Frodo at Sammath Naur

[Carrûn]

From the Return of the King.

The light sprang up again, and there on the brink of the chasm, at the very Crack of Doom, stood Frodo, black against the glare, tense, erect, but still as if he had been turned to stone.

"Master!" cried Sam.

Then Frodo stirred and spoke with a clear void, indeed with a voice clearer and more powerful than Sam had ever heard him use, and it rose above the throb and turmoil of Mount Doom, ringing in the roof and walls.

"I have come," he said. "But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!"

I never really thought to much about this scene the first several times I read it - my intial reaction was more of a 'wow' along with a 'I guess that could almost be expected.' Then the other day I read the following out of Tom Shippey's J.R.R. Tolkien - Author of the Century. He analyzes the scene from pages 139-142 as part of Concepts of Evil in LOTR, but this particular section caught my attention the most:


In this place, "the heart of the realm of Sauron...all other powers were here subdued.' At that moment, standing on the very edge of the Crack of Doom, Frodo gives up. His words are: "I have come...But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine."

With that he puts it on for the sixth and final time. It is a vital question to know whether Frodo does this because he has been made to, or whether he has sucumbed to inner temptation. What he says suggests the latter, for he appears to be claiming responsibility very firmly: "I will not...the Ring is mine." Against that, there has been the increasing sense of reaching a centre of power, where all other powers are "subdued." If that is the case, Frodo could no more help himself than if he had been swept away by a river, or buried in a landslide. It is also interesting that Frodo does not say, "I choose not to do," but "I do not choose to do." Maybe (and Tolkien was a professor of language) the choice of words is absolutely accurate. Frodo does not choose; the choice is made for him.

He then goes on a bit about how this relates to the 'Boethian' and 'Manichean' views of evil.

I was curious as to what some of your opinions where on this scene - how much of the decision is Frodo's and how much of it is made up for him but external forces? Also, is Shippey accurate in his analysis or should is he grasping.

Your thoughts?

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

[Manwe Sulimo]

I always thought Frodo had just been "fully" corrupted by being so close to the Ring's forging place -- like Gollum, he took it as his own, but unlike Gollum, not because he wanted to, but because the Ring made him do it. I think Shippey was pretty accurate in his assessment.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I still think that part of Frodo said no, just like any other ringbearer save Sauron. To me, it it just that the part of Frodo that was saying no was blocked by the desire for the ring. He's not fully corrupted, but the side of the ring is in control or the ring itself is in control. It's very complicated and no one knows, we can only guess and assume. But none of the decision is Frodo's, I believe it is the ring's decision. It's really hard to tell, I'll have to think about it some more.

Shippey's idea is interesting, however, I disagree with him on on the arrangement of words. It is also interesting that Frodo does not say, "I choose not to do," but "I do not choose to do."...the choice is made for him.

'I choose not to do,' does mean it is that person's choice. And, 'I do not choose to do,' means that he (Frodo) is choosing not to. Because he can only choose to do, and if he doesn't choose that, then he's choosing his only other choice, not to do. I can see how the two different wordings seem to have different meanings, I could see myself doing the same. And it all comes down to the arrangment of them, but they still keep the meaning.

Now that doesn't mean that Frodo chose to do what he did, I agree that he didn't. However the reason why is not because of that wording, but because of the ring. I believe that the ring was taking control of Frodo. The ring dominated Frodo's mind, so I believe that Frodo objected, he had no say in that choice. What Frodo wanted to do, that part, was too weak compared to the ring, or at least the ring at that moment.

This is a very interesting topic. The information we have is very vague, based on a few paragraphs or less. But I'll leave with a question. It is very similar to Carrun's, but even the slightest change of words and arrangments can have different meanings, as we have seen through Shippey's idea. So here it is: Was it the ring talking and choosing, Frodo talking and choosing, or a mixture of both? Or was it Sauron talking (through the ring or Frodo)?

Carrun, if you feel that this is off topic at all, tell me. Thanks for listening.

[doug*platypus]

he puts it on for the sixth and final time
I find this fact to be a very interesting one. Isn't six the number of imperfection? I don't think that Tolkien put any numerology into his work on purpose (and the significance of six is probably wide open for debate), but it underlines what I think was happening at the time. Frodo, as an imperfect individual, had finally succumbed to the lure of the Ring, where it was at its most powerful (not to mention desperate). I believe that in the end Frodo claimed the Ring, also turning to it for support and relief from his suffering, and used its power to restore his strength (temporarily, though I am sure that would be).

For one of many discussions on the climatic scene, including the fabulous quote
If the Ring could speak, why didn't it shout out to the nearest servant of Sauron? "Hey! Here I am!"?

- The Barrow Wight
click here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000395).

[Carrûn]

Thanks for the link!

[Aratlithiel]

I personally believe that none of the decision to claim the Ring was Frodo's. I think by this point he had been so beaten down and weakened by his journey, his wound, the sting and various other maladies that the proximity of the Ring to It's master finally overwhelmed him. Even as he speaks the words, Sam observes that it is with a voice that is not his own.

And I think the wording of the phrase has everything to do with the point. If you read any of the Christopher Tolkien's "The History of The Lord of the Rings," you will see where J. R. R. Tolkien wrote and re-wrote many passages in the book to make the intentions of his characters more clear. Sometimes it was simply a case of rearranging words in a sentence to reflect the nuance that he was trying to illustrate.

IF Tolkien was attempting to point out that Frodo had no real choice in the matter, I have no problem believing that the precise phrasing was intentional.

[doug*platypus]

with a voice clearer and more powerful than Sam had ever heard him use This doesn't state that a voice other than Frodo's was heard, so I don't think that this indicates the presence of another entity (Sauron or even the Ring) speaking through him. It is likely that the words, and the power with which they were spoken, came to Frodo's mind from an external source, but I believe that it was still Frodo's voice speaking.

Sam, Frodo, Merry and Pippin (!) are all at some point heard to speak with the words of another. But does this mean that they are not speaking the words themselves, that they have no will in the matter and are possessed, or acting as some kind of conduit? Possibly in Pippin's case this could be true, particularly given the description of the unnatural tone of his voice. What do you think? Was Frodo speaking with his own voice or not?

Personally I believe that Frodo had full knowledge of what he was doing. He made the decision himself (albeit under immense pressure from the evil of the Ring), spoke the words himself, and knowingly claimed the Ring for his own.

[Finwe]

I think that the words "I choose not to do" explain Frodo's situation perfectly. Choosing not to do something good is just as "evil" or "bad" as choosing to do something "evil" or "bad." It's very easy to get the two confused.

