Success through Failure

[doug*platypus]

Over the last couple of years I have become increasingly interested in the phenomenon of Success through Failure. Many times in our lives we appear to have 'failed', but by taking advantage of new circumstances manage to make the best of it, and can eventually recognise the positive side of that perceived failure. The Dare to Fail website (http://www.daretofail.com/index.html) is one source of information on this subject. On several occasions, Success through Failure is present in Tolkien's world.

The corruption of Boromir, though tragic in itself, forced Frodo and Sam to leave on their own. Aragorn was thus free to pursue his own course, eventually defeating the Corsairs as only he had the power to do. If Boromir had not scared Frodo, Gondor may ironically have been destroyed.

The events leading up to Gandalf's encounter with the Balrog (defeat on Caradhras, Pippin's mischief at the well) resulted in the death of a great wizard. However, this allowed Gandalf to be reincarnated as the White, and return in what was almost certainly a more powerful form. It is possible that he may not have been able to succeed in his task if he remained Gandalf the Grey.

Gandalf himself points out that if Merry and Pippin hadn't gone and gotten themselves captured by Orcs, they would never have come to Fangorn, where they acted as a catalyst to rouse Treebeard and the Ents.

Most noticeably of all, if Sam had not abandoned the unconscious Frodo in Cirith Ungol, and of course if Frodo himself had not been stung, the two could never have hoped to make it past the Orcs of Shagrat and Gorbag.

Are there any other examples in Tolkien's work? If the 'failures' mentioned above had not occurred, would other solutions have been found? Were these failures beneficial, necessary and sometimes even predestined? And is Tolkien trying to tell us something?

[Carrûn]

Perhaps the fact that without Gollum biting off of Frodo's finger the Quest most likely would have failed since Frodo claimed the Ring for himself (he failed) - although that is more an example of evil intent being used for good than success coming from failure I guess.

I believe in the Two Towers Gandalf said that he had considered looking into the palantiar of Orthanc before Pippin's little escapade and that if he had he might not have been ready for the encounter with Sauron since he didn't exactly if Sauron had one of the Stones or not.

This might be streatching things a bit but if Pippin had not looked into the Stone and Gandalf had not taken him to Minas Tirith and he had not offered his service to the Steward there he would not have been there when Denthor went slightly beserk and Faramir may have died.

..just some of my thoughts on the matter.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Doug,

You raise an intriguing question in your first post. Are "failures" predestined? I was thinking about this in the context of Frodo's failure to give up the Ring voluntarily, which, to me, is the central element of the book.

In the Letters, Tolkien actually said it was inevitable that Frodo would fail. He compared it to a person being crushed by an avalanche. We do not blame the person who is so crushed or view it as a moral failure because there could have been no other outcome. According to Tolkien, the only individual who could have succeeded was a "perfect" person, and there are no such people in existence, either in Middle-earth or our own world. So, in that sense Frodo's failure is indeed predestined.

However, there is another wildcard, of course--the relationship between Gollum and Frodo. It was certainly not predestined that Frodo would extend mercy to Gollum and, in so doing, enable him to become an instrument of providence for the saving of Middle-earth.

So, at least in Frodo's case the answer is mixed. Frodo's failure at Mount Doom was predestined, but it was free choice that determined Gollum's role and hence the fate of Middle-earth.

This seems to go along with Tolkien's whole view of the world and of good and evil. We are forever predestined to see evil rise again and again. Nothing that we can do as mortal beings can possibly stop that whole cycle before the end of time. But our response to that evil is our own free choice. And it is that response that essentially determines the fate of Arda.

[ January 09, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Mattius]

How about this for success through failure. If Gandalf, the dwarves and poor old Bilbo Baggins hadn't been taken by the orcs of the Misty Mountains, Bilbo would have never found the One Ring in Gollum's cave and then taken it and kept it safe in the Shire. If this had not happened then surely the servants of Sauron would have found the Ring in Gollum's keeping, killed him and Sauron would have been the King of the World.

