Two Frodos

[Child of the 7th Age]

While reading the Fellowship, I suddenly realized that I have two distinct images of Frodo in my head: the movie Frodo whom I've only known a few months, and the book Frodo whom I've known many years.

Most disconcerting! These two overlap, but are not identical. While I am writing this with a slight grin on my face, I am trying to focus on the genuine dilemma which has been created by the wonderful movie and PJ's compelling vision. Moreover, I'm not only referring to the differing physical attributes of the characters, but to nuances in behavior and attitudes.

Will I ever be able to come out again with a single unified image in my head? Does it even matter?

Does anyone have a similar problem in regards to Frodo or another character? Alternately, the problem may be a location (e.g., Lorien, Rivendell, the Shire) or the depiction of a particular race (e.g., hobbits, Elves).

What about people who saw the movie before they read the book? Do you find you automatically visualize the movie character or location in your mind as you read, or have you been able to separate the two?

Now, on to Frodo. While Michael Martinez said that the literary Frodo and the movie Frodo were pretty much the same, my mind sees differently. I am aware that some differences are the necessary result of adapting a story to a medium which has very different demands, both artistically and commercially. (I will be curious to see if my image changes further with the release of TTT and RotK.)

In oversimplified terms, here are my two Frodos:

Frodo #1 -- (a.k.a. Elijah Wood)
This character has huge eyes which beautifully express the innocence and caring in his soul. He is in his late teens, and could melt the heart of any woman who is not a block of ice. He brings out every maternal instinct which I possess.

From the instant he learns the Ring's history, this Frodo is attacked by fear. He is very quickly aware of he significance of the Ring. Terror shines through his face and eyes. From the beginning of his journey, he bears great suffering, but sometimes appears passive in dangerous situations.

After he leaves the Shire, he rarely laughs or sings. He does show love and loyalty to Bilbo, his friends and to Gandalf. He is clearly struggling, day and night, to resist the dominance of the Ring.

With the exception of Rivendell and Lorien, the pace of this Frodo's life is extremely rapid. He shifts from one scene of action to another: hiding, chasing, fighing, confronted with compelling visions of evil.

Frodo # 2 (a.k.a. my long-time friend from the book)
This Frodo looks a bit older. (Just take the movie Bilbo initially "frozen" by the Ring at 50 and subtract 17 years to get my Frodo similarly "frozen" at 33)

This Frodo is not drop-dead gorgeous. I guess he looks a lot more like Alan Lee's drawings. See also Gandalf's comments:

"A stout little fellow with red cheeks....taller than some and fairer than most, and he has a cleft on his chin: perky chap with a bright eye." p.163

This Frodo can still laugh in the early stages of the journey, such as when Farmer Maggot presents him with a bowl of mushrooms or he acts quite silly in the Prancing Pony. He is able to sing and takes time to appreciate the "endless vistas" of history and myth which surround him. Like the other Frodo, he is loyal to Bilbo, to friends and to Gandalf, although there's a much greater element of master/ servant in his relationship with Sam.

This Frodo learns and takes things a bit more slowly. He has more rest stops along the way. Only gradually does he come to realize the terror of the Ring. He sees images of evil, but he is also capable of experiencing wonderful visions of the Sea and distant green lands or of sensing the ancient dreamland of Lorien. He is clearly identified as an Elf-friend.

The suffering is less evident on his face, but he is beginning to fade as a result of the Ring and his wounding by the morgul-knife. His face is also beginning to glow with light, a process of purification which Gandalf indicates may someday totally remake him.

This Frodo shows considerable bravery in facing enemies much larger than himself. In the Barrow-Downs, at Weathertop, and at the river ford, he personally asserts himself and is not simply a piece of luggage carried along by someone else. In each situation, he also cries out to one of the "greater" powers to aid him--specifically, Tom Bombadil, Elbereth, and Luthien.

Both of my Frodos are clearly compelling characters with their own unique appearances and attitudes. So what, if anything, should I do to reconcile them?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Dear Sharon,

Having also read the book first many years ago, I see Frodo much as you do, as two distinct images. I don't know if those can be reconciled and I'm not sure whether they need be! I find it better to realize that the different approaches of the two different art forms (motion picture and book) have produced this discrepancy and to just live with it.


This character has huge eyes which beautifully express the innocence and caring in his soul. He is in his late teens, and could melt the heart of any woman who is not a block of ice. He brings out every maternal instinct which I possess.


What a wonderful description of your reaction to the movie Frodo (i.e. Elijah Wood)!! I can subscribe to that fully! smilies/smile.gif


The other character of which I have split images is Aragorn - older and more dignified in the book... I'd have to take more time than I have right now to ponder on my mental images of the book's characters and locations - I hope to do that, encouraged by the comments of the other Downers!

[mark12_30]

Sharon and Estelyn,

I agree with you both.

Sharon, I don't think you need to reconcile the two Frodos. I certainly have no intention of reconciling them. I think Tolkien's Frodo is far deeper and richer than Jacksons-- although I am also terribly fond of Jackson's Frodo as well.

Have you read, at TheONeRing.net under GreenBooks/ Moonletters, the peice of fan fiction called The Fanfic lounge? If you have not yet read it, PLEASE do. For one thing, it is hilarious, but for another it makes what I think is a very important point.

The movie is not canon; the movie-- a script written after Tolkien and in admiring imitation of his work-- is **** fan fiction***. Really, really good fan fiction, but fan fiction nonetheless. I for one will keep them separate. (And that frees me, incidentally, to rework my own fanfic and make "my" Frodo as faithful to TOlkien's Frodo as I can-- without losing sleep over it. Fanfiction is fanfiction, even if *I* wrote it.... Tolkien I'm not. (Thank Goodness, Bilbo laughed.))

Having said that, Wood's interpretation of Frodo made me go back and reread Tolkien's Frodo with a new understanding and compassion. I never really grasped Tolkien's Frodo before-- Sam, Merry, and Pippin were always easier for me, and of course all the men... But the two Frodos are now more separate for me than ever.

Estelyn,

Aragorn-- whoo boy, do I ever agree with you. I'm growing somewhat fonder of Jackson's Strider, but .... Telcontar/ Thorongil he's not... (heavy sigh)

In general:

Somewhere (I think at TheOneRing.net) there is a poll: who do you think is the most accurately portrayed character in the movie? Gandalf is winning. That makes sense to me, simply because (1) McKellan was VERY familiar with the books and loved them, whereas much of the rest of the cast had reputedly only read the Hobbit; and (2) McKellan, reputedly, was consistently holding a copy of the book out to Jackson, open to the current scene, pointing to it and hounding Jackson-- "See here, the book says that Gandalf says this, right here, Gandalf says this. Why can't I say exactly that????"

To which I say, "BULLY!!! ALL RIGHT!!!!"

I only wish that the rest of the actors had had that kind of gumption and understanding of their Tolkienish characters. But they didn't. Heck, Wood was nineteen or something like that. He did what he was told to do. I think he did it really, really well. But what he did was Jackson's Frodo, not Tolkien's.

Like I said before, though-- I love them both. One of the most poignant lines in the movie for me is in Rivendell, when Wood-Frodo softly says to Holmes-Bilbo, "I'm not like you, Bilbo." (Weep! Complete heartbreak... utterly brilliant line and delivery.) So they both have their strong points.

--Helen

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Nar]

Take heart, Sharon, the movie's Frodo will fade to his proper 'good-Jackson-movie' status, and the book's Frodo will remain in his rightful place in your mind. I couldn't agree more with your description of the real Frodo: 33 year old & so both mature and energetic, kind & thoughtful, already growing in wisdom & insight, and, last but not least: as brave as a hobbit half the size of almost every other race can possibly manage.

Although I liked the movie, there were too many scenes of Frodo sliding backwards into a corner away from menacing nasties: this was both unfaithful to the book and visually dull. Otherwise, I liked Wood's Frodo well enough. Famous plays can have thousands of differing interpretations of their protagonists, some of them stray wildly from the text. We can handle one variation on Frodo in a generally delightful movie.

Perhaps you'd like to speculate on what Tolkien's Frodo would make of the movie Frodo? Suppose he turned up in one of those lovely dreams Wood's Frodo will have on the road to Mordor, what would he say to his young counterpart as they strolled together through meadows in the sun? I imagine he'd treat Wood's Frodo with some of the perceptive thoughtfulness he showed Sam.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[mark12_30]

Nar:

You wrote: "Although I liked the movie, there were too many scenes of Frodo sliding backwards into a corner away from menacing nasties: this was both unfaithful to the book and visually dull."

Thanks. Beautifully put. (I'm sure Wood was only doing what the director said to do.) So that begs the question, why did Jackson do this, I've often wondered??? I know he wanted to show the overwhelming awfulness of the Ring-- but why should that prompt Jackson to turn Frodo into a wuss? Why should Jackson have made Frodo any less brave than Sam, Merry, Pippin? Any ideas??

--Helen

[MallornLeaf]

You brought up a good point, because I also read the books several years before the movie came out. While there are distinctions, I think that your two descriptions really could be seen as similar if you want them to. For instance, you describe Frodo #2 with a quote from the book which says he has red cheeks, fair skin, etc. While in real life, this may not be the Elijah Wood you so perfectly described, in the movie, I think that is somewhat what the makeup artists did. They give Frodo reddish cheeks and fair skin. his eyes have a gleam in them. for age, according to the shire's reckoning, he wasn't much older than a boy at the time of the party. and since the movie is (hmm... ) more hurried than the book, that is about right. as far as physical descriptions go, I never found much different. Non-physical characteristics were very different though. like you said. . . in the movie, Frodo instantly becomes weighted by the ring... where this is not the case in the book. I think the main reason they made it this way was b/c of the time. in the book, all this happens over a bunch of time, whereas in the movie they make it look like it only was a week or so between the party and his leaving.

Now If you don't feel like reading all that above... just read this:I don't think it is necessary to try to balance the book and the movie. The movies rock, and the books are sweet. there will always be a difference though. This is a conclusion i have only come to in the last few days. they're different, but both are excellent. Let's enjoy them for what they are!

[Leto]

To reconcile your dilemma...choose the book! always! smilies/smile.gif The changing of Frodo's character, I believe, is one of the worst alterations the movie could possibly make, and is my biggest complaint about it. (which goes hand in hand with my complaint about Arwen stealing Frodo's place at the fords) If I were you, I'd forget the movie Frodo as best I could, and pray that the next movies show a little more of Frodo's 'true' nature. (of which I am doubtful)
It is a good movie, as movies go. Of course some adaptation needs to be made, to translate such a rich story to film. But what has been done in this movie is beyond 'adaptation'...it is 're-writing'. Such a shame.

[Naaramare]

::laughs:: I never really had this dilemma. Mostly because the BBC production is still the first audioalization (is that a word?) I ever heard and thus, all the voices, syntax and even visuals I have will be forever linked to that series of tapes.

Then again, I've had much more time to listen to the tapes than I have had to watch the movie, so I suppose we'll see.

I've also never had this dilemma because everything I see of everyone's interpretations of Tolkien's works simply gets added together in my mind, with details added and extracted until I end up with a Frodo I like. The Frodo of my mind looks a great deal like Elijah, but his voice is and forever will be Ian Holm's (BBC production). Ian McKellan is a perfect visual Gandalf (for me) and his voice and whoever played the BBC's voice have melded and added together until Gandalf's voice can sound in my head.

Sharon, you're right; there is a definite difference between a purly book-based Frodo and Jackson's movie-Frodo. As other have said, this is mostly because of time differences. The same can be said for Aragorn. In the book, by the time we meet Aragorn all of his big life's questions have been solved (internally). He will have to become King and he knows it, for otherwise he can't marry Arwen. That major issue, whether he has the right and ability to take up his heritage, is solved in his mind.