[Bombadil]

i think the observation of frodo using the words: i choose not to do as a phrase with mutliple meanings is a great one. If Frodo said for example "I have chosen not" this could be taken as his decision, rather than the ring's. This would give a feel of a definitive decision with possible premeditations of his intentions. By saying "I choose not to do" Frodo sounds more like his decision at that moment is undecided and, ultimately, that his fate and actions to come are out of his control. And the following when frodo says I will not do this deed. The ring is mine. Is almost like a response to the uncertainty. Those lines would not be necessary if Frodo simply meant he chose to keep the ring...instead the those 2 lines follow, acting as a verification.

[Firefoot]

I think that it is also interesting how Frodo is using the present tense when he uses verbs. He says "I do not choose to do" instead of "I have not chosen" or "I did not choose". This would seem to indicate that he is at that moment making the choice. It was not five minutes or two minutes or even ten seconds ago, it was right at that moment. If this is then true, then I would say that he at least thought about casting the Ring into Mt. Doom.

It has been said on other threads (I can't think of any right now) that no one could possibly throw the Ring into the fire, not even the strongest willed person in all of ME. It was there that the Ring's power, and Sauron's power working through the Ring, was at its absolute highest. Frodo was able to resist temptation until that point and because of all of this, I would say that it was the Ring's power working on Frodo that caused him to say these things. It was Frodo who said it and Frodo's will to do it but it is only because of and under the immense and evil power that the Ring was exerting on him. As for the fact that his voice was loud and clear, I would say that that is also because of the intense power of the Ring.

[Carrûn]

Since the topic's been revived I'll add some more of Shippey's comments and my muttered ramblings.

The phrasing of "I choose not do do" vs. "I do not chose to do" could be nothing more than just a particular way of saying the same thing. Assuming it's more it raises additional questions for thought. Shippy ponders whether Frodo has given into temptation or simply been overpowered by evil. Since his words make more sense then mine, here's another segment from page 141:


If one puts the questions like that, there is a surprising and omnious echo to them, which suggests that this whole debate between "Boethian" and "Manichaean" views, far from being one between orthodoxy and hersy, is at the absolute heart of the Christian religion itself. The Lord's Prayer...contains seven clauses or requests...

'Lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.'

Are these...saying the same thing? Or do they have different but complementary intentions, the first asking God to keep us safe from ourselves (Boethian), the second asking for protection from outside (Manichaean)?


Shippey writes that, based on a letter to David Masson, the last three clauses of the Lord's Prayer, especially "Forgive us our trespasses" were on Tolkien's mind when he wrote the scene at Sammath Naur that that it was meant to be a "fairy-story exemplum" of them.

Shippey then raises the final question of whether the danger of the Ring is internal and sinful, or external and hostile. Since, according to Shippey, one can never tell for sure when reading the Trilogy, this is one of its greater strengths. We all see (for the most part) the amount of harm we can do to ourselves and others and at the same time see disasters happening that no one can feel any responsibility for.

[davem]

I can't help feeling that the reason the Ring overwhelms Frodo at that point is that he is at his weakest. The Ring offers, or seems to, what the individual feels they lack. Only Tom Bombadil isn't tempted by it because, as Goldberry says 'He is'. ie he is 'complete', not lacking in anything, with no desire for any more power than is innate & natural to him. All the other characters are tempted by the Ring because of what it can offer them - power, control, victory (apart from moral victory). Frodo is at a point when he lacks everything except the strength to stand up - if even that strength isn't given him by the Ring at that point. So he is totally vulnerable to the power of the Ring. He has nothing, probably feels he is nothing, so for him the Ring would be everything. He would possibly feel that to destroy it would be to destroy himself & everything that mattered, or had mattered to him, to replace it with a void, total emptiness, nothingness. The Ring would have suddenly become, for him, the opposite of that. So the choice is the Ring, or the horror of the void. Perhaps it felt like by not destroying it he was 'saving' the world, keeping it in being.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 5:15 AM January 12, 2004: Message edited by: davem ]

[mark12_30]

davem, good post. Further support for your position can be found on 13 March 1420 Frodo's delirious lament: "It is gone forever, and now all is dark and empty." Especially after his statement "I am naked in the dark, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it with my waking eyes, and all else fades."

He has nothing, probably feels he is nothing, so for him the Ring would be everything. He would possibly feel that to destroy it would be to destroy himself & everything that mattered, or had mattered to him, to replace it with a void, total emptiness, nothingness.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:19 AM January 12, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Lost One]

I think that, in the Letters at least (sorry, I don't have them to hand to quote), Tolkien is quite explicit that the choice is Frodo's. Exercising free will was a crucial thing for him. And if Frodo did not fail here, it seriously undermines his decision to leave Middle-earth: his unhealable wounds are not physical (or just physical), they are spiritual also. He knows he surrendered to the Ring at the last- understandably, given the pressure and situation, but still a choice.

[mark12_30]

Several pertinent letters are 181, 191, 192. If you do not have a copy of the letters (and Tolkien's thoughts seriously interest you) I heartily recommend you get one.

Over the past year I have referred to this book more than any other Tolkien resource.

"The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter (with the assistance of Christopher Tolkien.) ISBN 0-618-05699-8. (Fifteen bucks for the paperback. "Must-have" for the Serious Tolkien Fan. And no, I don't get a kickback from Houghton-Mifflin for saying so. But why guess what Tolkien might have been thinking when you can just look it up (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618056998/qid=1073956877/sr=5-1/ref=cm_lm_asin/104-1108837-1167915?v=glance)?

A brief snippet from Letter 191:

"There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power. ... But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

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

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 8:28 PM January 12, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

I think the big question is What is the nature of Frodo's failure? More, surely, than simply failing to throw the ring into the fire. Does Tolkien mean that he failed to trust in a higher power, Illuvatar, the Wise, the Valar? Doesn't he take on the 'resposibility' for 'saving the world'? He convinces himself, by the end maybe, that the Ring is all there is, or all that matters. It replaces, for him, any 'higher'/spiritual power. He doesn't trust 'God' to put things right. He feels all will be lost if he destroys the Ring. Essentially, the Ring comes to replace everything for him. His 'failure' is a rejection of faith & trust, & perhaps this is what he feels he cannot go back to. Perhaps he had lost his ability to trust, to have faith in anyone or anything - in this world at least. He gives in to despair - there is nothing for him except the Ring, there is no hope for anything without it. 'Hope' becomes synonymous for him with the Ring. But could any of us throw away all hope & live without.