[ January 09, 2003: Message edited by: Mattius ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

How about Bilbo and the dwarves in the Hobbit? If Bilbo had never tried to pick the pocket of the troll, then they wouldn't have had to deal with them and they would have never gotten sting, orcist, or glamdring. Sting has helped out it's masters' numerous times. And if they didn't have orcist or glamdring, the goblins in the Misty Mountains wouldn't have been so scared and maybe they might not have escaped, therefore, Bilbo would never hd gotten the ring.

If Smeagol had never killed Deagol for the ring, it might have turned out quite differently and maybe it would end up in the hands of Sauron, or on the finger for that case.

Or Sam's failure to kill Frodo in Shelob's lair. If he had, Gollum would never had destroyed the ring.

By the by, great topic.

[akhtene]

Come to think of it, most events that initially look like failures (or at least highly unpleasant ones) turn out for the best.
Examples: Eowyn's failure to win Aragorn's love (or what she thought love) takes her to the Pelenor Fields, where she kills the Whitch-King and finally finds true love.
Gandalf's failure to appear in Bree on time helps to creating stronger bonds and trust between Aragorn and the hobbits, than if they were 'officially introduced'.
And...just a speculation...if Celebrian was still in M-E, who knows how she could have influenced the relations between her daughter and Aragorn. (Arwen doesn't look exactly the Luthien-type to me, who could go against her mother).

[ January 09, 2003: Message edited by: akhtene ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Your Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while all the Company is true.

Galadriel just about sums it up, really. The Quest is fraught with danger and there are inevitably moments of failure. It is how those involved react to that failure that determines whether the Quest will succeed or fail. While they remain true, then there is hope.

To use an example from Doug's original post, had they lost hope following Gandalf's fall from the Bridge of Khazad-Dum and simply stayed there grieving, then they would have been over-run by Orcs. Aragorn recognises this and moves the Company on swiftly.

I agree that it is all down to self-determination. At each point of seeming defeat, they could have just given in and say "Oh well, we tried". But they don't - the Company remains true and hope remains.

Even Boromir's attempt to seize the Ring is consistent with the Company remaining true. He is being "true" to his belief that the Ring can be used to defend Gondor. Had he not attempted to seize it then, as Doug points out, Aragorn might not have been there to save Gondor (I like that irony).

One exception to the success from failure principle occurs to me though (there are probably many more). Had Isildur not failed to throw the Ring into Mount Doom when he had the chance, then both the Ring and Sauron would have been destroyed there and then.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I agree that it is all down to self-determination.

Woodrow Wilson would agree with you The Saucepan Man. However, about when you said Had Isildur not failed to throw the Ring into Mount Doom when he had the chance, then both the Ring and Sauron would have been destroyed there and then.

Quite true, but is that really sucess? I don't think it is, but please tell me if I'm missing anything. The only success i can see is all the bonds and accomplishments of the 'good' characters. One example is if the ring had been destroyed, Eowyn would never have seen/done battle, and would have never found Faramir. Is that what you mean? Pleas clarify. Thanks. smilies/smile.gif

[doug*platypus]

Had Isildur not failed to throw the Ring into Mount Doom when he had the chance, then both the Ring and Sauron would have been destroyed there and then.
Quite true! Isildur's weakness at that critical point certainly didn't have a lot of good come out of it. Of course, we get a great story out of it, but for the characters in it Isildur's folly must have seemed, well inconvenient at the very least. In view of that I wonder why Elrond and Círdan were not more forceful at the time. Don't bother answering, I'll search for a thread on that!

