroes of the Eldar and Edain in the First Age are killed fighting against Morgoth; their deaths are most often heroic and win them great renown.

Is this contrast the reason why Frodo is not held in higher esteem among the hobbits on his return to the Shire? Rather than being wounded in victorious combat, he is struck down as a result of "folly, overconfidence and weakness" (to use Carter's words).

Your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated!

Hyperbolic literary abstraction founded on a rather troubled imagination.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

A sort of mechanistic hyper-Calvinism Tolkien would never have considered. So, was Theodred a bad man? Were all those soldiers of Gondor and Rohan and Lorien and Mirkwood and Erebor who died in the war sinners, while their sinless companions survived? Ah doan thank so.


Tolkien is unambiguous (in his Letters) that Gollum's fall into the Fire was the finger of God, a divine intervention which could be seen as a "reward" for Frodo's total sacrifice. But he's also clear that this is a singular exception - a miracle, if you will - and not the sort of thing that happens except in matters of great Doom (cf. Beren & Luthien)

[Lotrelf]

A sort of mechanistic hyper-Calvinism Tolkien would never have considered. So, was Theodred a bad man? Were all those soldiers of Gondor and Rohan and Lorien and Mirkwood and Erebor who died in the war sinners, while their sinless companions survived? Ah doan thank so.


Tolkien is unambiguous (in his Letters) that Gollum's fall into the Fire was the finger of God, a divine intervention which could be seen as a "reward" for Frodo's total sacrifice. But he's also clear that this is a singular exception - a miracle, if you will - and not the sort of thing that happens except in matters of great Doom (cf. Beren & Luthien)

Actually, what Carter said is that those people other than Frodo, who were scarred or died in the battles were heroes. Their wounds (or deaths) were the proof of their bravery while Frodo's wounds were deserving, i.e. he deserved them because of folly,over-confidence and weakness rather than bravery. An inherently flawed theory this is!

[Inziladun]

Actually, what Carter said is that those people other than Frodo, who were scarred or died in the battles were heroes. Their wounds (or deaths) were the proof of their bravery while Frodo's wounds were deserving, i.e. he deserved them because of folly,over-confidence and weakness rather than bravery. An inherently flawed theory this is!

The idea of Frodo deserving his pains and misfortunes derived from his experience with the Ring is rubbish.
It was a burden too great for him, as indeed for any in Middle-earth, or any whose innate spiritual power was inferior to Sauron's. Frodo's "failure" was really in his own mind, and no guilt was ever laid on him by anyone in the books: least of all Gandalf, surely the spokesman for for the Valar (and by proxy, the One). Gandalf, in Rivendell, did not judge Frodo for using the Ring on Weathertop, and nothing was ever said about his refusal to throw away the Ring into the Fire. Gandalf understood. If Frodo's "failure" really was due to his own moral weakness, and he had not utterly expended his body and will in resisting the Ring's power, then surely his sojourn into the West would have been disallowed.

[Faramir Jones]

The Saucepan Man earlier talked about Bilbo's theft of the Arkenstone. One could strongly argue that he did not steal it; he was just taking his promised reward.

In the original contact with Thorin and Company, Bilbo was promised one fourteenth share of the profits, in return for his services. Later, after surviving a second encounter with Smaug, he was given the option of picking his own fourteenth share. Therefore, Bilbo, having fulfilled his part of the contract, picked his reward by taking the Arkenstone as his fourteenth. When discussing matters with Bard and the Elvenking, he showed them his copy of the contract before handing over the Arkenstone, making it clear that he was entitled to it, and therefore entitled to give it away as he saw fit.

Later, once Thorin found out, and was persuaded not to kill Bilbo, he publicly accepted this state of affairs, saying that he would, for the Arkenstone's return, give a fourteenth share of the silver and gold part of the treasure.

[cellurdur]

The idea of Frodo deserving his pains and misfortunes derived from his experience with the Ring is rubbish.
It was a burden too great for him, as indeed for any in Middle-earth, or any whose innate spiritual power was inferior to Sauron's. Frodo's "failure" was really in his own mind, and no guilt was ever laid on him by anyone in the books: least of all Gandalf, surely the spokesman for for the Valar (and by proxy, the One). Gandalf, in Rivendell, did not judge Frodo for using the Ring on Weathertop, and nothing was ever said about his refusal to throw away the Ring into the Fire. Gandalf understood. If Frodo's "failure" really was due to his own moral weakness, and he had not utterly expended his body and will in resisting the Ring's power, then surely his sojourn into the West would have been disallowed.

I agree completely and it's sad that Frodo was never given the respect he deserved by the other Hobbits. They sadly could not see the bigger picture and what Frodo had sacrificed and done for not only the Shire, but the world. I do find it terribly ironic that the films also don't give Frodo the credit he deserves, and casual fans of the movies regard him as a failure and weak.

[Lotrelf]

I agree completely and it's sad that Frodo was never given the respect he deserved by the other Hobbits. They sadly could not see the bigger picture and what Frodo had sacrificed and done for not only the Shire, but the world. I do find it terribly ironic that the films also don't give Frodo the credit he deserves, and casual fans of the movies regard him as a failure and weak.
Movies focus on him in the end only. On not getting credit in the Shire, you can consider it another way too: He had grown beyond any Hobbit/Human stature and become something like Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond. Shire-folk kind of detested Gandalf and didn't care much of the Elves. They didn't realize the big picture, this was better for them. Frodo's fading from the mortal world made him more susceptible to the spiritual world. That, IMHO, isn't a punishment, but a reward. :)

[Belegorn]

I was almost finished typing my awesome post when the computer decided to delete it. ><

Man it sucks when that happens.