I wonder if Tolkien is pointing to a lack in this 'Pagan' world of Middle Earth, saying, as he does in the Athrabeth, that Man's salvation must come from outside, by the direct intervention of Illuvatar into his creation, that 'hope' based on things found within the world will always lead to 'failure' like Frodo's? Frodo (& the others seduced by the Ring) seeks to 'save' himself by means of some worldly object, rather than by placing faith in The Authority (as Tolkien put it) beyond the world. I admit I'm fumbling at something now which I can't properly formulate as yet. smilies/confused.gif

[Essex]

It's getting a bit confusing, and I may be repeating what's above, but:

But I do not choose now to do what I came to do

Means Frodo has chosen NOT to throw the ring into the fire. It does not mean he has chosen to claim the ring.

This may be saying that he has taken the descision himself not the throw the ring in (ie he failed, he couldn't do it as well as possibly everyone else on ME), but he is not saying he has chosen to CLAIM the ring as his own. i.e. Frodo could have sat there and waited for Sauron to reclaim the ring. But what it MAY be saying is that he was forced / co-erced into CLAIMING it as his own.

Therefore: Frodo's has a concious descision not to throw ring into fire, but not a concious descision to claim the ring for himself.

[mark12_30]

Except that your quote is followed by the simple statement, "The Ring is mine." And then he puts it on.


Another pertinent thread here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001549)

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:38 AM January 13, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[erisber]

Means Frodo has chosen NOT to throw the ring into the fire. It does not mean he has chosen to claim the ring.

I disagree ... I think that the sentence quite literally states that Frodo has NOT made a choice at all, which seems to imply an inevitable course of action (taking the ring).

A scientific equivalent would be matter moving through a vaccume; unless acted upon by another force (i.e. Frodo making a choice to throw the ring in) it will continue to move on its current path, the inevitable path (i.e. Frodo failing), but if acted upon its path changes.

Frodo was incapable (as was any mortal in ME I think) of making the choice to alter the "natural state" of things in Sammath Naur. Or at least that is an argument for the situation. smilies/evil.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I think the big question is What is the nature of Frodo's failure? More, surely, than simply failing to throw the ring into the fire. Does Tolkien mean that he failed to trust in a higher power, Illuvatar, the Wise, the Valar? Doesn't he take on the 'responsibility' for 'saving the world'? He convinces himself, by the end maybe, that the Ring is all there is, or all that matters. It replaces, for him, any 'higher'/spiritual power. He doesn't trust 'God' to put things right.

Frodo (& the others seduced by the Ring) seeks to 'save' himself by means of some worldly object, rather than by placing faith in The Authority (as Tolkien put it) beyond the world. I admit I'm fumbling at something now which I can't properly formulate as yet.


Your ideas are interesting but I still think we're not clearly hitting at what lies at the core of Frodo's failure to throw away the Ring. I am basing my argument on the material presented in Tolkien's letters as well as the author's overall attitudes about the nature of Man (and Elves!) and, most importantly, the general views presented in the Legendarium as a whole. The quote Helen gave above bears a second look.

Davem, in one sense, I must agree with you. By the end of the book, Frodo is completely unable to trust or perceive anything outside of the closed circle he is in, a circle that contains only himself and the Ring. This is true whether we are referring to the "Authority", Frodo's friendship with Sam, or even the natural world itself. Frodo is unable to perceive any of these basic truths. And there is no doubt that, speaking in regard to human history, Tolkien would have said that our main problems stem from man's inability to turn to the Authority and trust in Him to guide the results.

This inability to believe or trust is implicit in this scene in LotR, but it is not what the author has chosen to emphasize. Rather, the heart of the message lies in the flawed nature of Man. This same message comes out again and again throughout the entire Legendarium.

Simply put, there is no way Frodo could have won through on his own. The kind of complete belief and trust you are referring to simply doesn't exist in the hearts of men. This is true whether we're talking about the so-called pagan men of LotR (whose ethical example frankly outshines most of our own) or modern man who has, in Tolkien's view, the benefit of a fuller revelation.

The flawed nature of man is as true today as it was back in Middle-earth. Just as Helen quoted, we are incarnate creatures and we have limits. To think otherwise is folly!

I can cite quote after quote in the Letters that reinforces the view that Frodo, by himself, could not succeed. Here are just two more:

The 'Quest' was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was considered.


If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adnumbrated from far back. He was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. (the italics are Tolkien's and not mine)

I think that we can assume, from the key passage by Gandalf in the LotR regarding Bilbo and Frodo having been chosen, and even more so from what is said in UT, that the Authority selected Frodo for this task. And I think we can also assume that the Authority knew enough (and cared enough) to select the one being who would come closest to being able to do this task. Despite all our second guessing whether Sam might have been the better choice, the answer to that must remain "no" unless we assume we can make better decisions than the Authority! To put it simply, if Frodo couldn't do it, no one could....

If you read the Silmarillion, you are impressed by the fact that it is essentially a story of failure. Yes, there are a few exceptions in the gloom, such as Beren's recapture of the Simaril, but these exceptions are few and far between. Moreover, nowhere does an act by Man or Elf make a serious dent in the power of Morgoth or Sauron, and their hold over the earth. In this context, what happened in the LotR is quite amazing. These poor remnents of the Third Age, largely men and hobbits, are nowhere portrayed as being as great and mighty as the Elves of the First and Second Age. Yet, working together, and with definite help from the Authority (the final scenes at Mount Doom and the scene where Gandalf is sent back to help them), they achieve what no one else has done in the entire Legendarium -- for a short time at least, incarnate evil in the form of Sauron is beaten back. And Frodo is a very important piece of that puzzle. Indeed I would argue that he is the most important piece.

What is amazing about Frodo is not that he failed, but that he succeeded to the extent he did. The Authority (and even Gandalf) was well aware of the limited nature of Man. My guess is that Frodo's real task was not to throw the Ring into the crack, which neither he nor anyone else could do, but to get it to the slopes of Mount Doom where something else could take over. Equally important was how he acted on that journey -- the extent to which his behavior reflected the best attributes of man. The mercy that he showed to Gollum, a mercy that was wholly illogical but utterly decent, was the fruit of that behavior.

On a personal note, I can not count the number of threads that we've had on the Downs raising the question of Frodo's "failure". It is a discussion that needs to take place with every newbie on the site, because the message of that scene lies at the heart of the LotR and Tolkien's lessons for us. Even so, I keep asking myself "why". Why do people keep raising the question of Frodo's failure, when Tolkien quite clearly says that he is not responsible for that failure, any more than he would be responsible for dying if a giant rock came and crushed him on the head?

I think the answer is this. All of us want to be in control of our destiny. We want to be able to do or believe something that will enable us to prevail against the evil we see around us. We don't like to be told "you can't do that because you are too weak or flawed." But that's just what Tolkien is telling us through the figure of Frodo! So we squirm uncomfortably and speculate on ways that Frodo "could have/should have" been a success.

