of fate and bloodlines

[solikat]

I posted this at about 3 AM on another thread, but I realised that it's sort of an entirely different topic. Since I'm brand new to this board, be gentle. This is mostly an observation. I welcome thoughts and insight.

The fact that Gollum survived as long as he did (considering the many chances others had to take him out of the picture) actually brings up an interesting question about the role of fate in LOTR. In the movie, Gandalf tells Frodo that Bilbo was "meant" to find the ring, and that Frodo was "meant" to have it. There are references to fate in the book, as well. Remember the riddle that Boromir brought to the council of Elrond:
"Seek for the Sword that was broken:
In Imladris it dwells;
There shall be counsels taken
Stronger than Morgul-spells.
There shall be shown a token
That Doom is near at hand,
For Isildur's Bane shall waken,
And the Halfling forth shal stand."

There is also the famous line that Bilbo shouts out during this counsel, the last bit of which is:

"Renewed shall be blade that is broken,
The crownless again shall be king."

It's always interested me, the emphasis that is put on bloodlines and fates in this story. Aragorn is destined to his end because of the strength of his blood. Likewise, it seems that Frodo has been intended for his fate since before anyone knew that this journey would need to take place.

I tend to shy away from the idea of fate, because it takes away from the heroism of an act like the ones in LOTR, but the fact that Gollum lived long enough to play a vital role in this story does seem to indicate a certain level of destiny. Any ideas?

[Elven-Maiden]

hmm, I hadn't thought of that before! I guess that there is a fate that binds each of us, and even though I believe each of us has free will, our fate is shaped by our personality, so very few things we do is unexpected.

I suppose that it was fate that brought each character together in LotR to form the fellowship capable of completing the task. But... was it Fate, or Illuvatar? Maybe Illuvatar had predestined all this to happen, meaning that to happen, making it fate.

I'd better stop babbling now before I confuse myself!

[Rosa Underhill]

Welcome to the 'Downs, solikat!

The two verses (poems) you quoted are actually an example not of fate but of prophecy. And they both came true.

I think what Tolkien is insinuating in LotR is not fate but rather the devine hand of Iluvitar (the Middle-earth version of God). It's been mentioned elsewhere around the board that Iluvitar had a lot of sway in the events of the War of the Ring, though we never learn his name until "The Silmarilion".

That's just my two cents.

[Aralaithiel]

Once again, I agree with your perspective, Rosa! Great minds think alike! smilies/smile.gif
Mae Govannen (Sindarin (common) Elvish for Hello), Solikat!
We are very friendly here, and of course gentle! smilies/smile.gif

[Mithadan]

I agree that the quotes provided are examples of prophecy, however prophecy is related to fate to some extent. Some prophecies likely do not come true (though I cannot think of an example in Tolkien's works) but true foresight implies an ability to "see" at least a possible future.

Tolkien has interesting views on fate. First, there is the music of the Ainur and vision of Arda. The vision showed things as they would be, however it ended either before the coming of the Elves or the coming of Man. Thus it was an incomplete vision.

Each of the Ainur knew what they sang of and those events or matters would occur. Thus Yavanna, reviewing the memory of the music, realizes that Ents will come into existence. But each Ainu knows only what he/she sung or what was heard of others' music. Manwe and Mandos have the most complete view of the music as a totality. The music also ends prematurely after the third theme which introduces Elves and Men.

The Music and the Vision provide a framework of fate for the history of Arda. However the framework is incomplete. It has gaps and its extent is uncertain. The Valar/Maiar and Elves are bound into this fate, which does not eliminate free will entirely because what is covered is in broad brush strokes. The gaps and details allow for some free will. For example, it is fated that the Elves will fade before the younger race of men and Middle Earth will become the domain of Man, but when and how is not entirely clear.

In contrast, Men have the gift of free will, to "forge their own way" among the chances of Arda which is "as fate" for Elves and the Valar. However, when men associate with Elves or involve themselves in the matters of Elves or the Valar/Maiar, they become entangled in the web of fate and their free will is diminished allowing there to be prophecy and foresight concerning men. Their free will makes such foresight less certain but still applicable.

So during the first three ages, when men ally themselves with Elves, fight against the influences of Morgoth (an Ainu) or Sauron (a Maia) or act in accordance with the designs of the Valar, they are subject to fate. The details are highly variable depending on free will but the big picture was already drawn. Thus Boromir had free will to resist or succumb to the Ring, Rohan may or may not fall depending on individual acts and choices, but the Ring had to be found somehow and destroyed somehow. To take this to the farthest extreme, if the Fellowship had failed or never been formed due to the influence of the free will of men, Sauron would ultimately have been defeated somehow because it was fated that Man would succeed the Elves and come to dominate Middle Earth. The extent of the details might be subject to change but the result would not.

[Sharkû]

Just a word in edgeways, there was a (pretty old) thread about this topic that was very deep itself. I might take the time and dig it up later on, for it was really good, and shouldn't be missed out for a new discussion of the matter of fate and prophecy.

[Voronwe]

Perhaps you mean this thread (http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000473).

-Voronwë

[Sharkû]

Perhaps smilies/wink.gif Thanks!

[Mithadan]

Indeed it is. And upon reviewing it, I am tempted to copy the whole thing and post it to the Tolkien and the Bible thread... but I will not. That thread is heavy enough.

[goldwine]

A quote from Gilthalion on the other thread:

Similarly (IMHO), God, in order that we would have free will, has limited his own power, but being God, can take whatever we throw at him, and knock it right into the prophetic.
Thus, while not constraining us to behave as automatons, he nevertheless is a player himself, and like Illuvatar, can make the Destiny that is His Will come forth, no matter what Morgoth may sing to the contrary. The songs of Tolkien's creation were powerful themes. The actions of the creatures were variations on those themes.