Thorin and Co. being captured by Orcs is a great example. Without the finding of the One Ring, Sauron would have stomped on the west in the War of the Ring (and the name of the war would have been different!). The Dwarves got off pretty lightly from that whole thing. All that they had to sacrifice were their ponies (none of whom had names) and their baggage. Maybe Sacrifice could be another Tolkien Theme, Groundskeeper Willy?
However, there is another wildcard, of course--the relationship between Gollum and Frodo. It was certainly not predestined that Frodo would extend mercy to Gollum and, in so doing, enable him to become an instrument of providence for the saving of Middle-earth.

So, at least in Frodo's case the answer is mixed. Frodo's failure at Mount Doom was predestined, but it was free choice that determined Gollum's role and hence the fate of Middle-earth.

Great point about Frodo's example. It seems that in the end his tendency to mercy was more important than his resilience towards the evil of the Ring. And the quest succeeded all because he met Gollum, one day in the middle of whichever month in the Emyn Muil. A chance meeting, as we say in Middle-Earth!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

What a fascinating topic, doug*platypus! I do not have the time to contribute more examples at the moment, but did want to let all of you know how much I'm enjoying reading your thoughtful posts. Thank you!

[Amarinth]

It seems that in the end his tendency to mercy was more important than his resilience towards the evil of the Ring.

beautifully expressed, doug smilies/smile.gif frodo fails because of an evil power he cannot overcome, yet the seed of his past deeds bears fruit and saves him and ME in the end.

my $0.02: i've always had the impression that the most crucial of all success through failure events in lotr is the fall of boromir and the events surrounding it. this is where the fellowship ends, the quest diverges to different fronts, all of which then fuse and culminate successfully in the destruction of sauron and the ring. boromir's fall was a pivotal point that started a chain of events, and though its immediate effects (pippin and merry's capture, frodo's flight and aragorn's forsaking gondor) were lamentable, the long-term pay-off was tremendous.

[Greyhame]

Excellent topic, and well-thought responses...

I believe that the constant theme of "success through failure" as expressed in LOTR is a prime example of Tolkien making an intentionally theological statement. Not allegory in the least (although unlike the good Professor, I personally love allegory when done correctly), but a very strong revelation of Arda and her Creator nonetheless.

Remaining delightfully low-key and implicit in his approach throughout the book, Tolkien leaves clues everywhere that Middle-earth is a realm very much under the authority and governance of Eru Illuvatar, without even mentioning The One directly.

This clearly reflects Tolkien's own Christian belief that God is sovereign and oversees His creation, using any means He has to, including mortal failure.

[ January 10, 2003: Message edited by: Greyhame ]

[Kalessin]

Doug, you have a knack of starting interesting threads smilies/smile.gif

I don't think "success through failure" is the right term for the eventual consequences of those setbacks experienced by the heroes and heroines in the narrative. I think the key point was that described by Tolkien, of "evil defeating itself".

This is highlighted many times throughout the narrative - for example, you could strongly argue that it was Sauron's misjudgments, and his focus upon Gondor, that allowed the destruction of the ring. Of course, the forces of good did their best to make that happen, but in desperation and faint hope rather than great confidence and optimism. There are many other examples, as Sauron outmatched all his opponents in military or technological terms (in his use of 'The Machine'), and indeed Frodo was ultimately enslaved by the one ring. Yet evil, manifested in ambition and paranoia, was self-defeating.

I have problems with the idea of complete predestination, either technically or as part of a specific Christian context. A teleological interpretation of the narrative that assumes necessary and inevitable causality simply gives rise to too many "what if" and "why" questions. Especially so if one posits an ultimately good, perfect and omniscient guiding force. I also think that it makes for bad storytelling smilies/smile.gif. And it takes us back to the old 'free will vs fate' chestnut (don't go there, I hear you cry smilies/smile.gif).

Bill Ferny has, I think, very accurately (and usefully) made the subtly point that a tension exists between the Christian and other elements in Tolkien's work. The unresolved and contradictory is simply part of the author and the work, yet are fulfilled within our literary experience both through the skill and imagination of his writing, and our ability to intuitively accept the nature of his world (and, I suppose, ours).