But that's something that's much easier to make interesting in narrative than in movie-form, and I understand (and approve of) the changes made for the movies. smilies/biggrin.gif Then again, I also approve of the changes made to Arwen, and I know I'm in a minority there, so . . .

[piosenniel]

mark12_30 - that was a wonderful clarifying point you made about treating the LOTR movies as great pieces of fan fic!

The movie version, to me, is a Frodo who is a tragic VICTIM of The Ring. Events conspire to make him a Ringbearer and he is well on his way to becoming the shell-shocked person who leaves the Shire at the end of the story because he is overwhelmed by his wounds and seeks a safer place in which to find healing. He is not a well-rounded character in the movie, a person who has any reserves of character to draw on. He is always shown as having someone elso have to defend him. In fact, to me, he is a little comical - always ending up on his back in one way or another when the action gets tough!

This is not the Frodo I know from the books - still fun-loving and gentle, but far more mature in his outlook than the movie-Frodo. In the books, he seems to be stretched beyond the boundaries of his maturity, taken to a new level of understanding, become filled with an overflowing Light that puts his character's definition of himself beyond the confines of the Shire and even of Middle-earth.

I don't know that the movie-Frodo will be able to mature into any semblance of the more mature Tolkien Frodo.

I am grateful to PJ's version of Frodo for prompting me to think about the sort of person Tolkien's Frodo really was.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Whoa, I am very glad I posted this thread. I initially had some hesitations, but I am amazed at the number of responses coming through in such a short time and, more importantly, the depth of insight shown.

I am also interested that people have genuinely different views on this. Some seem to feel comfortable with maintaining two distinct images, others recommend
somehow blending them, and still others come down firmly on the side of the Frodo as shown in the book.

Helen's suggestion to treat the movie Frodo as fanfiction does have real insight. For years, I have been able to maintain my central view of the characters, while also being willing to experiment with writing fanfiction which puts forward alternative images or to enjoy similarly "adventurous" interpretations from others.

You are right--PJ is as much a fan as I am who just happens to have a few more resources than I do for getting his ideas and images across to a wider audience. Sometimes he hits the mark, and sometimes he falls short.

This idea of treating PJ's Frodo as fanfiction also led me to another realization. One way I might comfortably look at the movie Frodo is to think of him as being about 21 years old, rather than 33. This is when Bilbo first adopted Frodo and brought him from Buckland to the Shire. He is the less secure young man, who has grown up largely "on his own" in the great hall of the Brandybucks (tons of relatives there, but no one special person) and still, I suspect, feels the loss of his parents.

I actually see Bilbo as incredibly important in Frodo's life, teaching him and helping him to mature in his 'tweens, an age which hobbits viewed as being a particularly critical and unpredictable time. In our focus on Frodo's friendship with Sam which is depicted with such insight in LotR, we often lose sight of Tolkien's view that Bilbo was actually the hobbit whom Frodo most longed to be with. To me, the movie Frodo with his fears and immaturities, his lack of spiritual awakening, might be more relevent to the time when he first came to Bilbo and Hobbiton.

Have to run to a friend's birthday lunch. I want to respond with additional ideas, but will do so later.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[mark12_30]

Regarding book-Frodo as a "Perky chap with a cleft in his chin":

I ran across that description earlier this week, and I've been wondering for several days now: can anyone enlighten me on when Frodo (of the book) was "perky"? I have to admit I never thought of him that way. I always thought of him as a deep thinker, rather moody perhaps, more profound. But the thought of a "perky" Frodo has tremendous appeal.

My main view of book-Frodo is weary, increasingly hopeless, doggedly perseverant, that we see anytime during and after he crosses the Emyn Muil; but that contrasts with something else, surely, or Gandalf would not have described Frodo as "perky"? Help me out here.

This also deepens the contrast between Movie-Frodo and Book-Frodo, because the only time in the movie that Frodo is perky is at Bilbo's party. Definitely no "perky" after that.

I suppose for one thing, only a "perky" Frodo would have jumped up on a table at Bree and started singing about the man in the moon.

Maybe when he rolls Pippin over for bossing Sam around about breakfast and hot bathwater out in Green Hill country?

Any other perky moments?

--Helen

[Evenstar1]

Very interesting perspectives, all! (LOVE the fanfic concept, Mark12_30!)

I, unfortunately, fall into the camp of "Movie-Firsters." Although I had read (at least part of) the LOTR when I was young (around 12), I didn't retain much of it. I also have a vague recollection of having seen the cartoon-version **shudders**, but that, too, is much beyond my retention. So now, having seen FOTR as an adult, I immediately went out and got the books and read them all as fast as I could. But my Middle Earth world was very easy to reconcile with what I'd just seen in the movie. And my Frodo looks like Elijah Wood, Sam like Sean Astin, etc. And I especially appreciated Sean Bean's interpretation of Boromir, after having read the books! (Ian McKellan, of course, was astounding, as always!!)

The only real trouble I had was reconciling Tolkien's Bree with PJ's Bree. But the Nazgul (and most all of the other characters) were right on!

[TarElendil]

I have trouble when reading LoTR because at times i imagine Frodo looking like Elijah Wood. the characters Merry Pippin dont ever appear to me as they did in the movie. One character that i just cant get out of my head looking like the movie, is Sam. The dude that played in "rudy" just fits perfectly in the roll to me.
Agent Smith as Elrond? dont even get me started on that smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/tongue.gif

[Evenstar1]

LOL, TarElendil! (I just responded to a comment about that exact thought on a thread in the Movies-section.) smilies/biggrin.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

You know, it's funny. I also think of Sean Astin when I read about Sam, but that image does not bother me. I'm pretty sure I visualized Samwise like Astin even before he was cast in that role! I do see more of a master/servant relation between Frodo and Sam than what PJ emphasized. But I have no touble grafting that onto my visualization.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[The Silver-shod Muse]

For me Middle Earth took on a repulsive two-dimensionality after seeing the movie which (ironically) I loved. It was a great movie, but it just wasn't LotR. Comparing the two, the impression I get is that the book is full and rich, the movie thin and too shiny and flashy.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I've felt for some time that excluding the Barrow-downs from the movie caused us to have a much weaker Frodolijah. While he was far more mature in the books to start, the real 'growing up' in terms of bravery was when Frodo chopped of the hand of the Barrow-wight instead of running. That set the stage for his standing up to the ring-wraiths later. Without it, PJ couldn't do a credible scene of Frodo at the Fords.

"Perky" I think was from a crusty wizard's perspective. Ironic is a better description of Frodo's pervasive sense of humor. Example: "She very nearly curdled me." Even in Mordor he never loses that warm observant irony. Cirith Ungol: "Or have you inquired about inns along the way?" smilies/biggrin.gif I love Frodo. Book cannon. Frodolijah I merely like, and pity somewhat. Frodo I love, admire and respect.

-Maril

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Well, I saw the movie first, so it's sad to say that the images of the charaters in FOTR were already pretty much set in my head...
Although, I am interested to see how the new characters from TTT and ROTK will compare to my already created images of them.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Pio -- I never did get a chance to respond to your earlier post which I loved. You summarize very aptly two of the main problems which I have with the movie Frodo.

I object to Frodo being portrayed as a victim in such a one-sided way. I know we talked on another thread about the essay which argued Frodo's decision to depart for Grey Havens was motivated solely by despair. It's not that there's not some truth in the images suggested by that essay and by PJ, but it is NOT the whole picture.

Secondly, I totally concur with your concern about the later movies. I don't see how PJ is going to show the goodness and maturity growing in Frodo as he treks through Mordor. The light in Frodo's face and the gleam of the Elf-friend just aren't there.

I have a another concern about TTT and RotK. I read on one of the movie websites that the model they will use to show the growing dominance of the Ring will be that of drug addiction. Yes, there are points of similarity. And a modern audience who hasn't read the books will probably key in to something like this. But, for me, this analogy is not wholly satisfactory.

Oh, great, now as I read the books, I'll have a Frodo in my brain who is shooting up drugs!!! What a wonderful 20th/21st century urban motif--it just doesn't fit into the legendarium or Middle-earth!

I've just about decided to give the movie Frodo the boot out of my head and classify him with fanfiction which can be fun, but is not to be taken too seriously! But I will salvage those eyes and meld them in to my book Frodo.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Birdland]

I've been reading this thread with interest, since I've never seemed to be able to "see" characters in my mind's eye, and usually will select an illustration in a book that appeals to me, if I feel the need to put an image to the words being spoken by the characters. (I've never been good at drawing people, either on paper or my mind's eye.)

Thing is, I've never seen a illustration of Tolkien's hobbits that appealed to me visually. The Hildebrandts tend to make the halflings rather "big headed". And even Alan Lee's illustrations have an unfinished quality to them, as if even he is not really sure what a Frodo face would look like, either.

So I went to Google's "Image" search. There is an amazing amount of Tolkien illustration art out there, both by professionals an amateurs. I saw many Frodo pictures, some interesting, some downright scary. But none of those appealed to me either.

Elijah Wood's face is very appealing, and he is a wonderful, expressive actor, so I have no problem seeing him in the role of Frodo. But no...his face just doesn't seem to be the right image either. (He is VERY young.) Oddly, the other actors in the film suit me to a T. I'm very comfortable using their images when picturing characters.

I guess if pressed, I would actually choose an older version of Billy Boyd's face as a good image of Frodo. That's getting nearer the mark for me. But not quite.

(Sigh) Maybe I should just give up, and leave Frodo's face a cipher.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

I fear your forebodings are correct. I've read in at leat one interview (which one I can't remember) that Wood interpreted the Ring as a growing addiction, through Ithilien and Mordor, and acted it that way. Drat.

Maril,

But Gandalf has a **serious** sense of irony. Doesn't he? Why would Frodo's sense of irony strike Gandalf as "perky?" I don't see what you see, yet.

Sharon again:

Yes, Sean is a great Sam. Much better (I think) than Dom is a good Merry (not!!! unless, again, I'm blaming PJ's interpretation of him, which I guess I am... but I wouldn't have picked Dom as Merry...) Billy Boyd, now, that's closer.

I've written my own hobbit, and now that you mention it, I picture him closer to Billy Boyd's Pippin than any of the other three.

And in scenes where they all interact (I have a few), Sam looks like Sean, Pippin is entishly-too-tall and doesn't really remind me of anybody-- how DOES one picture a four-foot-six hobbit???-- and Frodo reminds me of a conglomeration of some previous artwork and Boyd's Pippin, grown-up, serious, and deep-- and most definitely brown-eyed. Even though I credit Frodolijah's eyes for half his role, or more.

Go figure. How does Pippin end up being a blank face for me when I think of him as pretty-close-to-the-the-essense-of-hobbitness??? Maybe it ws that growth spurt.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I’ve been thinking over my mental images of some more persons of the Fellowship/book.

The first is Boromir. Seeing the movie made me realize how one-dimensional my mental image of him was from just reading the book – dark and sinister, more bad guy than hero, the Judas of the Fellowship. I certainly could not have imagined him smiling, laughing, playing with the hobbits as he taught them sword-fighting, tousling Frodo’s hair… PJ’s movie interpretation added a new, positive dimension to Boromir for me. I can quite happily reconcile the two sides and can easily accept Sean Bean’s face as my personal Boromir “canon”!

Aragorn is the second character I’ve been thinking about. At first viewing, though I liked Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, I could not fit his doubts and uncertainty into the book image I had. But seeing his more human, less heroic side made me appreciate him more, made him feel less distant. To me, the movie’s Aragorn is a prequel to the book, showing the younger man with the issues he had already resolved before Tolkien’s narrative begins. I guess that’s my way of combining the two differing images I have there.