Really, all of us are in Frodo's boat. All around us we see evil things, things that need changing. And if we are decent people, we will try to do something about it. But in the end we will fail unless something from outside comes in to help us: family, friends, and ultimately that which lies beyond the circles of the world. That is pretty sobering, and it's definitely what Tolkien believed.

Cami/Child/sharon

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 1:03 PM January 13, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Mister Underhill]

This quote from Child's post: What is amazing about Frodo is not that he failed, but that he succeeded to the extent he did. The Authority (and even Gandalf) was well aware of the limited nature of Man. My guess is that Frodo's real task was not to throw the Ring into the crack, which neither he nor anyone else could do, but to get it to the slopes of Mount Doom where something else could take over. Equally important was how he acted on that journey -- the extent to which his behavior reflected the best attributes of man. The mercy that he showed to Gollum, a mercy that was wholly illogical but utterly decent, was the fruit of that behavior....makes me think of one of my favorite old time threads -- What caused Frodo to finally give in to the power of the Ring and claim it? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000740)

Frodo's 'failure' certainly has been discussed at length here on the Downs, but it's one of those rare topics which bears continuous study and discussion. It's such a complex and dynamic culmination of events and themes that there always seems to be some new angle from which to approach it.

[Lyta_Underhill]

davem: that Man's salvation must come from outside, by the direct intervention of Illuvatar into his creation, that 'hope' based on things found within the world will always lead to 'failure' like Frodo's? Frodo (& the others seduced by the Ring) seeks to 'save' himself by means of some worldly object, rather than by placing faith in The Authority (as Tolkien put it) beyond the world.
Child of the 7th Age: This inability to believe or trust is implicit in this scene in LotR, but it is not what the author has chosen to emphasize. Rather, the heart of the message lies in the flawed nature of Man. This same message comes out again and again throughout the entire Legendarium.

AS you might expect ( smilies/wink.gif ), I've been following this thread for a little while, and now must add my thoughts, for what it's worth! I read through the pertinent Letters last night and also engaged in an exercise of focus during my Walk yesterday, trying to get inside the mind of Frodo and what attitude he took towards the Ring and what the Ring means to him. This is what I came up with (so far...):
The Ring is, as all here know, a burden Frodo has taken upon himself, and thus in this sense, he has accepted a stewardship, just as Gandalf or even Denethor has, although of a different basic nature. In this sense, the ultimate responsibility is laid on Frodo himself, and he cannot trust it to anyone else. In the end, he cannot relinquish this stewardship, and I agree with the above quotes and what I saw in the Letters--this is a basic flaw in Man, this tendency not to trust or to consign one's fate to a higher power.

I recall somewhere that Peter Jackson had described this burden to Elijah Wood as like a bomb that must not be dropped or else the entire world will blow up. Now carry it on a long trip...what would you do? You'd be REAL protective of it; a good person would treat the burden responsibly, but a lesser person would compromise smaller values for larger ones, inevitably. It is to Frodo's great credit that he does not compromise his basic ethics for the sake of this world-affecting burden, and that is his great triumph, overshadowing his failure at Sammath Naur.

This 'exercise' also gave me an insight into the description Sam gives of a figure robed in white with a wheel of fire at its breast. Frodo has gone as far as he can go and, as has been described elsewhere, he has been broken down completely, becoming this vessel for clear light to shine through, thus the image of the white robed figure. But at the heart of the matter is the Wheel of Fire, the burden, that must be given up to Eru Iluvatar, or else it will consume even the most pure of heart and intention.
A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice. "Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom." [ROTK: Mount Doom]
it is interesting that the white robed figure is pitiless and commanding. At this point, it seems that Frodo is over-reaching his calling, taking upon himself the role of Eru Iluvatar, and of course, such a course must fail, for it is beyond Frodo's capability to order the fate of the universe. I can see how he might fall prey to such a delusion at the end, as he has carried for long miles a burden that holds within it such power. The wheel of fire at his breast might represent the inherent fallenness of any who cannot ultimately trust in a higher power, nor resign ultimate control in one's destiny. At its core is self-focus, a clinging to personal responsibility, rather than the focus on the eternal or the universal. I see such a failing as linked inevitably to fear and isolation, an incarnate being's inability to trust ultimately in something beyond itself.

It is also interesting that Gollum is shown as fully stripped down as well--merely a shell for incarnate lust and greed, the selfish motivations with which he began his stewardship of the Ring. I'm not sure I can come up with anything more at the moment; this post has eaten up much of the last couple of hours (!). But in the course of searching for references online, I did find an interesting article if you're interested:
A Bit of Light--Visions And Transformations Of The Ring Quest (http://gamgeegarden.tripod.com/sam/id13.html)

Cheers!
Lyta

[mark12_30]

I never noticed before-- but each time, Sam calls on Elbereth; Frodo calls on Earendel. That's a big difference. Food for thought.

[davem]

Child, Lyta, I agree with both of you. As I said, I'm fumbling after something. The Athrabeth is as clear a statement as Tolkien ever made within his fiction that 'salvation' - whatever you concieve that to mean - can only come from outside, beyond the circles of the world, by the intervention of an external force, therefore, dependence on/faith in any worldly object will only bring failure & ultimately a loss of any kind of hope. Frodo, I think gives in to despair at the end simply because he can no longer see anything beyond the Ring, which is perhaps the 'World', materialism, the Machine. He becomes convinced that the world can olny be saved by something within the world. This is not to say that any of us, having been through what he had, would have been able to do any differently. But is Tolkien saying that that is our nature as fallen beings - that if pushed beyond our limits we will all fall into materialism & rejection of the Authority? He relates the incident at the Sammath Naur to the lines in the Lord's Prayer, but perhaps (though maybe he would not have presumed to state it) he has in mind Christ's cry 'My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?' Perhaps Frodo is at that point of ultimate despair, but whereas the divine Christ can still trust, even in a God he percieves as 'absent', the 'human' Frodo cannot. Frodo 'fails' because he must, because he cannot succeed. Maybe Tolkien is pointing up the inevitability of human failure, that Frodo is not the 'Christ' figure that too many casual readers (& some not so casual, like Humphrey Carpenter) interpret him as. Perhaps it is Tolkien's faith that requires Frodo's ultimate failure at that point. If anything truly 'foreshadows' Frodo's failure at the end perhaps that's it. LotR is the work of a Christian - how could Frodo succeed?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

Frodo 'fails' because he must, because he cannot succeed. Maybe Tolkien is pointing up the inevitability of human failure, that Frodo is not the 'Christ' figure that too many casual readers (& some not so casual, like Humphrey Carpenter) interpret him as. Perhaps it is Tolkien's faith that requires Frodo's ultimate failure at that point. If anything truly 'foreshadows' Frodo's failure at the end perhaps that's it. LotR is the work of a Christian - how could Frodo succeed?