The narrative is thrilling precisely because the sympathetic characters are outmatched and the outcome uncertain. Otherwise, the sacrifice would be worthless. The self-sacrifice undertaken safe in the knowledge that it is his/her God's will, and everything will be alright in the end, is of a different order to that which is undertaken simply because it is the right thing to do, an act of conscience and hope (of course the two can be seen as interlinked, but not necessarily so - remember, Frodo, Eowyn and so on do not go about worshipping Eru). I don't say that any assumptions or 'confidence' borne of religious faith is a bad thing in our world, but it seems to me the altruism or heroism in the books is more about those personal choices made against overwhelming odds and with no certainty of eventual triumph, and is a reflection of the personalities and morality of the characters. This is realistic, I would suggest, and something we can all empathise and identify with.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin

[ January 11, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[doug*platypus]

You make a good point, Kalessin - maybe Evil Defeating Itself would be more applicable to most of these cases. That certainly seems to be a very Tolkieny kind of theme, too, something along the lines of 'cheats never prosper'. Sauron and Morgoth could be cast as the prototypical Looney Tunes villain - no matter how hard they try to be evil, great good seems to spring up out of it. The bittersweet Tale of Beren and Lúthien is a fine example of how evil not only breeds courage and love through hardship, but also a ripping good yarn.

Boromir's attempt to take the Ring, Shelob's stinging of Frodo, these events were evil by nature or impulse. But Pippin's part in the books seems to be more one of Clumsiness Defeating Itself! He does Gandalf a big favour on at least two occasions, through Tookish foolishness. I bet Merry was often left shaking his head and saying "that guy has all the luck!"

Glad to see that people are enjoying this thread by the way (even if it does veer dangerously close to the cliff of Fate vs Free Will). I hope you click on the link I provided in my first post, and also on this one on Edward de Bono (http://www.edwdebono.com/). This type of thinking has definitely changed the way I look at my life, and I'm ecstatic to find so many great examples in my favourite book.

[greyhavener]

I tend link God's will with the statement: "because it is the right thing to do" rather than because "everything will be all right in the end (of course, this depends on what you mean by the end)."

Throughout their journey Frodo and Sam had no idea whether they would accomplish their task and how this accomplishment would effect their individual lives, the Shire, or Middle Earth.

The information they did have:
Failure to destroy the ring would result in losing Middle Earth, the Shire, their lives.

Success would also result in changes they might not want, like the elves leaving.

This information came from Gandalf and the Elves, sources they trusted and believed were good.

Sauron was evil and powerful, but could be defeated.

They trusted Gandalf and Gandalf thought mercy was important.

That was about it. I think they acted both out of the urgency of the errand and faith in the sources that sent them on it.

Sometimes doing the right thing results in pain, like Frodo's wound that wouldn't heal. In the Bible Hebrews 11 lists faithful people who encountered disappointment and even death. They are commended for battling evil but they aren't bailed out of the misery that results from the choices of evil people. It simply says "the world was not worthy of them." It also says "they had not received the promise." This is the same book which begins "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

I think Tolkien may have held with this sort of hopefulness in the unseen and uncertain. Frodo and Sam acted out of faith in the good of Gandalf and the Elves. They didn't have a vision for the future so much as an intense belief in the necessity of their quest regardless of its outcome. Frodo did not expect to survive it. I see this as the same motivation that drove the saints in Hebrews 11.

Within Christianity there is a broad range of understandings about what predestination means and to what extent it exists. There have been some excellent discussions of this on some other threads. I think since Middle Earth is not only pre-Christian, but pre-Hebrew, the myth Tolkien presents is perhaps a consistent portrail of his theology within the context of those who "had not received the promise" or even knew what it was. While forces like Eru, Valar, Maiar are at work, every character continually chooses his course.

[tangerine]

Arwen left a message for Aragorn, brought to him by the Rangers along with the banner: 'Your path is already laid before you, though you may not see it.'