Both wizards, Gandalf and Saruman, fit in with my mental images perfectly, so I have no problems with discrepancies there, at least as far as the characters are concerned.

In contrast, I find the movie Gimli very one-dimensional. None of the charm he shows in the book is visible behind that beard, unfortunately… smilies/wink.gif

[piosenniel]

I had always thought Frodo's face a cypher, too, despite all the lovely drawings of him by various artists. My favorite depictions of him being John Howe and Ted Nasmith, but as said in a previous post, even these images are ephemeral and don't quite stick.

For me,it's easier to 'see' the other characters because they are separate from me - heroes, villains, youngsters, lords and ladies, etc, grand figures in a grand story.

But Frodo is, in a way, the ordinary person confronted by a great challenge,who rises to it in an admirable way. He is the possibility, to me, of my own ability to do such. In a sense, I look out from his eyes when I read the story, & in that respect it's hard to see one's own face.

[Susan Delgado]

C7A said:
This idea of treating PJ's Frodo as fanfiction also led me to another realization. One way I might comfortably look at the movie Frodo is to think of him as being about 21 years old, rather than 33. This is when Bilbo first adopted Frodo and brought him from Buckland to the Shire. He is the less secure young man, who has grown up largely "on his own" in the great hall of the Brandybucks (tons of relatives there, but no one special person) and still, I suspect, feels the loss of his parents.

I actually see Bilbo as incredibly important in Frodo's life, teaching him and helping him to mature in his 'tweens, an age which hobbits viewed as being a particularly critical and unpredictable time. In our focus on Frodo's friendship with Sam which is depicted with such insight in LotR, we often lose sight of Tolkien's view that Bilbo was actually the hobbit whom Frodo most longed to be with. To me, the movie Frodo with his fears and immaturities, his lack of spiritual awakening, might be more relevent to the time when he first came to Bilbo and Hobbiton


This would also mathc up with the way Jackson didn't allow the time to pass between the Party and Frodo's departure. In the movie, it seems like only a few weeks pass between the two events, so in the movie, Frodo is 17 years younger than in the book. Since he didn't have this time to mature, it's understandable that Elijah Wood would play him at his own age (20), which is probably about the equivalent of a Hobbit's 33.

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

I was reflecting on your observation of how important Bilbo was to The Real Frodo (BookFrodo). This always puzzled me and I realize it's because I always focus on Frodo's comment to Sam when Sam is reviewing the victuals supply, where Frodo calls Sam "friend of friends". I always assumed that that meant that Sam was his best friend yet.

But maybe "friend" holds less water than "uncle and friend" combined:

Bookwise: Frodo was adopted and moved into Bag End at twenty-one (but spent much time with Bilbo even before that; he was Bilbo's "favorite nephew". So Bilbo and Frodo lived together at Bag End, aristocratic bachelors (read-- no careers except what they chose to do for fun), until Bilbo left: when Frodo was Thirty Three, coming of age.

That's twelve years together... twelve years of walking and hiking, studying, eating, smoking, chatting, visiting the Green Dragon, and giving parties, not to mention visiting elves.

Have any of us ever spent twelve uninterrupted years (of aristocratic leisure-time, no less, with all our basic needs met by servants) with somebody chosen precisely because they have so many of our own interests? I think that's why Bilbo chose Frodo. Thinking of it that way, I'm amazed they were separable at all. I'm amazed that Bilbo didn't take Frodo with him. I'll have to think that over some more.

After Bilbo left, there was another seventeen years Frodo spent developing other friendships-- most noted are, Folco and Fatty, Pippin, and Merry. Sam is not listed as a "friend", interestingly enough. But none of those friends moved into Bag End, nor (seemingly) lived very close. So Frodo had twelve very close years with Bilbo, and then seventeen years of more casual friendships with Pippin, Merry, Fatty and Folco. Fatty and Folco stayed home.

And Sam was the servant. There was some affection there perhaps, and certainly some loyalty (hence Sam's choking under the window when he realised Frodo would leave) but nothing whatsoever to imply as close a relationship than Frodo had with his uncle.

And there was all that time, during those seventeen years, when Frodo was tempted, in the fall, to be off and following Bilbo, and see if perhaps he could even find him.

I wonder why Gandalf never mentioned, "Yes, Bilbo is safe and sound at Rivendell." Perhaps because Frodo would have been off and running down the road without a hat or pocket hankerchief.

So... "You were very fond of Bilbo, were you not?" "Indeed, yes, I would rather see him than all the (?mountains and towers?) in the world."

To me that makes far more sense now than it did.

Again, the movie leaves all this out. And since Wood had never read the Real Frodo, he had nothing to put into it, and Jackson, being a monster-expert, was more interested in the monsters than the heroes of the light. Too bad. (I gotta stop knocking the movie. For a fan-fiction, it really was superb.)

--Mark12_30

[Child of the 7th Age]

Estelyn - I agree with your assessment of Boromir. He is the one and only character where I actually prefer PJ's vision over Tolkien. I think there's a reason for that. If you look through Tolkien's Letters, you can see that Faramir was the character in the book that the author identified with most closely. The author explicitly states that Faramir is the character most like himself. Tolkien talks repeatedly in the Letters about Faramir and defends his actions.

Tolkien says very little about his brother Boromir and that is largely negative. Tolkien stated that Faramir was bossed around by his father and brother. Accordingly, he didn't have a lot of sympathy for the brother.

Tolkien's Boromir did repent his hasty actions towards Frodo and the Ring. However, if you compare the wording, PJ's scene is actually the more poignant with Boromir explicitly acknowledging the leadership of Aragorn.

There was another thread where we went into Tolkien's identification with Faramir and dislike of Boromir, but I don't remember exactly where it was!

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[TarElendil]

And Sam was the servant. There was some affection there perhaps, and certainly some loyalty (hence Sam's choking under the window when he realised Frodo would leave) but nothing whatsoever to imply as close a relationship than Frodo had with his uncle.


I think sam and frodo's relationship as friends was no smaller (if not more) than Bilbo and Frodo's. Its just on two different grounds.

[mark12_30]

TarElendil,

Could you elaborate on that? Why do you think so? Are you thinking of passages from "A Long Expected Party" or the following chapters, that I've missed?

Thanks, --Mark12_30

[mark12_30]

Nar,

You wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to speculate on what Tolkien's Frodo would make of the movie Frodo? Suppose he turned up in one of those lovely dreams Wood's Frodo will have on the road to Mordor, what would he say to his young counterpart as they strolled together through meadows in the sun? I imagine he'd treat Wood's Frodo with some of the perceptive thoughtfulness he showed Sam.

C'mon.. .someone's gotta do this... Sharon? Nar?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -- LOL --Just had a look at your earlier posting. Didn't see it cause I was slowly doing this post. I will think about te question, but probably won't get back till Sunday. Hope someone else has some ideas on this too.

Here are additonal ideas on the book Frodo and his relation with Bilbo and Sam.

Chapter 2, "The Shadow of the Past" gives a clear list of Frodo's close friends--Folco, Fredegar, Pippin, and Merry. Sam isn't even mentioned.

Sam started out with Frodo in a master/servant relationship. We, in this country, have a hard time visualizing this because it is not really part of our heritage. Sense of class and class differences were much more pronounced in Britain, especially in Tolkien's day. Even in contemporary English society, these things still linger on in a way that is different from our own society.

I, myself, was a "nanny" and all round housemaid to a family in Kent, if only for a few months. So I had some first hand experience with this, at least on the servant end. (I don't think I've ever worked so hard in my life!!) My whole focus was the family, but in a definitely deferential role,

When I attended University over there for one year and later did research for a doctoral dissertation, people were always surprised to learn that my own father was a factory worker, and my grandfather was a miner from Cornwall. There were some academics in that situation, but it was definitely more rare than in the U.S. All this happened some 25-30 years ago; it may well be different today.

Sam's close relationship with Frodo really developed on the Ring quest, especially as the two made their way alone across Mordor. It's true that Sam still maintained his formal address, "Mr. Frodo", but it's also obvious that their friendship had gone far beyond any superficial class differences.

You know, Frodo had so many terrible things happen to him in the LotR. He was broken down in such a way that he could only find healing in the West, or perhaps even beyond the circles of the world. So it is kind of nice to think that the one personally positive thing he did achieve on that journey was his wonderful friendship and closeness with Sam.

Despite this strong friendship with Sam, the author stated in Letter 246 in 1963 that "Bilbo was the person that Frodo most loved." Helen mentioned the first time in Rivendell when Frodo said "I would raher see him (i.e. Bilbo) than all the towers and palaces in the world."

Returning from the quest in "Many Partings", Frodo said he wanted to journey to Rivendell: "For if there could be anything wanting in a time so blessed, I missed Bilbo..." Frodo then begged "leave to depart soon." Again he repeated, "I am going to Rivendell first, whatever happens."

It's easy to lose sight of Frodo's love for Bilbo. Most of it takes place between the Hobbit and the LotR, so we don't even have a written record of how this relationship grew. But it's clear that those 12 years, from when Frodo was adoped at age 21 and then up to his birthday at age 33, were obviously critical to his education as well as his feelings for Bilbo.

Again, the movie Frodo gives very little hint of this, not because of any failure on PJ's part, but because the actual events occurred before the beginning of the film.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Toad Onion Rock Pole Seat]

The images in my mind as I read the books over the years haven't been compromised by the movie. I was very disappointed in the movie. It left far too much out. I am still debating whether it would be a waste of money to see the next two when the first one was so barren of everything that Tolkein put into the three books. The movie has none of the charm of the books. I would not mind visiting Tolkien's middle earth. The movie's middle earth you can keep.

I must confess though, that the scene at the bridge of Khazad=dum was breathtaking. Exactly as I imagined it.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Toad Onion Rock Pole Set -- Welcome to the Downs. I personally wouldn't go as far as your post about the disappointment you felt with the movie. I enjoyed many things about it, but there were also many disappointments. My frustration is that I sometimes find it difficult to get the images of the movie out of my head, even though I've been reading Tolkien since the mid-sixties. The depiction of Frodo primarily as a victim, the portrayal of Lorien, the lack of the Barrow-downs or Tom and apparently of the Scouring as well--all these were disappointing.

Have fun posting. Hope to see you again.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[akhtene]

I myself could sign under almost every word Bidland has written here. I also have difficulties with vizualising faces and places I read about. Another problrm I had while reading 'The Lord of the Rings' (at the age of 18) was the characters' age. Everything worked OK with immortal elves. But somehow I simply couldn't reconcile myself to the fact that Frodo was over 50 at the start of his quest. So I personally feel now quite comfortable with Frodo being so young in the film (though perhaps he could look a bit less angelic). Anyway every time I watch the film I feel that I like him more.
As for Frodo being made so helpless in the film, I could try to explain it this way. While reading the book we 'see' Frodo's brave actions, but we also read that he is terrified, desperate etc. Oh, please don't send all the curses on my poor head!!! smilies/confused.gif By no means I wish to diminish Frodo, but this idea of struggling with fears or acting against his basic instincts is present in the book. Without knowing that, on the screen we'd get just another tough hero waving his sword or fists, which to my mind would be even further from Frodo's character.
But how can the character's thoughts be brought to public? By introducing lengthy monologues theatre-style? Or have somebody comment on what's going on in Frodo's mind? Even greater nonsense.
So Frodo of the book is strong because he overcomes his weakness and doubts(of which we can learn from the text). The film, to my mind, carries a different idea: no matter how weak Frodo is he is capable of making all-important decisions and taking a great burden upon his sholders.
And anyway, why not see the film just as one more illustration (vizualisation) of the book.