But the Song was still Illuvatar's.
_____________________________________________
Destiny is of course an issue - the dictionary definition (a quote from the last thread by amyrlis)

Destiny: a predetermined course of events often held to be an irresistible power or agency.

What make us what we are and determines our deeds? A combination of our genetic inheritance, an element of our own will, a thread of predesination and our circumstances?

The blood line of the Numenoreans ran nearly pure in Aragorn, making him farsighted, wise and long-lived. In part, Aragorn acted as he did because of the strength and power of his antecedents that he inherited.
The hobbits are an example of this too.. The warden in the houses of healing claims that hobbits are "very tough in the fibre" - the outcome of their actions is also the outcome of who and what they are. Merry recovered quickly not only because his wounds were less or because of this physically tough fibre but also "so strong and gay a spirit is in him" (Aragorn).
The role of destiny in LOTR will always be a be a strong one (Is it a reflection of "God's" hand?). Many things were meant to happen. But also the characters were true to the gifts of their races, rose to the challenge and were victims of circumstance.
Frodo was meant to have the ring, by whichever power ordained it. He would not have chosen the role - the role chose him! He "went though he did not know the way" with all the simplicity, honesty and naivety of being a hobbit and this helped to equip him for the task - circumstance provided his faithful and inherently important companion Sam and even his enemy performed the final feat for which he was incapable (more destiny?).
Enough ramblings for one session!

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: goldwine ]

[avarerniliel]

Destiny? Prophecy? Fate? I'm sure there was some of this behind Gollum living, but was it totally controlled by these elements? I don't believe so. It is said that the ring had a will of it's own, but I doubted it wanted to be destroyed. Perhaps it knew Gollum wouldn't destroy it and take it back to Sauron, though by all means, Gollum wouldn't do that. My guess is that the ring played some role in Gollum living, probably just so it could survive though. O dear, now I've just confused myself...

[Kalessin]

I think an important thing to remember here is that Tolkien's works are stories.

Trying to assign (or define) a logical or empirical concept of fate, something that 'stands up' in Tolkien's world in the same way in which Newtonian physics work (or, recently, not) in our own real world, is perhaps over-egging the cake.

As illustrated by the intense and thoughtful analyses on this and other threads, the issue of predetermination of any sort brings with it major philosophical and technical problems. There is nothing explicit in the Bible that exactly addresses these intellectual challenges. And neither in the history of western philosophy or science is there a definitive and satisfactory resolution of the free will / cause and effect paradox. I could go into this at extreme length (I know no other way smilies/smile.gif ) but I hope you'll trust me on this.

Rather than look at the Middle Earth mythos as something that has to be both as profound and complete as our own world, I prefer to accept it as epic narrative. I'm not expecting every aspect of what you might call 'continuity' issues to be resolved ... there is enough of an inner logic or worldview to give the story coherence and mythical credibility (hm, a possible oxymoron there) - it is "acceptably unreal", if you follow me.

Ancient myths and fairy tales from all over the world often have a sense of inevitability in their conclusion. It is the storytelling, the ingenuity and symbolism, that give them potency. In the Ramayana, for example, the Indian deities rejoice when the demon Ravana kidnaps Sita from Rama, for this is the catalyst to the prophesied destruction of Ravana by the mortal Rama (as it is willed that Ravana cannot be killed by another god). Yet the tale itself is a tragic adventure. In Norse myths the day of Ragnarok signals the end of creation, yet the gods of Valhalla will nevertheless ride out to battle.

These and other myths don't absolutely stand up to close scrutiny in terms of causal integrity. Neither does LoTR. Neither, in fact does our own world. We just have to choose and/or accept whatever variations or combinations of theories or faiths on offer and get on with day to day living.

I'm not trying to end this discussion, but just saying that as a writer, Tolkien was probably more interested in having a vague and poetic backdrop of prophecy, destiny, and the ultimate triumph of good over evil, against which the epic struggles and characters could be narrated. He may have also attempted to develop as extensive and integral a mythos as possible, but I see THAT process as something different to the storytelling in LoTR. Arguably, the former is a little narcissistic, as it doesn't necessarily enhance our experience of the narrative. On the other hand, it is something that sets his works apart.

Writers such as Philip K D1ck and others have attempted to address the deep philosophical implications of predetermination (for example, using the vehicle of time travel). But in D1ck's case, the bottom line was generally "the ups and downs of the little man".

And I think that, rather than using narrative to simply illustrate an artificial theory of existence, LoTR is a narrative that justifies itself - because it is a story, and what stories do is entertain, enthrall and move us.

Anyway, anyone who wants to hear the definitive refutation of cause and effect (ie. how it can never be observed or proved), or why there is no such thing as coincidence in empirical science, let me know (or read Hume!) ... alternatively, do what I do now and immerse yourself in works of poetic fantasy like LoTR, far more fulfilling.

Peace

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[goldwine]

I enjoyed your post, Kalessin. Very thought provoking!
There is no question that whatever Tolkien's motives, conscious or unconscious, his tales of Middle Earth are fiction. As far as I can see, it gets back to the initial thought of ultimate truth. The reflection of this is what we find appealing and relational in his work. Of course his epic tale is flawed and will not prove or disprove anyone's theories totally. Tolkien would probably hate us pulling it to pieces - he said that he didn't want people going around speaking Elvish either! But our human nature resolves that we can't resist indulging in the passionate life of Middle Earth!