I think we are saying the same thing only coming at it from two different angles. I totally agree with the quote above.

This is one of the reasons I probably have little patience with discussions that raise the hypothetical question: "Would "X" have succeeded as Ringbearer? Usually, we insert "Samwise" in the "X" spot, but other names have been suggested as well. The basic point is this: given the nature of Man (and Elves and Hobbits), and the nature of good and evil in Tolkien's world (and implicitly in our own), no one can have "success" as a Ringbearer without outside intervention of some kind. The question is simply artificial, since the job requires more than any carnate being can possibly give.

[davem]

I think we are saying the same thing, as you say. I am, I suppose, trying to make sense of what it is in Frodo which gives in - or if there is any part of him which says 'Yes' to the Ring - ie is he simply broken by what he goes through so that at the end he just lets the Ring do as it will with him, or is there still some part of him which 'sins' & chooses the Ring? And if so, what is it that he is choosing - the World, power,something, anything over the nothingness that seems the only alternative. I hope I haven't come across as condemning Frodo. I don't think any of us could have succeeded, or got as far as he did. Perhaps I'm trying to look into Frodo's soul & see if I can learn anything about myself.

[mark12_30]

In hisletters (here I go again) Tolkien says that after the Ring is destroyed, Frodo is tempted by two things: one, the desire to have been a hero after all, instead of simply an instrument of providence; and two, he is tempted to still desire the Ring. THe latter statement indicates that Frodo's temptation is simply the desire to possess it. Hence his simple statement: "The Ring is mine." Not, I am now ruler of Sam's- Garden- of- Mordor; not "all shall love me and despair"; not Boromir's "I shall become a great leader, all men will rally to me, and I will become a king, benevolent and wise"; none of that.

Just-- simply-- it's Mine. Finally, finally, it's Mine.

Kocher's theory is that the Ring intensifies two desires: one, the desire to dominate the will of others; two, the desire to posess the Ring. Kocher points out that hobbits aren't by nature domineering folk, so (unlike men and elves) the domineering temptation has little power. Bilbo didn't take over the Shire. Gollum didn't take over the Anduin. And Sam, while tempted to make a garden out of Mordor, quickly saw his own inadequacy to do it. Neither does Frodo plan to rule anything.

Bilbo's biggest struggle is to give up the Ring instead of posessing it, and he couldn't do it without Gandalf's help.
Gollum can't give it up at all, and losing it drove him mad.
Sam's desire to possess was mercifully kept in check by his love for Frodo at least.
Frodo's desire to possess it niggled at him, or hammered at him, all along the whole quest, I think. He fought it and fought it.

But at the Sammath Naur, he couldn't fight it any more. Sin? Yes, I think so; willful sin? I don't think so; Tolkien didn't think so; hence his attitude that Frodo deserved all honor, but did need healing, and was tempted to still desire it. Tolkien said something to the effect that nobody could have resisted the Ring at that point (as Sharon quoted) and Frodo's "fall" certainly should not lessen him in our eyes, since no elf, man, dwarf, or hobbit, or Maia or Vala, could have done better.

Edit: Theology... The difference between an 'allegory' and a 'type' is important when discussing "Christ figures." Old Testament individuals who imperfectly foreshadow characteristics of the Messiah are called "Types." There are lots of them. David, Isaac, Joshua... Daniel... on and on, and on. Too many to count.

In THAT sense, LOTR has three: Frodo (the suffering servant), Aragorn (the coming King and healer) and Gandalf (powerful, supernatural, wise, and back from the dead.)

It's interesting to note that each of these had some sort of deathlike experience. Aragorn travelled for Three Days on the Paths of the dead. Frodo when stung by Shelob was rendered into a deathlike state, and was left for dead by Sam (albeit mistakenly), and imprisoned in a guarded place made of stone. And Gandalf, of course, is just plain resurrected.

In a similar vein, Earendil in the Sil is a Christ-"type"; **Not** an allegory; an imperfect foreshadowing. Very important theological distinction. However, I mention Earendil because although Sam calls on Elbereth, Frodo calls on Earendil. Maybe I'm reaching here; but to me that implies that Sam feels the need for light, courage, and comfort; but Frodo feels the need for intercession, deliverance, salvation. Huge difference.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:02 AM January 15, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

I still wonder what is going on with Frodo. If we accept that he gives into desire in some way, ie, he 'sins' - because if he doesn't, if his will is totally overwhelmed by the power of the Ring he would have no knowledge of claiming it, & therefore no feelings of loss or guilt or failure - then he is claiming the Ring as 'something', ie it will represent something, or the means to something, for him, & he will be giving in to his desire for whatever that thing is.

I've read Kocher's book, but I wonder at this idea of claiming the Ring as a thing in itself - a circle of http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=gold&v=54&src=derekgold</a>.Is it possible to think of the Ring as just that? Wouldn't one, especially after carrying it all that way, experience it as something more? I just wonder what Frodo thinks he is claiming as his own.

[Mister Underhill]

I just have to step into this interesting conversation to make a point or two: ...if his will is totally overwhelmed by the power of the Ring he would have no knowledge of claiming it, & therefore no feelings of loss or guilt or failure...First, the loss of will does not, in my view, denote a loss of consciousness. Frodo was aware of what occurred at the Sammath Naur, even if he had lost all will to resist the Ring.

And secondly, I respectfully disagree with the last half of that quote. People can feel intense guilt for actions they don’t remember committing, even for actions or circumstances they know they’re not responsible for.

Incidentally, the thread I linked above attempted to explore that exact question – what is that secret desire that causes Frodo to claim the Ring? I don’t think it’s one that can be answered with any certainty, but it can lead to some interesting discussion.

[davem]

The question is, are Frodo's feelings of guilt 'rational' - ie, did he want, to any degree, to claim the Ring, in which case he is 'justified' in feeling guilty & blaming himself. Or are those feelings 'irrational' - ie, did he feel absolutely no desire for the Ring, in which case he is not justified in feeling guilty. I suppose what I'm asking is 'Did Frodo desire the Ring for himself in any way. If he did feel such desire, then what was it he was desiring - power, control, or was he simply being driven by a desire not to be completely 'lost' - ie had he by that time so completely identified himself with the Ring that it's destruction meant the same to him as his own destruction?' Was there any 'will' on Frodo's part to claim the Ring? Did some tiny part of him say 'Yes' to that 'sin', & is that the seed from which his later feelings of guilt & failure spring? Or was he merely so broken by that point that he had no control, & was almost like an outside observer, watching his body refuse to let the Ring go?