[mark12_30]

Ahktene,

You wrote: but this idea of struggling with fears or acting against his basic instincts is present in the book. Without knowing that, on the screen we'd get just another tough hero waving his sword or fists, which to my mind would be even further from Frodo's character.


Actually, while I see your point about the fears needing to be visible, I have enough "faith" in Elijah Wood's acting to know that he could have shown fear, shown terror, adn still mastered himself and done the courageous thing.

Did you see him in Forever Young, as Nathan the 10-year-old, in the tree at night, singing "You are my sunshine" to that little redheaded girl? (best love scene in all of moviedom, IMHO) He clearly shows nervousness, momentary indecision, and intimidation when her father appears at the window. And yet, despite all this he gathers his courage (gulp) and launches into a spirited defense of his actions. "No, sir. This is no prank. I'm Nathan, I'm ten years old, and I'm in love with your daughter!" He gets told to go home, but Redhead is impressed.

I would have loved to see that (Nazgul replacing Intimidating Dad, of course) in this film. Black rider appears; Frodo is intimidated, terrified, indecisive for a second or three; but-- argh!-- he gathers some courage, draws his sword (panic-stricken eyes would still be fine) hollers "The Shire!" or "Elbereth!" or something and dives forward, attacking-- even though he's still scared. That would have been realistic.

Elijah could have done that all that and more with **NO** problem. The kid is good. Why, oh why, didn't PJ ask him to do it? Why did Elijah get "assignment: wymp?"

[Nar]

Ouch, Helen, you want me to answer my own question? It's hard! That's why I punted it to Sharon! Oh, all right, something's coming to me.

I see them walking together over green meadows with a very late golden sun shining, the time when every blade of grass throws its own shadow. This would be a late dream, so Frodolijiah (great name, Maril) would be looking pale & rather battered. Frodo I'm imagining from the year after the scouring, still tied to middle-earth, but slowly forming his resolution to go. One restless night, Frodo's dreaming self has wandered into this movie and, being a generous soul, gone to counsel his beleagered other self. He leads young Frodelijiah down a hill, and they pause by a stream. Frodo turns to him.

'Well, young Frodo,' he says, 'I see the terror in your eyes. I see the fear of Sauron's creatures, the fear of death or capture, and the fear of failure. Most of all I see the fear of being left alone with it. This fear is growing on you. I understand. I felt it too, in my time. Sometimes I feel it still. It's worse for you now than it was for me, because you've known nothing in your life but real friendship. You found Sam out much sooner than I did. In all the time since Bilbo left, I've had to take just a part of what I need from each friend, because none of them could give me everything. Good cheer from Pippin, good counsel from Merry, good fellowship from Fatty, good faith from Sam. I had to journey as far as you and farther, all the way to Cirith Ungol, to learn all that Sam was capable of, when you've always been permitted to know it. Today, if I had to sum up the Shire, I'd say: Sam. Sam is the Shire to me, and I know whatever path I take, Sam will be with me, one way and then another, bringing everything the Shire is in his own soul. Because you know this now, the terror of the descending darkness that covers the face of the world and even the face of your best friend is all the sharper. It was easier for me to endure, because I've been essentially alone for so long. I was alone until I woke up in Sam's arms on the long stair to Cirith Ungol, and then I knew I was no longer alone; I knew I had a friend to match Bilbo. You will learn this too, that Sam is nearby, or following, even if you can't see it. Even if you don't believe it. When you can neither see nor think of anything but that thing in our minds, you'll hear him, and you'll be comforted.'

Ahh, well. I tried. Anyone else?

Edit: I see you've posted at the same time as me, Helen-- I'd been thinking about that Weathertop scene, which was so unfair to Frodo in the movie. I think the reason for it was that all the movies were shot together under such pressure. There are a couple of visual moments that were repeated, I think because PJ couldn't fit any more visualization in his brain. He was just too overwhelmed, and relied on a stock image in his mind signifying 'terror,' and varied only by scene and monster. It may also be that in the case of 'hobbit is dangled by one foot by troll/watcher' there was a limit on the special effects available. I don't think PJ could have carefully reviewed all the shots that would be used while everyone was there, or perhaps PJ has greater tolerance for favorite images than I do. That particular Weathertop scene stood out because it was so very wrong. On second viewing, I noticed in the movie that Frodo actually struck a few blows at the Troll in Moria, but never connected as he did in the book. The way the scene was shot and cut, those heroics were swallowed up, and the general impression was of continual fleeing ending in that same blasted corner as on Weathertop. I'm not sure if that was intended-- I think it wasn't. The director was denied a certain period of thought and review he would have had if he'd shot the movies one at a time-- but if he had, all the actors would have aged much more between movies, which wouldn't have been right. We can console ourselves with that, perhaps.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Birdland]

So many interesting comments! Where do I start?
I certainly could not have imagined him (Boromir) smiling, laughing, playing with the hobbits as he taught them sword-fighting, tousling Frodo’s hair...
Estelyn - I agree that Sean Bean brought some beautiful dimensions to the role of Boromir, but I saw the "head-patting" scene a a perfect, non-verbal way to express the Gondorian's underlying pride and condenscension towards these "half-men" who had, "by unhappy chance", been handed such a powerful weapon.

I mean, come on! He's patting the head of a 50-year-old grown-up, even if he is only 3 and a half feet tall. How would any of us take such a gesture? (And the look that Frodolijah gives him was priceless! Like Boromir's about to get B***h-slapped!)

Moving on to the Frodo-Bilbo relationship, (which is slightly off-thread-topic, but fun anyway). I always saw the two as having a kind of Socratic relationship, with Bilbo being the teacher-mentor-friend to his most promising pupil. It must have been heaven for the young, intelligent, restless hobbit, growing up in Buckland Hall as a well-looked after, but often-overlooked, orphan. Who can blame him for loving Bilbo as he did?

Getting back on topic: I did see an Alan Lee illustration of Bilbo in Rivendell, where the old hobbit bore a remarkable resemblence to Benjamin Franklin! The perfect teacher!

As for the perfect Frodo "look"; I'm thinking of browsing through an image search of European and Britannic faces, and seeing if I find a picture that says "Frodo", to me. If I find one, I'll try to post it here.

Hey, if nothing else, maybe I can start a new career as a casting director. smilies/smile.gif

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Birdland]

Oh, one more comment: I agree with Mark. The only thing that bothered me seriously about the film was P.J. stealing Frodo's thunder at the Ford.

Elijah Wood was robbed, being denied that scene. Robbed, I tell ye!

[mark12_30]

Nar:

Frodo Counsellor guiding Frodolijah: Brilliant.

PJ's reusing the slide-into-corner-retreat: Perhaps you are right. But the impression that I get (unfortunately, it was suggested by a critic and it has stuck) is that PJ is a monster-expert., and can make the most believeable BadThing (troll, balrog, black riders, Eye, traitorous wizard, teeming hordes of orcs...) and just not that good at doing, well, goodness.

Virtue is just not his thing. He's better at portraying vice. Isn't that why Galadriel comes across as oooo-spooky and scary, rather than shining and trustworthy? Why is Lorien spooky? And even Elrond has more of a temper than I ever pictured him having. Gandalf has the deepest patience of any character in the movie, and I attribute that to MacKellan's study of Tolkien and his hounding of PJ to let him use canonical lines (Bravo!).

Ranting. Sorry. You could send FrodoCounselor to calm me down... heh.

[mark12_30]

Nar, I just wanted to add I've been pondering FrodoCounsellor ministering to Frodolijah off and on since I read it. Really.

Good work. Do you write fiction often?

[Nar]

Helen, thank you very much. *sighs with happiness* Yes, I write every morning; on a fantasy novel which I started purely to please the folks on Littlemanpoet's 'serious fantasy writer' thread, and some stories. The novel's a real world / other world story with multigenerational protagonists. Have to stop myself or I'll be way off topic.

On PJ's limitations with goodness, I thought that the depiction of Frodolijiah and Sam's 'Best friendship,' in the Shire was a competent depiction of goodness. That was of course not in the book, but it was an understandable change when you think of all that has to be explained about an eccentric country 'master' and a smart, unusually educated 'servant'. I liked all the Shire material. The foreshadowing of Sam's later role in the adventure, the cornfield scene, for example, I found heavyhanded, but sincere and moving. I think the Shire sequence shows he can do justice to goodness, I really do. I was disappointed in the Lorien of the movie because it should be a place that embodies sunlight and they chose to show it at night, but I thought that they just misjudged the importance of light and golden-leaved trees rather than that they were unable to do goodness. Perhaps they couldn't make convincingly golden leaves. Beeches do that golden roofed look well, but there may be no beech forests in New Zealand, I don't actually know. The director barks 'Get me some beeches! At least 50 feet tall! Comandeer a container ship, just get it done! Rip up Nottingham forest if you have to!'

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Nar -- That was a beautiful response to the question, and I can certainly see why you dwelt on the image of Sam. I think I would have done something else just because we all look at things from a different perspective. I may sit down and try to write that but I doubt I will get to it till Monday since I have a close friend here from out-of-town

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -- That's an intereting idea about PJ's limitations in depicting goodness.

In my view, PJ can and does show the "goodness" of everyday life through Sam and the Shire and the way Frodo and Bilbo care for each other. I think he has more trouble depicting the kind of goodness which I would call "spiritual goodness"--the kind of magic the Elves are supposed to have; the way Frodo's face is said to shine with light; the feeling of Lorien being part of a long-ago perfect, unfallen world; and the sense that a little piece of Galadriel is a bit like the Virgin Mary.

Over the years, that part of Tolkien has come, for me, to signify the heart of the story. And because PJ can't or doesn't do it, I am left a little disappointed. The black and scary parts of Middle-earth, the evil growing within Frodo's soul--those are there in marvelous detail and sensitivity for all to appreciate.

But I am more interesting in seeing the Elf-friend who dreams of the Tower and the distant sea. I want to understand his visions of a distant green land when the curtain of rain draws back. I want to follow in the path of a very small and ordinary hobbit who becomes filled with light, almost a human reflection of the Phial of Galadriel, and yet at the same time struggles with the Shadow lengthening in his soul. That, to me, is the tragedy and the wonder of it all.

That dichotomy isn't there, and, to me, it's critical as to why Tolkien felt he had discovered rather than merely invented his story. It's what calls to me from distant lands. Perhaps, I am asking for something that simply is not possible in a film, but I wish he would have tried.

So the movie is a fun and fast paced adventure tale but some of the magic is hidden.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Naaramare]

I was disappointed in the Lorien of the movie because it should be a place that embodies sunlight and they chose to show it at night, but I thought that they just misjudged the importance of light and golden-leaved trees rather than that they were unable to do goodness.

Actually, PJ did film quite a bit of footage in Lorien in the sunlight, but it was cut in favour of time limits, focusing on what was necessary solely for plot. Supposedly, the special edition DVD will have that footage put back.

I will admit that was the one place I was disappointed with the movie, but I understood the change. At one point, I saw an interview which pointed out that no sane screenwriter would put the Lorien sequence where it was in trying to make an individual movie.

I don't think PJ was unable to show "goodness", whatever your definition of that may be. Not with a stubbornly determined Sam, who knew very well he couldn't swim and was absolutely terrified of running water, wading right out into the middle of a river (guess what Naaramare's favourite scene was? ^~). Nor with the before-mentioned Shire sequences.

One must also take into account the fact that PJ was trying to make a movie even the uninitiated could enjoy, and the uninitiated would expect someone in Frodo's position to be terrified, unbalanced and so forth.