Okay, maybe not word for word, but you get the idea. Fate. or something similar had set paths for members of the Fellowship:

Deagol found the Ring, and it was taken by him by Gollum. By a strange twist of fate, Bilbo comes upon it. The Ring is thereafter inherited by Frodo, Bilbo's oldest nephew who lost his parents in a freak accident and happened to go live with Bilbo. Gandalf says in the movie that Bilbo may have been emnt to find the ring, therefore Frodo was also ment to have it;
Faramir was the one having all the dreams summoning him to Rivendell, and Boromir dreamt it only once. Boromir, the prouder and more desperate was the one selected to go to Imladris to see what was going on and hopefully get help. Events transpire;
And Aragorn's path has already been mentioned in this topic, so I'll leave it at that. This is only one theory, but I think the intangible deserves to be considered as well.

[Gorwingel]

I actually have read a few books that discuss Tolkien's work, and they talk about how this was a theme throughout many of his writings. I think the main one is Gollum biting off Frodo's finger, because it would have never been distroyed if it was not for Gollum. Also another thing that the book that I read said was that Frodo and Bilbo never really completed their missions. That they were kind of completed by misfortune.

[Ithaeliel]

What an interesting topic, doug*platypus! Good thinking. I have something to contribute:

Had Isildur not failed to throw the Ring into Mount Doom when he had the chance, then both the Ring and Sauron would have been destroyed there and then.

Quite true, but is that really sucess? I don't think it is, but please tell me if I'm missing anything. The only success i can see is all the bonds and accomplishments of the 'good' characters.

I can see a bit more, actually: A different heir to the throne of Gondor. Isildur was killed on account of the Ring, and had he then thrown it into Mt. Doom, he would not have died. The only remaining heir after his death was one of his sons, and through him came those who led to Aragorn. Was not Isildur's oldest son killed? He would have become king, and it would ultimately lead to a different man than Aragorn assuming his kingdom.

[The Saucepan Man]

A different heir to the throne of Gondor. Isildur was killed on account of the Ring, and had he then thrown it into Mt. Doom, he would not have died. The only remaining heir after his death was one of his sons, and through him came those who led to Aragorn. Was not Isildur's oldest son killed? He would have become king, and it would ultimately lead to a different man than Aragorn assuming his kingdom.

Undeniably, had Isuldur cast the Ring into Mount Doom when he had the chance, history would have taken a different path. It might have been better, but it might have been worse. So, I don't think that this can be an example of Success through Failure.

Yes, it wouldn't have enabled the characters in the book to go through all that they went through, but then a different path may have led to different characters enduring different hardships.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Success through Failure/Evil Defeating Itself theory. I just think that this has to be an exception (the one that proves the rule??).

[doug*platypus]

Throughout their journey Frodo and Sam had no idea whether they would accomplish their task and how this accomplishment would effect their individual lives, the Shire, or Middle Earth.
Great call, El Haveñero. Maybe Groundskeeper Willy could make this one of his Tolkien Themes - that the virtue of the deed is in the doing and not in the result. I find it interesting however that, despite the fact Tolkien was a Catholic, his heroes largely received their rewards during their lifetime, without having to wait until they were dead to go to heaven (which I've always thought was a real downside of Christianity). That said, of course, a certain select few were allowed to go to the Undying Lands.

Reading The Shaping of Middle-Earth, I came across a fantastic example of Evil Defeating Itself. Melkor destroys the Two Trees with his sword, stabbing into them. Ungoliant sucks the life out of them, but the trees are still clinging on for a while, and the Valar manage to extract some goodness to make the Sun and the Moon, which afterwards became two of the greatest foes of the darkophiliac bad guys. If he had used an axe, the world would have been vastly different. But perhaps this is just a case of a simple mistake.