[mark12_30]

I suppose what I'm asking is 'Did Frodo desire the Ring for himself in any way.

Yes, of course he did, viscerally, even though he knew theoretically that it was not his to posess. He didn't want to destroy the Ring even in Bag End, in his own fireplace. He desired it even then. And he had to fight that desire every step of the way. That is what makes him a hero.


Was there any 'will' on Frodo's part to claim the Ring? Did some tiny part of him say 'Yes' to that 'sin', & is that the seed from which his later feelings of guilt & failure spring?

From the time he knew it had to be destroyed in Bag End and couldn't make himself do it even then, he desired it. But he knew he had to try and destroy it. I think that's why despair caught up with Frodo so often along the way.

Or was he merely so broken by that point that he had no control, & was almost like an outside observer, watching his body refuse to let the Ring go?

As he entered the Sammath Naur, I would say, Yes. I think that is consistent with Tolkien's letters:

But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 4:31 PM January 15, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

I agree with Helen on this. I do think that Frodo actively desired the Ring, and that he fought that desire all the way from Bag-end to Mordor. When he reached Sammath-Naur, the point where the Ring was forged, its power became so overwhelming that he could no longer resist the temptation. Most of us would have caved in far back along the road.

The more interesting question is the one Mister Underhill raised: that of Why? Why did he claim it? Did he desire it for its own sake, as the glittering golden band which held a fatal attraction, with no other intention or thought in his mind? Or were there goals he desired that he could clearly see could be accomplished only by owing the Ring, and hence he wanted it...?

It's clear there were hobbits who desired the Ring as the Ring. The three that come to mind are Smeagol, Deagol, and Bilbo. None of them really understood the power of the thing, so they could only respond to its intrinsic pull rather than desiring to create or take over something with it. OK, maybe Smeagol/Gollum wanted to be king of a pond with a lot of fish, but I don't think that was his chief desire! He simply wanted to hold the thing in his hand. But that temptation for the Ring alone was strong enough to cause a hobbit to murder another hobbit, the only such incident of murder among the hobbits that we know about.

Frodo's case was different. And I also think Frodo's personality was very different than the three other hobbits. First, he does understand that the Ring has power and that it could allow him to do 'impossible' things he desired. If I had to guess (which is all it is), this is what I would say. First, judging from the severity of his attacks, and the manner in which he withdrew from other people in the Shire, Frodo was feeling very, very guilty about what had happened. I don't think that guilt stems solely from Sammath Naur, although that was obviously the biggest thing. I think the seeds of that guilt were planted on the journey itself as Frodo reflected on the Ring. Some of this reflection stems from the second difference in Frodo's case, which is his particular personality.

Let me explain. My guess is that both issues were involved -- the desire for the Ring as an object, and the desire to accomplish something with that Ring. All those days of trudging across the face of Middle-earth! Surely at some point he asked himself "what if". We are rarely let into Frodo's head the way we are in Sam's or even Merry and Pippin. We see Frodo largely through their eyes (also Gollum's). But we do know certain things about Frodo; he was very reflective for a hobbit and a little more withdrawn, polite, and formal than some other hobbits. Not totally, mind you -- he could still dance on tables, sing bath songs and had rosey cheeks. But by the end of the tale, even this cheerful behavior would fade, to be replaced by a kind of gentle formality.

Moreover, Frodo strikes me as the kind of hobbit who would run things through his head more than once. And for a hobbit, that would indeed be unusual! For example, the kind of questions he poses to Gandalf about "why me" must have spun through his mind a thousand times before. And what other hobbit would have looked at Faramir's men facing the West to honor Numenor and what lay beyond and wished that his own people had such a custom?

To be quite blunt, Frodo is a hobbit who, on occasion, looks and acts more like an Elf! He has a light growing in his eyes, and Gandalf speculates that it will ultimately shine through his whole body like the Phial of Galadriel. Samwise speaks of his wisdom, hardly a typical hobbit trait! He is called "Elf-friend" early in the book and can even speak a bit of the language. And what other hobbit, one of the people with "no religion", would wish that his own kind had a custom like that of Faramir's men, a custom which comes mighty close to "worship" in my eyes.

This Elf-like nature of Frodo probably made him more resistent to the evil of the Ring, but it may also have opened him up to some of the same shortcomings that the Elves had.....specifically, the desire to preserve and embalm.

How many times did Frodo lie awake at night thinking what he could do if he had the Ring? I think that is a real possibility. What did he want? I think Mithadan nailed it on an earlier thread. I am paraphrasing his words...

1. The one thing we know is that Frodo loved Bilbo more than anyone.

My comment - Bilbo was getting older, and he was going to die soon. The fact that Frodo had no wife and that he had lost his parents at the age of twelve (and Tolkien had also lost his!) makes this desire to cling to Bilbo even more understandable.

2. Frodo loved the Shire; he wanted it to be the same for him as when he left.

My comment - That's not possible, of course. The Shire, at least the book Shire, had changed slightly. More importantly, Frodo had changed vastly.

There is, I think, a third option. Part of Frodo expected to die, and in a sense wanted to die. This would be the crowning glory of his sacrifice. I think there are two things Frodo can be "faulted" on (and only two!): he was sometimes reluctant to rely on others (i.e., running off from the Fellowship and later withdrawing from people in the Shire), but wanted to do things his own way (maybe he got some of this from Bilbo's stubborn example!), and I get the sense part of him not only accepted his sacrificial role as Ringbearer but even welcomed it a bit. Dying would have put the cap on that sacrifice.

But if Frodo did not die, what "future" would there be? My guess is that, according to his Elf-like nature, he wanted to preserve things: just as Mithadan said, he wanted Bilbo to be with him forever, and he wanted to have the same happy relationship with the Shire he'd had before. Indeed, Frodo, like many of us, wanted to stop the world from whirling forward so fast! And the Ring was one way to do that.

In the Fourth Age, which was the beginning Age of the Dominion of Men, the hallmark would be change because that is Man's true nature. Old ways inevitably faded and new ones came in. Perhaps Frodo could even see this? After all, later he would tell Sam about how many children he would have, so he might have known a thing or two he kept to hiumself.