[Airedae]

I just wanted to respond by first saying that I agree with alot of what you all are saying. I try my best not to blend the two frodos together. But I must admit, since the movie has come out, it's extremely hard not to think of Elizah Woods face as I'm reading the books. I guess that's only because this is the first time we've really had a live screen picture of Frodo Baggins. Though I agree that the two are different in ways, i can't help but think about the emotional part of it all. As I read The Fellowship of the Ring, I saw changes in Frodo. Not quite as fast as Elizah's portrayal but still the changes were there. I really think PJ is the type of director that really wants to get inside the minds of the character. Even if you read their emotions through the book, nothing touches your heart more than to see the pain, to feel it as you watch it. I think thats what PJ was doing. I'm sure he didnt mean anything by what he did. I think he did a great job and picked one great Frodo Baggins. Yes, Elizah Wood is great looking, I'm a fan actually of everything he does but I think he played the part to the max. I wont be surprised if he wins everyone over by the third movie..right now we just see the dilemma of him breaking from the fellowship...i think we need to wait and see how he portrays the worst part of Frodo Baggins journey..the actual carrying the ring to mordor and then being in mordor....I believe that PJ picked the right soul to do it...Elizah has the heart to put into the character...the pain of that burden is right there in his big non secretive eyes. Everything that Frodo felt, I believe will be seen in Elizahs eyes...I have faith and I know in my heart that my image of Frodo Baggins will not be ruined....In a way its actually good to have a face to go with the character..But i do agree with alot of what everyone was saying..I hope i dont get yelled at...I tend to write what i think and i stick to it....thats just how i am.

Frodo Lives!
Valerie

[Bêthberry]

*sits pouting under a large oak, sheltered from the rain which splatters on the Withywindle in myriad small circles*

I have been wanting to join this discussion since it was first posted but all those pesky young Brandybucks sneaking into the Forest for a bit of danger have hindered me.

This development pertaining to PJ's difficulty portraying goodness brings up a crucial accomplishment, IMHO, about Tolkien. He is one of the very few writers who has been able to make goodness dramatically exciting and positive. So often it is evil, particularly a romantic depiction of evil, which garners all the great moments, actions, and splendor, sort of like Milton's Satan taking centre stage in Paradise Lost.

IMHO, it is this ability to make true, pure goodness a credible dramatic, emotional and psychological focus which is one of Tolkien's most stunning achievements--and also an achievement which is much underrated.

*ruminating, chews a piece of long grass with a distracted air*

Bethberry

[mark12_30]

Bethberry,

I wholeheartedly agree. I would go so far (ducking expected flames!), as to call it "holiness". As in purity, depth, ancient-ness, transcendance, and sheer, sheer beauty of an entirely spiritual nature.

I think that was one of the things that Tolkien was showing in his "mythology" and I think he did a great, great job.

Tolkien taught me to fall in love with that, the mystery of goodness that goes deeper than we know, but we hunger for it.

Sharon-- It was because of Tolkien that I sought out truth, beauty, and holiness-- the spirituality, the shining light from within Frodo, the "what-is-it-about-those-elves". Even the wrenching sea-sadness has something holy about it. So as life went on, I was always looking for Lorien or Rivendell or Gildor's campfire, or ... what-is-it-about-those-elves??? ....Holiness.

And yes, I see Frodo as walking deeper and deeper in that holiness as the quest progresses-- definitely battling the inward shadow, do not all mystics do that? And is that not the very essence of the Dark Night of the senses, and Dark Night of the soul?

And I miss that in the film. I'm so glad I can go back to the books and find it again. Book-Frodo's dreams seem to be an instant hook into that for me, as also whenever he mentions the sea or Eressea (even while I'm screaming, No, Don't Go.) So much about Frodo points to that holiness. (Book-Frodo, that is.) Sam senses it frequently, seeing the star above the Ephel Duath, or seeing the light shining through Frodo sometimes.

[akhtene]

Whenever I think of Frodo now, I keep seeing the face of Elija Wood from the film. But when I decided to re-read the book, I found that I still can't vizualise him in any way. I mean the character of the film definitely falls out of the book (as well as other hobbits, by the way). I admire them in the film, with Wood's character being part of their 'team'. But somehow I don't feel like glueing them into the book.

As a non-believer (by some reasons) I'm no expert in holiness and martyrdom, so the screen Frodo, timid, frightened and weak as he is, to me makes more sense as the one chosen to be the Ring-bearer. When the strongest are corrupted by the evil thing, and the wisest shun it, isn't it then for the weakest to set off on such a quest? The weakest, who nevertheless gathers ALL his strength and will-power to fulfill what's been entrusted on him. So he just does what he can, which is more than most were willing to do.

(Am I still here or was I given the BOOT ?)

[mark12_30]

Akhtene,

Glad to say you're still here! I see your point about weakness being a strategically important characteristic under certain circumstances. And i guess it works, too, or time will tell, in Peter Jackson's version... I suspect it will work well enough from a movie-viewers' standpoint. It's just the two-Frodo dichotomy thing... once you've gotten usde to a strong, valiant-but-humble and unassuming Frodo in the book, the movie version takes some getting used to. So keeping them separate helps deal with some of that, for some of us.

Does anyone who listened to the BBC version have a third Frodo (Ian Holmes') also impacting their imagination in addition to the Book-Frodo and Frodolijah?

Peace!

--Helen

[Bêthberry]

Mark12_30, I find it interesting to reflect on the differences between my first, long ago reading of LOTR and my second, last November. The first, I enjoyed LOTR for a fascinatingly done fantasy/ adventure yarn. The second, done by my mother's bedside while she underwent diagnosis of an incurable disease, was profoundly moving.

Profoundly so because of how much effort and clear focus is needed to accomplish what is needful. I remember being physically tensed and tired by Sam's and Frodo's struggles on Mount Doom and being thoroughly humbled by the discipline of Gandalf's efforts. It is a stirring depiction of how much effort is required to fight the good fight. And self-discipline isn't a highly acclaimed commodity these days.

The other feature which stood out for me on the second reading was the interconnectedness of all the characters' efforts. All had a significant part to play. It is a story about community knit together by incredible respect for the free will of individuals within the concept of duty and obligation.

To return more closely to this topic, perhaps I am unusual, but I was not particularly moved by movieFrodo, maternally or otherwise. (There are times when I want to respond to all the Legolaslovers and Frododroolers by starting what another fan suggested, a thread about Gimli as a sex god. smilies/wink.gif)

The depth of bookFrodo's spiritual journey, to me, is missing in the movie because PJ went for a sense of hurriedness and immediacy to the events rather than the slow, inexorable turn of time. And while acknowledging the value and worth of child-like innocence, it seems to me that the story of LOTR is too solemn and serious to have Frodo played as child-like. To me, that is too much of a carry-over from The Hobbit. I cannot easily see a child comprehending the full nature of the transcendence which Frodo undergoes and that lessens his journey for me. Or might, pending next episodes!

Child, your reasoning about the better sense of Boromir's redemption in the movie is intriguing. I had felt that the film was more successful because Boromir's death was moved into the climax of FOTR, rather than the opening of TTT, so that dramatically it was more centrally placed.

Rushed and tired and suspecting that this does little to forward the discussion,

Bethberry

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Naaramare]

Helen --BBC's Ian Holm is Frodo, in my mind. I've always had an image of Frodo, as well, one that hasn't changed for me since I first got it (when I was nine). He's the one character who's never changed for me. Boromir has to be the one who changed the most, going from a black-haired Viking to my current image, which is our beloved movie!Boromir.

Frodo, however, has always looked like he does in my mind, movie!Frodo notwithstanding, and has sounded like Ian Holm since I first got the BBC tapes.

I think the change in movie!Frodo is similar to the change in movie!Aragorn; can you imagine how insufferable book!Aragorn would be if you couldn't get an insight into how the other characters felt about him? (I read some of his dialogue aloud the other day, and realized that I personally would want to smack him within twenty minutes by virtue of what he says alone) It's the same, for me, as trying to see Tom Bombadil on screen. In the book, through brilliant use of prose, Tolkien makes a serious undertone to all Tom's seeming-capriciousness, but that impression is mostly filtered through the hobbits. So is the impression of book!Aragorn.

Again, to the movie-goer who hasn't seen/adored/become addicted to the books, movie!Frodo and movie!Aragorn need to be characters we can identify with, and quickly, while not getting so bogged down in only the characters that we miss the overall arc of the story. The already much-abbreviated scripts for BBC's radio production--which still missed a good deal of Tolkien's characterization--were thirteen hours long. That's in excess of four hours per volume, and it still had the narration of impressions and vistas, which cut down on the need for extra time in that respect.

I find it hard to imagine that people can't picture Frodo easily; his facial features, right down to the wrinkles around his eyes, have been in my head for a decade. And once a character has solidified in my mind, it stays thusly.

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

ahh Frodo. One of my favorite topics. Ok this is going to get complecated with me. Ok, well my mom first read the whole book to me before I saw the movie and I didn't really have a image of any of the people or places in the book when listening to my mom. I mean I did look at some of the art before I saw the film and got a general idea. Infact I drew these pictures of certain people from the book (what I thought they looked like) and what really creeps me out is the fact that the Frodo I drew looks alomst exactly like the one from the movie, just he has brown eyes and extreamly hairy feet. (I'm not kidding; they looke like animal feet) and slightly different color clothes. LOL oh God I also remember drawing Bilbo and he looked almost like the movie Aragorn just with furry feet (I guess I thought hobbits looked just like humans just with really furry feet, that's probably why I drew Frodo young and shorter) and I drew Gandalf with the classic look every one has for wizards. Anyway then I saw the animated 70's version of it (while reading the book) and was like "what the f*** was that?!?". Then saw the movie and had a clear image in my head of the thing. It's hard now because I'm re-reading it by myself and I kust started TTT and of course I haven't seen the film yet so it's harder to imagine certain parts of it. (I started the whole thing after the seeing movie). But the movies were a big help in seeing the thing in my head.

[Frodo Baggins]

I agree with all of you, well met to you all.
THis is how I make myself. Not drop-dead gorgeous but still rather handsome smilies/wink.gif . I have very light skin (all the fallohide in me) and freckles. I ahve slightly red cheecks that become more red with excitement/nervousness. My eyes are not as big as Wood's but they are still that unfathomable sapphrire-blue. My hair is not nearly as tamed as Wood's. It is a bit bushy and very flyaway, and curly of course. Not brown to the point of blackness but rather red more than brown (if you have ever seen paintings bt Carol Emery Phenix you know what I mean).

And yes, way more happy and "perky", as Gandalf would say, than the EW Frodo.

[AragornsHeir]

I am unfortunate enough to not have read Lord of the Rings before the movie came out. I did read the Hobbit though and I wasn't extremely fond of it. So I wasn't compelled to read the trilogy until I saw the movie and liked it so much. But I love them all more than the movie and always will. but with this kind of situation you get confused not only by two different Frodos but between two different MIDDLE-EARTHS. it's very confusing and I regret not having read the books before hand even though my brother begged me to.

[Child of the 7th Age]

What evidence is there to support Gandalf's description of the book Frodo as a "perky chap."?

This question was posed several days ago, but no one answered. So I decided to play with it.

First, I found a surprising number of references in the first three hundred pages to the "perky" Frodo. (See itemized list given later in this post.) Taken collectively, these references suggest a character who is very different from PJ's.

Most of these examples have to do with laughter, merriment, joy, delight, and even teasing. This is hardly surprising, given the nature of hobbits. Treebeard, for example, described them as "the Hobbit children, the laughing-folk, the little people." IIl, 244

After those first three hundred pages, indeed after Rivendell, happy examples totally cease. There were only two more examples I could find in the remainder of the book. One occurred as Frodo awoke and laughed on the field of Cormallan after the destruction of the Ring. The other was when Frodo and the hobbits first entered the Shire and the sheriff attempted to arrest them. III, 346. Just two pages later, Frodo fell silent and sad. He would not laugh again for the remainder of the story.