[Aratlithiel]

I think an important success-through-failure example is Sam's failure as Ring-bearer. I know failure seems a little harsh to use in this instance since Sam refused the burden for love of his master, but refuse he did. He forsook the whole of Middle Earth for the love of one individual. BUT, had he not refused the burden and instead went on by himself, I really don't believe he would have made it. Yes, he was strong and was the force behind Frodo's reaching the Cracks of Doom, but he did that not for himself, Gandalf, The Shire or Middle Earth, but - again - only for the love of his master. Everything he did he did for Frodo. Had he not had that love to drive him at the end of the journey, it's quite likely he would have perished long before reaching the foot of the mountain. Therefore, all of the events that transpired after Shelob and the ultimate success of the quest came about only because Sam failed to carry on Frodo's errand after he had fallen.

[doug*platypus]

Curses, an omission!

When I was trying to bring up Melkor's Mishap with the Trees, I neglected to point out that the Sun and the Moon were able to range all across Arda, and hinder evil at every turn. Under the Two Tree scheme, only Valinor was protected and lit, and the rest of the world had to be content with starlight, mood lighting if you will. Romantic, yes. Troll's bane? Hardly.

Interesting viewpoint about Sam the Ringbearer, Aratlithiel. I had never thought about his handing back the Ring as a failure to be Ringbearer. There's some great threads around this forum about the minor Ringbearers which are worth checking out. Of course, Elrond didn't put any onus on Sam to bear the Ring, only to help Frodo, so he was meeting his performance criteria as far as that was concerned, and probably would have been in for a fat pay rise come Elrond's next review.

[Saint of Killers]

maybe success through failure in the LOTR, if perhaps not in life, is a manifestation of fate.
A kind of design and pattern, and an underlying benevolence.

"the universe works in mysterious ways, its ends to perform" [?]
:=)

[Aratlithiel]

Of course, Elrond didn't put any onus on Sam to bear the Ring, only to help Frodo, so he was meeting his performance criteria as far as that was concerned

Agreed - you're right in that no one ever said to anyone in the Company that if Frodo died they were to choose one to carry on so who knows? But it would seem to me that once Sam took the Ring from Frodo, his commitment to fulfilling the Quest was implicit.

[doug*platypus]

* bump *

As Finwe pointed out in the Barliman Butterbrain (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=003261#000021) thread, the sieve-like memory of our favourite innkeeper had some far-reaching effects.

What would have happened if Frodo had received the letter on time? No chance meeting with Gildor, or perhaps more importantly Aragorn? Or would his early departure have meant he would reach Rivendell before the Nazgûl could catch up to him? I wonder if Merry and Pippin would still have been forewarned of Frodo's plan? They did almost as much for the fulfillment of the quest as Frodo and Sam.

[Imladris]

I think we're forgetting the failure of the woodelves to keep Gollum from escaping! I'm not sure if it could technically be termed a "failure" but it seems it was rather...thoughtless (to put it delicately)...to let Gollum loose around the forest (even though he was under guard). If he hadn't managed to escape, then the Ring wouldn't have been destroyed.

And Gandalf not being able to meet Frodo and Frodo not being able to get the letter. IF that hadn't happened, he wouldn't have met Tom Bombadil and wouldn't have had the encounter with Barrow-wite either. Thus Merry and Pippin wouldn't have gotten their swords which means that Merry couldn't have helped slay the Witchking.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:42 PM January 14, 2004: Message edited by: Imladris ]

[Finwe]

It was the age-old excuse of "pity." The Wood-Elves, who were themselves creatures of the open wood, probably pitied Gollum while he was shut up in his dank, filthy dungeon, and decided that surely he would appreciate a few walks in the forest. Of course, they wouldn't imagine that the scheming little bloke would scheme to escape, under the cover of an Orc attack, but can we really fault them for that?

[Imladris]

No...I'm not saying that it was wrong of them, but...ah, I guess it's all Hindsight 20-20. It still should constitute as a failure though: they were entrusted to keep Gollum safe and though it wasn't there fault per se, he still ended up escaping.