How could Frodo ever fit into such a world given his internal hurts and his Elf-like proclivities, causing him to cling to past people and places? Sam, yes; but Frodo, no. So perhaps Frodo chose to say "It is mine" in hopes of regaining control and preserving what had existed in the past. But providence intervened, and he was ultimately afforded entry to Elvenhome, the place where nothing changes, so he would have the time and setting to deal with his hurts.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 3:58 PM January 15, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[davem]

I still, I suppose, wonder if Frodo understood what the Ring actually was. I agree with everything you say about what the Ring meant to Frodo, Child, & in that case, his claiming of the Ring is not a 'sin'. But was there another part of his mind which knew exactly what the Ring really was, & exactly what he was claiming, & that that claim could ultimately damn all of Middle Earth to Sauron's domination, & was he saying 'Yes, I'll even accept the possibility of that if there's a chance I can preserve my old life in the Shire with Bilbo. I'll gamble the world against getting what I want'. To what extent is his claiming of the Ring at the end based on a desire keep things as they were, with no thought or knowledge of what Sauron would do when he inevitably took the ring from him, or did Frodo acknowlege the possibility of Sauron taking it from him & still decide to risk it? Does Frodo 'sin' - by deciding that what he wants is worth risking the suffering of every being in Middle Earth to achieve - does he consent to that possibility, or does he not 'sin' - which would be the case if you're right & his desire is only for things to go on as they had been. In the end that would determine for me whether his feelings of guilt & failure at the end have validity or not.

[mark12_30]

davem, you need a copy of The Letters. Go buy one or borrow it from the library!

Child, I spent all last evening scanning the letters for discussions of what the One Ring does. Preservation is mentioned, but in the same discussion that preservation is also discussed as the "thin, stretched, wire-pulled-tighter or butter scraped over too much bread" kind of preservation. No more life, just prolonging, so it becomes a torment.

Frodo didn't personally hear Bilbo speak his "Thin, like butter" line, so perhaps he was less aware of it than Gandalf (or us). I guess I'm still struggling with the idea that Frodo would have fallen for that deception. He's brighter than that. I don't think he would have wanted to see Bilbo "stretched" and just continuing. I think he would have turned from that idea. And really, how would the Ring have prolonged Bilbo's life? Is there any evidence that a Ring of power prolongs anybody mortal's life besides the bearer/wearer? (Are you including "The Mouth of Sauron" in the list of the things that the Ring preserved, even though Sauron wasn't wielding it during the War? I'll have to think that one over.)

As far as saving the Shire: Same question. If he had access to one of the Elven Rings I can see your point. But the One Ring wasn't made with preservation in mind, was it? Frodo said to Faramir, "Would you have two Minas Morguls grinning at each other?" He had seen the Ringwraiths face to face; he knew what "neither living nor dead" means. I don't see that as much of a temptation for him, nor turning the Shire into another Minas Morgul. He always shrank from that sort of thing.

But all along the trip, he kept saying "The Burden is Mine." He was (I think) proud of carrying it. And the martyr's complex there is pretty obvious.

So-- for preservtion of The Shire (and Bilbo)-- I see that he would want those things, yes, but I'm just not convinced he'd buy the Rings' offer to do it. He knew better, and I think his "good hobbit sense" would have told him (as it told Sam) that such things would not be.

But-- "I begin to see it with my waking eyes." All he could see was the Ring; he couldn't SEE the Shire anymore; I don't see how he could be clinging to it anymore. So I go back to his own words at Sammath Naur-- not "Now I can save The Shire", but simply and directly, "The Ring is mine." I really think that's the core of it. I think by Sammath Naur he'd even been stripped of The Shire, just as he said.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 11:08 AM January 16, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Essex]

Seeing as Letters has been mentioned a few times, I took a look at HOME to see what was said regarding Frodo at Sammath Naur.

Not that I totally agree with them, but it is interesting to see Christopher Tolkien’s observations regarding the changes his father made to the Mount Doom section in his Histories of Middle Earth series. Who am I to disagree with him? Anyway, CT has a very certain view on Frodo’s inability to complete his Quest:

From the first draft of Mount Doom:

'I have come,' he said. 'But I cannot do what I have come to
do. I will not do it. The Ring is mine.' And suddenly he vanished
from Sam's sight.

Christopher’s note on this (my italics)

Frodo's words 'But I cannot do what I have come to do' were
changed subsequently on the B-text to 'But I do not choose now to do
what I have come to do.' I do not think that the difference is very
significant, since it was already a central element in the outlines that
Frodo would choose to keep the Ring himself; the change in his words
does no more than emphasize that he fully willed his act.

CT seems to think it is pretty cut and dried, fully concious decision by Frodo, where as I do not.

[The Saucepan Man]

But I do not choose now to do what I came to do.

the change in his words does no more than emphasize that he fully willed his act.

Well, I am with Christopher Tolkien on this one.

Taking these words alone, the inevitable consequence of Frodo's decision not to choose to destroy the Ring is that it will not be destroyed by him. Since he is consciously not choosing a course of action that would result in the destruction of the Ring, he is effectively choosing not to destroy it.

But the answer may be found in the other words that he speaks in any event. The full quote is:

But I cannot do what I have come to do. I will not do it. The Ring is mine.

So, he expressly states that he will not do what he came to do, namely destroy the Ring. The words used clearly indicate that this is an act (or, more accurately, an omission) consciously willed on his part.

I agree with those who have said that he could not have chosen to destroy it. No one (with the possible exception of Tom Bombadil smilies/wink.gif ) could have chosen to do so. But that does not mean that it was not his choice not to destroy it. It is simply that he was powerless to resist making that choice.

The distinction is important, I think. The fact that it was his choice not to destroy it, albeit one which he could not resisit, is what leads to his later feelings of guilt.

The one thing which still puzzles me from the quote is the meaing of the words: "The Ring is mine". Does he decide not to destroy the Ring because he already regards it as his own, or does he decide to claim it as his own having decided not to destroy it?

[Gorwingel]

Well this is an amazing thread, with many amazing responses. I will try my best to make a meaningful contribution smilies/smile.gif

Frodo was feeling very, very guilty about what had happened. I don't think that guilt stems solely from Sammath Naur, although that was obviously the biggest thing. I think the seeds of that guilt were planted on the journey itself as Frodo reflected on the Ring. Some of this reflection stems from the second difference in Frodo's case, which is his particular personality.

I have never thought about Frodo actually being guilty about distroying the ring. That is very interesting. I know that he was affected greatly by this experience, so much that he wasn't able to go on. But I guess it kind of sounds like that at this time (or up until the very, very end) he had some kind of split personality thing going on. I would think that after everything had happened he had a part of him going "oh, why was the ring destroyed? Why didn't you stop Gollum?” and then another part going "Yes, the ring was destroyed, it turned out well, what needed to be done was done." This probably most likely was happening to him before they got to Mt. Doom. But at the moment, the other side took over, and it was completely about the ring.
(I know this sounds weird, and it had already most likely been said before, but I just had to say something.)