Clearly, a hobbit who does not laugh is one who needs healing of soul and spirit. This is true even in a spiritual context. For when Gandalf returned from seeming death and transformation, he was bubbling over with laughter. It is clear that a Frodo who can not laugh must depart to the West for help.

The other "perky" examples in those 300 pages have to do with spirited bravery and what I call "spunkiness".

Anyways, here is my list.

1. The Birthday Party. At the mention of Frodo's birthday, there are "some loud shouts of Frodo! Frodo! Jolly old Frodo! from the juniors." I, 55 After Bilbo's departure, Frodo has "a good many friends, especially among the younger hobbits." I, 71

2. I, 106 A laughing response by Frodo to his friends when they tease him about how he wasn't carrying a heavy load like Sam: "Be kind to a poor, old hobbit," laughed Frodo. I shall be thin as a willow-wand, I'm sure, when I get to Buckland."

3. When Pippin teases Sam about preparing bathwater, Frodo teases back, stripping off his blanket and rolling him over. I, 109

4. The Meeting with Gildor and the Elves.

Frodo sat eating, drinking, and talking with delight....Now and again, he spoke to those that served him and thanked them in their own tongue. They smiled at him and said laughingly, "Here is a jewel among hobbits!" I, 120

5.I, 137 Frodo's defense of his companions in the Barrow-downs as well as the author's description of him: "Frodo was neither very fat nor very timid; indeed, though he did not know it, Gandalf and Bilbo thought him the best hobbit in the Shire."

6. I, 132, 140 References to Frodo's escapades as a youngster stealing mushrooms and his laughing reponse to Farmer Maggot when he presents him with a pot of mushrooms as he departs.

7. I, 151 Frodo's surprise on discovering that his friends have "conspired" to help him in his quest.

"You are a set of deceitful scoundrels!....But bless you," he laughed, getting up and waving his arms...."If the danger were not so dark, I should dance for joy."

His friends respond "Three cheers for Captain Frodo and company" and danced and sang about him.

8. I, 159 Frodo sings a song to lift the spirits of his friends in the Old Forest.

9. Tom Bombadil's house. The references to laughter are too numerous to mention. In one place, Frodo sings compliments to Goldberry, who had strangely moved his heart. Then he stammered and was embarassed, almost as a child would hve been. I, 173 In his farewell, Tom says to Frodo: "Farewell, Elf-friend, it was a merry meeting." I, 188

10. I, 216 The well-known scene in the Prancing Pony where Frodo sings about the Man in the Moon, has one too many, dances on the table, and tumbles off as the Ring slips on his finger.

ll. I, 263 Frodo's invocation of Elbereth and stabbing of the wraith at Weathertop.

12. I 276 Laughter by Frodo when he discovered the trolls were made of stone--"Frodo felt his spirts revive."

13. I, 297 Several examples of laughter at Rivendell.

My favorite --As Frodo looks in the mirror after getting up from the sick bed:

"Yes, you have seen a thing or two since you last peeped out of a looking-glass" he said to his reflection. "But now for a merry meeting." He stretched out his arm and whistled a tune.

I, 298 On going to the feast......

"I feel like singing myself," laughed Frodo, "Though at the moment, I feel more like eating and drinking."

That is the last bit of laughter I can find till after the destuction of the Ring. Then we have the two lone examples till the end of the book.

sharon the7th age hobbit

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

Profuse thanks. As I read your lists, I was amazed that I had forgotten all those events.

Joking with his reflection, which always seemed bizarre to me, makes so much more sense now. It fits.

Maril brought up Frodo's sense of humor, which she points out lasted even in Cirith Ungol-- "Have you inquired about Inns along the way?" I'll be on the watch for that next time I reread the trilogy. I had started already, intending to meander leisurely through, but... I stopped to ponder something, I think at Bombadil's, and the bookmark has not moved. (I need a clone, I need a clone....)

...Perky, perky. I like it.

--Helen

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Neverin a thousand years would I describe PJ's Frodo as "perky."

[Bêthberry]

Neverin a thousand years would I describe PJ's Frodo as "perky."

This is the point, I think, when we have to recognize PJ as how Helen has describe him, a fan who produces fanfic. How many of us, in our RPs, have maintained consistent characterization? Or have we been drawn off-tangent by other forces which come into play, forces which did not exist in LOTR or which Tolkien deemed not relevant to his vision?

I deeply regret that PJ chose NOT to include Tom Bombadil or Goldberry in the film. Their omission means to me that this film remains just an interpretation of Tolkien. A very, very good interpretation. But nonetheless, an interpretation which I must recognize as profoundly respectful of Tolkien, but, ultimately, not belonging to "canon." A way into the canon, for sure, but not 'the canon' itself.

Bethberry

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

Well, interesting Child of the 7th age. hmmm:
In one place, Frodo sings compliments to Goldberry, who had strangely moved his heart. Then he stammered and was embarassed, alomst as a child would have been.
hmm well he definitely was happy there. It was a safe place he and the hobbits where in, protected in some way by Tom. And the way it describes how he felt could be looked at as love at first sight. smilies/smile.gif .....well she's described as having beauty like that of Elves yet more easily encompassed by hobbtish hearts in the "World of Tolkien from A to Z" book. Some what of a siren to the hobbits, it's easy to see why he was so happy.
..In his farewell, Tom says to Frodo: Farewell, Elf-friend, it was merry meeeting!"..
Actually that was Goldberry that said that to him.
Neverin a thousand years would I describe PJ's Frodo as "perky".
well yes Child that's easy to see, considering pretty much all of those scenes you mentioned in your earlier post were taken out of the movie. If I'm not mistaken. Though he was pretty happy at the very begining.

To me book Frodo's pretty much always looked and acted the same as the Elijah one. just a little different, but both I never saw as "old men". Even at the end of the book, I just saw him as pale tired....and only had nine fingers.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[mark12_30]

Last couple of readings, I have been very struck by the description of Frodo's response to Goldberry-- including singing, blushing, stammering, and all that peircing joy, nearer to mortal hearts-- and secretly wondering if that's one reason that he was a bachelor ever after.

He doesn't respond to Galadriel or Arwen in anywhere near a similar fashion. Who's to know.

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

Finally some one who's thinking the same stuff as me on the topic. Altough I don't remember Frodo talking to Arwen at least in the first book, yet again I haven't read the whole thing so I'm probably missing some thing. Now that I'm think about it the other hobbits didn't really react in any way to Goldberry.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen -- You must be claivoyant. Either that, or you have the makings of a real Tolkien scholar!

In the latest issue of Mythlore, the jornal of the Mythopoeic Society, there is an article by Daniel Timmons, "Hobbit Sex and Sensuality in the Lord of the Rings." It is very well done and refutes a lot of the ideas in an older article entitled "No Sex Please--We're Hobbits" by Barbara Partridge. (I kid you not about that name!)

The author interprets Frodo's words concerning Goldberry (and there are other lines in the book besides those listed in this post) as "sensual desire for feminine love." Please don't get me wrong--this article is written in a convincing and, to me, realistic way.

He does see some of that in Frodo's first encounters with other characters. Frodo on Arwen: "Such loveliness in living thing Frodo had never seen before nor imagined in his mind." 298 There is also the scene when Frodo beholds Arwen with Aragorn and is profoundly moved once more: "The light of her eyes fell upon him from afar and pierced his heart."

Timmons also suggests that Frodo's response to Galadriel when she comes into his mind may possibly have some bearing as well: "Whatever came into my mind, that I will keep to myself." (Sam had just commented that when Galadriel examined his mind, "I felt as if I hadn't got nothing on." (Poor Sam!) At the farewell dinner with Galariel, Frodo eats and drinks little, "heeding only the beauty of the Lady and her voice."

Timmons draws a clear line between sex as carnal desire which he sees no evidence of, and sensuality or feminine attraction which he does see. He views this as one more piece of the hobbits' gradual maturing. He also notes that one of the insidious influences of the Ring is to isolate an individual from the community, which invariably includes females and families. Timmons suggests that Frodo may have been well aware that the love and contentment with a female which he sees in Aragorn will sadly never be his own.

Anyways, it's interesting you picked up on this!

Additionally, if you put these two images together--the perky Frodo and the Frodo who is at least aware of feminine beauty--the Frodo of the books initially looks even more distant from that of PJ.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Ban]

THis is how I make myself. Not drop-dead gorgeous but still rather handsome . I have very light skin (all the fallohide in me) and freckles. I ahve slightly red cheecks that become more red with excitement/nervousness. My eyes are not as big as Wood's but they are still that unfathomable sapphrire-blue. My hair is not nearly as tamed as Wood's. It is a bit bushy and very flyaway, and curly of course. Not brown to the point of blackness but rather red more than brown (if you have ever seen paintings bt Carol Emery Phenix you know what I mean).
And yes, way more happy and "perky", as Gandalf would say, than the EW Frodo.

Oh my God, Frodo Baggins, your description so closely resembles the image of Frodo that I have in my head, it's amazing!
With the exception of blue eyes (make that grey), and curly hair (more like wavy), I picture him the exact same way. Oh, and the freckles- "my" Frodo has none, but that's a minor detail, really. Still, it's a neat coincidence, not many people view Frodo that way.
And I absolutely love Carol Emery Phenix's illustrations, these are actually the only ones that appeal to my taste.

[stone of vision]

Greetings Frodo's friends

I admit i'm a bit lost and impressed by the myriad of ideas and thoughts in that thread.

I just can be in awe and try to share some of my musings inspired by the initial question: the two Frodo.

Two Frodos? Yes and no ( that's an normand answer, i'm normand smilies/smile.gif)
I ' ve ruminated it a long time and finally i think that there are, not one or two Frodo, but many of them.
As many as many of us who have read the book, or seen the movie and have decided that somewhere in a place called ME, in other time a hobbit called Frodo is living.
Frodo in the movie is PJ and EW 's imagination and ideas of his portrayal.
Frodo in the book is Tolkien's one.
Both of them are one version of "Frodo" the character , a side of the complexe personality Tolkien may have outlined with words and let the reader's mind achieve it, making its own personal vision of him.
So i guess, PJ's Frodo, is different, from mine, from Tolkien's or yours, according to our sensitiveness,likes or dislikes, in some details we want to skip or to keep.

I read the book before watching the movie, and the idea to confront an other opinion of what my mind has created, inspired by Tolkien's text amused me a lot. It was interesting to notice what i agreed, what was new and different for me and nevertheless valid or what was laughable and unlikely.

From the movie, from the book, from your various opinions , the psyche i have of Frodo is growing, improving and will keep on as long as new lights will be shed on that beautiful and fascinating character.

I like the movie very much and admire PJ's work but what i reproach the movie is, indeed that lack of free minding and imagination. Pictures and images will necessary influenced the people who had seen them as if the characters were prisonners of thoses images. Elijah's eyes will haunt some of us for a long time...
But i also believe,that, if the movie leads to read the book, then one could still find "his/her own Frodo" not totally the same and not totally different...

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

Fascinating stuff. I do remember Frodo's awestruck silence regarding both Arwen and Galadriel. But he never sang, stammered, blushed. I wonder if Frodo wisely became more cautious after his first singing, stammering, and blushing experience.

So, perhaps his initial embarassment(perhaps something along the lines of, you fool, just keep your mouth shut, and don't embarass yourself again next time) later evolves into, "whatever came into my mind then I will keep there." Interesting. I had always assumed that Frodo was just denying Sam-- and Boromir-- access to the weaknesses and temptations that Galadriel's interrogation had brought up-- desires to ditch the quest and go home, and the like.

Geez, Sharon, the interrogations! Osanwe-kenta! I had forgotten them. They sound a whole lot scarier now than they did before that last thread on O-K came out. Poor Boromir!!! And poor Sam-- did she find his private daydreams about Rosie, or what?? Geez. I shudder to think. No wonder Frodo clammed up!!

--Helen

[Rose Cotton]

I was reading the books while the movie was being made but since I didn't know about it for awhile I was able to get a clear picture of Frodo before I first saw Elijah.
My Frodo looks more like the Frodo from the 70's movie but not that much. He has straight hair and blue eyes. Alittle fat but not like a beachball or somthing like that. He is alittle different then the movie Frodo but the most noticable difference is just that the book Frodo seems more older then the movie Frodo. The other charicters have the same maturity. Even Pippin. Other then that though the differences to me are subtle and the two different people seem to murge together. But anyway, that's my two cents.

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

Sharon, hmm some good stuff. but still I find some fault, no offence ment.
hmm I forgot some of that stuff, but may I point out something, about the elves, it's suggested in the book that they are a beautiful race of people, many "fall" in some way for them...how can I say this....they have a serene thing to them. Um well a good example was in chapter 7 when Frodo looked upon Goldberry:
..., feeling his heart moved with a joy that he did not understand. He stood as he did at times stood enchanted by fair elven-voices; but the spell was now laid upon him was different: less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer to mortal heart; marvellous and yet not strange.
Basicly what I'm saying is that there seems to be a difference. And that the elves are just a more attractive race.
Any one else find it a little weird that I just love the cartoon version of Frodo? I know people hated the animation in that movie. Come to think of it now, I don't think i've ever really had my own image of Frodo in my head. While reading it (or right when mom fist started reading it to me) I saw that cartoon movie and saw some pictures from FOTR of Elijah as Frodo,
so I guess I've had other people's views of Frodo in my head instead all this time. hmmmmm Have to think about that....urrr I better get off the computer now My eyes and back starting to hert. smilies/redface.gif

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[Bêthberry]

Child of the 7th Age,

This is an aside to the discussion of Frodo, but it is related to that Timmons article you mention.

Does Timmons restrict his article to hobbits or does he discuss Eowyn? It strikes me that Eowyn's first view of Aragorn in "The King of the Golden Hall" is one part which disproves the argument that there is no "sex" in Tolkien. To me, it is a stunningly understated depiction of the first, awakening experience of sexual attraction, in a healthy, positive sense, not in a pornographic sense, "hiding a power that she yet felt."

Mark12_30,

There is a woman with this kind of power in each of the refuges the Fellowship finds--the House of Bombadil, Rivendell, Lothlorien. I wonder if the "less keen and lofty" delight can be related to the particular nature of the Bombadil household rather than to Frodo's interest in Goldberry herself, though. Is the House of Bombadil a kind of pre-lapsarian place?

I'm not so sure I would take Frodo's bachelorhood as evidence of his unswerving fealty to Goldberry. (I take it this is what you meant; if I have misunderstood, please excuse and enlighten me!) In "The Shadow of the Past", after Bilbo has left, there is lots of evidence that Frodo is called to other things than those available through the usual domestic routines of the hobbits. He's got 'itchy feet' you might say. Then, after he has returned from the Quest, he is so changed that he in effect lives on another plane. Hence his journey West.

I have always regreted that Goldberry disappears so completely from the picture. When Gandalf refuses to return to the Shire, he expresses his desire to find companionship with Tom, but there is no mention of Goldberry. Does this suggest something--the loss of female voice--in the scoured Shire and the age of Man?

Regards,
Bethberry

[mark12_30]

Bethberry,
"lapsarian?" I couldn't find it in Webster's New World...?

I don't think Goldberry's effect was different (From Arwen, Galadriel) because of the house. I think the house was different because of Goldberry. She's not an elf. She's a river-daughter-- not that I have a clue what that means, except that Tom found her in the river, she's a lot peppier, her dress rustles a lot, and she likes to sit surrounded by tubs of water-lilies. Anybody??

Peace, --Helen

[Bêthberry]

Hi Helen,

I think the house was different because of Goldberry.

This is really interesting, for you are ascribing more influence to Goldberry than to Tom! I, too, don't know for sure who or what she is--an enigma like Tom--but because of her washing day I relate her to seasonal changes. Perhaps a form of mythic Persephone without the abduction from the mother?

Sorry about the prelapsarian. I was spinning it off 'postlapsarian' which I learnt studying Milton and the Fall. Here's a link to an online dictionary.

postlapsarian (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=postlapsarian)

Bethberry

PS. I'm not sure how I should address you. I hope 'Helen' is okay.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry and Helen --

I agree with you that Goldberry possesses special significance for the book Frodo, even when compared with Arwen and Galadriel. Perhaps, it is because she is the first truly beautiful woman he has seen and spoken with face-to-face. And the first of anything is always very special. On checking back in Timons, I see he says something quite similar about the initial scene with Golberry: "This scene may reflect the awakening of the male adolescent desire for the feminine. All the words resonate with the sudden and arresting "first love" that most everyone has experienced." (Mythlore, #89, 76)

I also see something unique in Goldberry's nature, at least when compared with the Elven women. I know there is one point in the Letters where Tolkien states, way back in 1937, that Bombadil is the spirit of the vanishing Oxford and Berkshire countryside, in effect a nature spirit. And Goldberry, of course, is the daughter of the River. In a 1958 Letter, Tolkien says she "represents the actual seasonal changes in the land." Putting all that together, we certainly get a sense of Tom and Goldberry's tie to nature and the land. (I will set aside any discussion of these two as part of the Valar or the Maiar which is another question.)

If there is any magic that the kuduk possess, it is that of the earth itself, the ability to nurture and appreciate the land and to move quietly and deftly over it. So it makes a great deal of sense that Goldberry, who represents nature itself, would be more accessible to their hearts than an Elven figure--even for Frodo with his Elvish longings.

Oh, dear, I'm afraid we've hit another "clairvoyant" moment here. Both Timmons and Bethberry refer to Bombadil's house in pre-lapsarian terms. Glorfindel, of course, called Tom the "First". Timmons doesn't say this, but I know Tom was even supposed to be born before the entry of the Dark Lord into the world, another possible allusion to the Eden theme. In any case, Timmons takes this and ties it in to a Letter Tolkien wrote to his son where he briefly contrasts love in a fallen and unfallen world. Some of those words about "unfallen" love almost seem applicable to Frodo (if you tone them down several notches!):

In such a great inevitable love, often love at first sight, we catch a vision, I suppose, of marriage as it should have been in an unfallen world.

Another point, I don't think it is coincidence that each of the places of refuge have a significant female figure--and I don't even think any critics have picked up on that: Tom's--Goldberry, Rivendell --Arwen, Lorien--Galadriel, and to that I would add, Rosie in the Shire, which is also a place of rest. By a stretch, you could even identify Eowyn with the House of Healing, since this is where her feminine nature truly emerges.

No, Timmons doesn't deal with Faramir and Eowyn, but he does mention Merry's response to her on the battlefield where he determines that she shall not die alone--another example of hobbit sensuality. III,142

Even after the Ring quest, Frodo is able to see and admire the beauty in Arwen:

And Frodo when he saw her (i.e. Arwen) come glimmering in the evening, with stars on her brow ad a sweet frangrance about her, was moved with great wonder, and he said to Gandalf: 'At last I understand why we have waited! This is the ending! Not only day shall be beloved, but night too shall be beautiful and blessed and all its fear pass away!'

All of this underlines how much Frodo lost when he departed to the West. As Timmons say:

As Frodo bids farewell to Sam, Merry and Pippin, he leaves behind not only dear companions and loving friends, but mature males who will go on to marry, raise families, and solidfy ther communties. One of Frodo's wounds from his experiences, a sort of metaphorical castration, is that he will never experience such joys available to mortals in Middle-earth.

smilies/frown.gif smilies/frown.gif sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Naaramare]

I would agree that the difference in Frodo's reaction to Goldberry as opposed to Arwen and Galadriel is more because of Goldberry herself than the evirons in which they're found.

For example, the first time I remember being read LotR, I remember thinking that both Arwen and Galadriel were some sort of angel--not actually elven, but just having elven shape and being something holy. Things to be revered and loved from a distance.

Whereas Goldberry was a good deal more human (the irony that she was most likely entirely spiritual of nature and Arwen was heritage-wise part human is not lost on me). She was a woman; a very powerful and wise one, yes, but still a person who belonged walking on the Earth. She cooked, cleaned, danced, made small mocking jokes, reprimanded her husband for being discourteous . . .she wasn't an angel, she was a person in my five-year-old head.

Now, twelve years later, my views on Galadriel and Arwen have changed slightly so far as intellectual thought goes--Galadriel is hardly an angel, after all--but that first impression, that bone-deep image of them in contrast to Goldberry remains.

My point being that Goldberry was alwasy more accessible, but that it was inherent in her own person.

< edit> Or one could just sum up everything I said in what Sharon said, much more eloquently. ^~ < /edit>

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Naaramare ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon,

Which letter, and was it to Michael or Christopher? (His letter to Michael about communion blew me away!)
<edit:> Think I found it-- letter 43, page 48, on the subject of marriage and relations between the sexes"? To Michael. "Mick." Huh, cute...

Regarding Frodo's farewell to Sam, Merry, Pippin-- golly, Sharon, shoot me now. You almost had me convinced that communal Osanwe-Kenta was worth going to Aman for.... I was just begining to cheer up and think that Lone Frodo in Tol Eressea would not have it so bad. And now this. Poor Frodo?!?!?!?

Bwaaaaah-hah-hah....!!!! (borrowing Bilbo's embroidered pocket hankerchief)

Bethberry-- Don't worry. Like I told Gandalf the Grey, I'm not sure what to call me. Once upon a time, my e-name was Elijah. As in, prophetic type, long beard, Mount Carmel, etc. BUT for obvious reasons that wouldn't work here! So... Helen, Mark, or hey-you will do just fine. And I'll still answer to Elijah, but make sure you add something about "old-bearded-prophet" or something like that. I'd hate to be deluged by deluded delirious dazed ElWood hounds. Wouldn't be fair at all.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry -- On the possible loss of female voice at the end of the Third Age vis a vis Goldberry.

I don't think that the female voice is less at the end of the Third Age. In fact, I actually think that it is highlighted, but the nature of that voice has changed. There are three significant marriages at the end of the book--Arwen and Aragorn, Faramir and Eowyn, and Rose and Sam. The emphasis then is on fruitful unions--in all three cases, I believe, leading to the general revitalization of Middle-earth. Indeed, except for the Shire, one gets the impression in the late Third Age that a lot of cities and areas are underpopulated and are due for lots of marriage and babies, especially since the Elves seem to have been winding down in preparation for their departure.

Goldberry is really in a different category. Her "fruitfullness" is associated with nature and the earth rather than with the traditional childbearing role. So her role becomes less signifcant. The same with Galadriel who departs Middle-earth since her "childbearing role" is long over.

Helen -- Yes, you've got the right letter. There is much that is interesting in this letter. I find myself in agreement with many of the ideas in here, especially his words about the choice of a mate in a fallen world and how "the 'real soul mate' is the one you are actually married to." p. 51

I don't agree, however, with Tolkien's contention that "the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman" in a "fallen" world. p. 49 Difficult perhaps, but not impossible, I would say. The whole question of Tolkien's depiction of such friendships in the legendarium would make an interesting thread, I think.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[BrightMoonshine]

I saw the movie before I read the book, so when I read the book, I automatically se Elijah Wood. I would of loved to read the book first and give Frodo my own description, but it seems too late for that....

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

oh my, this thread is long and complicated. You know there is probablems with this...now.... I don't see why everyone has to talk like philosophers or those kids from dawsons creek. All smart sounding. But how 'bout simplifying your talk and maybe you'll find your anwers? I'm sorry it's just...well...how can I say this?....it's like I'm an Aaron Lewis among not-so jaded popstars that are well educated, or a tired, jaded younger person among older "wiser" people. It's hard for me to talk to people and not well get a little frustrated. Plus Tolkien's work is very complicated and (please think a little before you argue this point) out-of-date. All us Tolkein fans try to interpret the book and rest of his works but there's one or two probablems with that. For one like I said the books are in a way are out of date....we look at them with the mind state of today, but the books are in a different state of older times. It's kinda like trying to play a long boring complicated movie on beta in a DVD player (somethin' like that). Also all fans have a different view of the book, we all look at it differently. We figure it out in our own way and own time. So it's nearly impossible to figure out the ture meaning of lets say how Frodo felt about Goldberry and the other females, and what he really looks like and so on, because well Tolkien's dead and it's not like all us fans are going to completely agree on it any time soon.
Ok, I tried my best to sound all smart and talk like most every one else on this. So please if your going to argue any thing I say please be sure to read all of what I've said.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Dear Amarantha,
This discussion is posted on the Books forum, which is designated for in-depth, advanced discussions of Tolkien's works. For lighter-hearted discussions, try the Novices and Newcomers forum! smilies/smile.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

Amarantha -- Actually, I thought you made several interesting points in your earlier posts. Your idea about the Elves having a real attraction for Man is a good one. And the fact this could have influenced Frodo as well, so he somehow felt more comfortable with Goldberry because she wasn't way "above" his head. She was a bit more like the women he'd seen before in his own life.

Even today that attraction of the Elves is true--and I'm not kiddin here. Just look how many young women dream and fantasize about Elves, especially Legolas. You don't see as many attracted by the figures of hobbits or men. It would actually be interesting to take a poll on that down in the non-books section and see what most people said, i.e. not tying it in to one character, but what "race" as a whole is most attractive to you, etc. etc. I think the Elves would win!

About threads of this type, i.e. long winded and literary. I don't think you have to worry. Most threads in the Downs aren't like this --only in Books I and II, and even most of those are less involved.

Believe me, there are some threads in these sections I don't post on because they are above my head--too philosophical for me to fee comfortable with, or requiring lots of information from the Silmarillion or HoMe which I'm just learning myself. All the other sections--novices and newcomers, movies, the trivia sections, RPG, are pretty straightforward and not so complex. So if you aren't comfortable with one section just try another!

But, in any case, I thought your earlier contributions were fine. The tough thing is when you get a long thread like this it's hard to get back and respond to everyone, and that may have been my mistake since I startd the thread.

So hopefully, there are no bad feelings here. Anyways, keep hacking away, and don't apologize for what you do because it is just fine.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[mark12_30]

Bethberry,

I gave it a few days, and I still do think that Goldberry would set the tone of the house. I'm not sure why I think that. Maybe because of things that my husband has said about me. I think of it as his house, but he says I set the tone.

I think Galadriel sets the tone of Lothlorien-- obviously, because she's preserving it with her ring.

But I don't think Arwen sets the tone of Rivendell. I think Elrond does that. I suppose, his ring comes into play, although that wasn't particularly what I had i nmind, but it must now that I think of it. Other elves contribute too, I think. Glorfindel for instance; Elladan and Elrohir. Rivendell seems to me more like a community- tone- setting kind of thing, with Elrond at the head, and Arwen off visiting her grandmother half the time. (?)

But Goldberry-- she does the dishes, prepares the food, sings along, is always there, rustling and bustling and laughing and making rain. I think she's made the house her own, and Tom likes it that way, and rather gleefully accepts her gentle reminders (doesn't she ask Tom if the guests had had a bath, or something to that affect?).

How's that for complete projection of one's own experience?

So anyway... I'll have to think further about what effect Arwen really has (in my mind) on Rivendell, because I'm minimizing her quite a bit. Powerful Galadriel, powerful River-Daughter, far-off-and-often-absent Arwen. Probably unfair to Arwen, especially since she does so much for him as the story goes on.

Peace, --Helen

[Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins]

well I see not every one read every thing I said in that last post beofore talking, oh well I'm used to being ignored. Like I said everyone veiws of are differnet, and certinitly where not all going to agree on what it really meant and what the characters look like and so on any time soon. Everyone can that do that "well I think" "But your wrong" thing as much as they want. But it's really not me. I'm person who dosen't beat around the bush and just for the most part deals with it, I'm also some one who likes to be left alone and not have every singe thing I do and every thing I think juged by everyone, 'sigh' I suppose I should just crall back in my hole and be by myself. I have nothing against any one here 'aheam' but I'm just plain not a people person. I guess because I was rased to belive a lot more things out of the ordinary (i. e. ghosts, faries, and so much more) when I read the book it just came natuaraly to me and I don't need explaining on every single thing in it. Just leave it be most of the time it my thinking (not that I'm saying what you should do....)

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Amarantha Gamwich-Baggins ]

[Calencoire]

Well, I see the two Frodo's pretty much the same, but then again I read the books two weeks before I saw the movie, and I had seen the commercials for it. I have the newer version of the books, and the actors and actresses are on it. But even so, I think that the personalities are very accurate from book to movie, but that is just my opinion.

[piosenniel]

Stone of Vision

I liked this thought of yours:

I like the movie very much and admire PJ's work but what i reproach the movie is, indeed that lack of free minding and imagination. Pictures and images will necessary influenced the people who had seen them as if the characters were prisonners of thoses images. Elijah's eyes will haunt some of us for a long time...
But i also believe,that, if the movie leads to read the book, then one could still find "his/her own Frodo" not totally the same and not totally different . . .

I, too, think that first time readers of the book might be limited by the 'pictures' they have in their minds from the movies. The books are so much richer and more complex than the film. I can only hope that they will be enticed by their reading to savor the story many times. And in doing so, to find their own pictures.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: piosenniel ]

[Bêthberry]

I must apologize to everyone here for not getting back to the discussion. I have been exceedingly busy in RL with my young Brandybucks (two graduations, one from elementary school to middle school and the other from middle school to high school) one day after another, plus unexpected visits from family outside the country.

I would like to suggest to Child that she set up a new thread for us to discuss the presence and place of the feminine voice in LOTR. I would like to discuss the significance of the marriages but this is off-topic here. Nor do I have the sense that Frodo's journey west is a loss.(I hesitate to say that marriage is an expectation for everyone.) Since I am new at BD, I do not feel that I know everyone well enough to start threads yet myself.

Greetings to all for their interesting ideas here. It is often enlightening at BD simply to read posts even when I don't have anything to contribute to moving the discussion forward.

Respectfully,
Bethberry

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry -- I'll be glad to start a new thread on the feminine in LotR as I've been thinking about some of this myself.

However, don't feel shy about throwing out questions on the board. Sometimes they pan out and sometimes they don't. It just depends who is on that week, and whether their interests or questions happen to coincide with yours. I'm never sure whether something is going to connect or not, but I just put it down and then wit and see what happens.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Hi, Bethberry!

There are two threads on marriage in Middle-earth already existing and I would be more than happy to have new contributions posted there, as they have been "resting" for awhile.
One is smilies/smile.gifMarriage in Middle-earth I (happy) (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000536),
the other is smilies/frown.gif Marriage in Middle-earth II (unhappy) (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000537).
I'm enjoying reading everyone's posts here!

[Bêthberry]

Greetings Estelyn Telcontar,

*curtsies a cordial hello*

Thanks for providing those links. I took a quick peek but will need time to go back and read them as they deserve to be read. I'm not terribly familiar with TheSilm, though, and my young Brandybucks are home for the summer wanting equal time on the computer, LOL.

Child, I'll watch for the start to that thread. [/b].

Mark12_30, I find myself, when I can get the time, thumbing through LOTR looking at the passages with the female characters, thinking about tone. The thing which originally got me going about women in LOTR was Carpenter's biography of Tolkien. I was not impressed by the picture of the marriage which Carpenter created and that frustrated me. It didn't jive with the headstone on the Tolkien's graves. Or vice versa, I guess!

Bethberry

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[HerenIstarion]

Updated links to the threads by Estelyn:

Marriage in Middle-earth I (happy) (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=2053)
Marriage in Middle-earth II (unhappy) (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=2051)

[mark12_30]

I chuckle, rereading this thread, to think how often I've imagined sitting on some porch in Rivendell, listening to 'wide-eyed' Elijah discussing something with an elf, and being watched and listened to by a darkeyed, wise, steady, cautious 'old' Frodo.

Once upon a time, Sharon challenged me to make a fanfic out of it. Wouldn't it be fun...

[smeagollives]

film-frodo:

*doe eyed-kid
*he is an idealist, warm and compassionate
*he shows his feelings all the times
*not a very strong person
*easily hurt
*he has many friends, but most of his freindships are notr very close

book-frodo

*a middle aged man, does not look to beautiful, just look like middle aged men look
*he is an idealist too, but his idealism is much more intellectual, book-frodo THINKS about the right thing to do
*rarely shows his feelings, but he has very deep feelings
*has a few friends, but really good friends. cares deeply for whole the world, but does not like to be with to many people

[Alfirin]

[QUOTE=Naaramare;30389]::laughs:: I never really had this dilemma. Mostly because the BBC production is still the first audioalization (is that a word?) I ever heard and thus, all the voices, syntax and even visuals I have will be forever linked to that series of tapes.

Then again, I've had much more time to listen to the tapes than I have had to watch the movie, so I suppose we'll see.

I've also never had this dilemma because everything I see of everyone's interpretations of Tolkien's works simply gets added together in my mind, with details added and extracted until I end up with a Frodo I like. The Frodo of my mind looks a great deal like Elijah, but his voice is and forever will be Ian Holm's (BBC production). Ian McKellan is a perfect visual Gandalf (for me) and his voice and whoever played the BBC's voice have melded and added together until Gandalf's voice can sound in my head.

The BBC Gandalf was voiced by Sir Michael Hordern (If you want to see what he looke like rent Yellowbeard, or Theater of Blood or Danny the chapion of the World (there are a lot more but thats enough to start with) He was also the voice of Bager in the stop-motion "Wind in the willows" As you migh gess from the previos I am a great lover of the audio set as well. By the way did you find it a little creepy when you watced the Jackson movie hearing what you knew for Frodo's coming out of Bibo's mouth (both are Ian Holm after all). I also think the Lord of the Nazgul's lines are a LOT scarier in the Battle of Pellenor feilds when you can hear them clearly and the have the reverberation they do in the audio version. But then, I utterly detest the Peter Jackson Lord, I am so angry that he didn't adhere to the book description (come on can you inagine a charcter in LOTR who was better desgined for some CGI special effects that a guy wo whole head is just two glowing eyes and a lick of flame with a crown floating above it?) sorry for the rant moving on.

Getting back to the orginal focus of the thread Yes Ive felt the same thing but in a slighly funnier way. My presonal first Visual LOTR experiance (my Father read it to me as a bedime story before I could read but that isn't visual) happens to be the old Rankin Bass Cartoon version of the Hobbit and Return of the King and so it is those images that are my fundamental forms for the charcters. By now I know That Orcs are more or less human-shaped (ugly but human shaped) but I still imagine them with the horns cat eyes and dog muzzles of the cartoon. Simliarly I still think of Gollum as being the froggy fishy creature with the green skin and cave fish eyes as the cartoon even though I know this is wildly wrong. Its all how you remember things.