The one thing which still puzzles me from the quote is the meaning of the words: "The Ring is mine". Does he decide not to destroy the Ring because he already regards it as his own, or does he decide to claim it as his own having decided not to destroy it?

I think that is a very interesting question, but it is not something that can be answered easily. I personally think that it is a combination of both. But I would lean towards the top one, just because he had the ring for a while, and during the time that he had had it, it was much more powerful than it had been during the time Gollum had had it. And most likely because of his extreme attachment to it, he believed it belonged to him. This ring had become everything, and everything had to do with it. He did most likely think that it was his own.

[davem]

Helen, I have the Letters, but its about a year since I last read them, so I suppose I should go back (if there is any real going back smilies/smile.gif ).

But as far as I remember (but I do, I admit, have a rather Butterburesque memory), Tolkien doesn't go into this question of what the Ring actually Frodo meant to Frodo at that point - I think Child has just given us more insight into Frodo's feelings at the end than is there, explicitly, in Tolkien's letters. My own question, what exactly is Frodo claiming as his 'own', what is he claiming to be 'mine', what does he concieve it to be, still remains, I think.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Saucepan Man,

You raise a question and Gorgwingel refers to this as well:

The one thing which still puzzles me from the quote is the meaing of the words: "The Ring is mine". Does he decide not to destroy the Ring because he already regards it as his own, or does he decide to claim it as his own having decided not to destroy it?

I had honestly never asked myself this before. Just from a reading of Frodo's character and what's happened in the story up till then, I would probably lean towards the view that Frodo already regarded the Ring as his own. Yet there are things that Tolkien mentioned in his earlier drafts of this scene that perhaps suggest the latter to be true. I'll get into that below, since this also pertains to some ideas that Helen raised. Sorry, but this will probably be long and a bit muddling....

See the quotation below from Helen's post which is part of an argument where she questions whether Frodo would have been thinking of the preservation of the Shire and Bilbo when he claimed the Ring (or at least had seriously considered this option at some point on the long road through Mordor).

So-- for preservation of The Shire (and Bilbo)-- I see that he would want those things, yes, but I'm just not convinced he'd buy the Rings' offer to do it. He knew better, and I think his "good hobbit sense" would have told him (as it told Sam) that such things would not be.

Let me again say that this is pure speculation on my part. There is nothing in Tolkien that actually answers the question of why Frodo chose to claim the Ring. However, it is clear from the story that Frodo cared about two things more than any other: the Shire and Bilbo. And it also true that Frodo is the most "Elvish" hobbit I've ever seen, which means he may have some of the good and some of the not-so-good traits that are typical of Elves. Hence, the desire to preserve the past.

This was my reasoning in regard to the whole question of "preservation." Whoever wielded the One Ring would clearly have power over the other lesser Rings. Here, I am thinking of Nenya which obviously exercised some kind of a preserving power in Lórien. The type of preservation exemplified there seemed different than the "stretched out" kind of preservation that a bearer of the One Ring would experience. Certainly, it seemed gentler. And since the bearer of the One Ring could eventually command the others, even though the Elven Rings were presently hidden, he or she would have the ability to weave a web of protection around the Shire, similar to Lórien.

I didn't see Frodo hoping to turn the Shire into Minas Morgul, "neither living or dead". Instead he wanted a kind of Lothlórien, the meaning of which is "blossom-dream-land". Those kind of dreams must have looked pretty attractive to a bent and weary Frodo.

Of course, all his desires would have been an illusion. The One Ring would surely have swept away all goodness, from both Lórien and the Shire, and nothing could have withstood its corruption. But it may have been a believable illusion to Frodo as he contemplated his choices on the trudge through Mordor.

Regarding your comment...."his 'good hobbit sense' would have told him (as it told Sam) that such things would not be."

I'm not so sure....

If you look in Sauron Defeated, there are five outlines and one very early sketch that touch upon the Mount Doom scenes. Of these the sketch and three of the outlines directly deal with Frodo's decision not to destroy the Ring.

First, just to show how certain Tolkien was that no one could throw away the Ring.... When Tolkien first began the book, before "Frodo Baggins" even existed as a separate character, and before the Necromancer was fully replaced with Sauron, the author put forward the idea that the hobbit bearing the Ring (Bingo) could not throw it away. So Frodo was truly doomed even before Tolkien put his pen to the page! (The italics and question mark occur in the original text.)

At end.....When Bingo at last reaches Crack and Fiery Mountain he cannot make himself throw the Ring away.....? He hears Necomancer's voice offering him great Reward --to share power with him, if he will.

At that moment Gollum -- who had seemed to reform and had guided them by secret ways through Mordor --comes up and treacherously tries to take Ring. They wrestle and Gollum takes Ring and falls into the Crack.

In the subsequent drafts, Tolkien elaborated on this story. I am quoting the final draft before the chapter was written, but the earlier ones are identical in meaning on this point.

Frodo now feels full force of the Eye.....? He does not want to enter Chamber of Fire or throw away the Ring. He seems to hear a deep small persuasive voice speaking: offering life and peace -- and finally a share of the Great Power: if he will take Ring intact to the Dark Tower. He rejects this, but stands still -- while thought grows (absurd though it may seem): he will keep it, wield it, and himself have Power alone; be Master of All. After all he is a great hero, Hobbits should become lords of men, and he their Lord, King Frodo, Emperor Frodo. He thought of the great poems that would be made, and mighty songs and saw (as if far away) a great Feast, and himself enthroned and all the kings of the world sitting at his feet, while all the earth blossomed.

So, according to Tolkien, at least in this outline, his "good hobbit sense" was not adequate protection against such dreams! This isn't surprising. In fact, it reminds me of what Gandalf said: that he himself would take the Ring out of a desire to do good that would then be corrupted.

Regarding Saucepan Man's question whether Frodo already had a sense of owning the Ring.

It seems to me, according to this draft, that Frodo did not have a clear sense of ownership of the Ring prior to Sammath Naur. Indeed, in outline 1, this is stated more clearly. Again, the italics are not mine...

Then suddenly a new thought arose--not from outside -- a thought born inside himself: he would keep the Ring himself and be master of all

This earlier draft likewise states that Sauron's offer to share power "actually terrifies him."

None of this, however, made its way into the final book. So did Tolkien reject these ideas?

I'm not so sure....

There were ideas in the earlier drafts that Tolkien clearly rejected by putting comments in the margin. For example, he speculated that Gollum would be reformed and voluntarily jump into the Fire with the Ring. Beside this, JRRT put a great big "No" in the margin. (Interestingly, this is the same idea he later mentions in his Letters.)

There were other ideas in the earlier outlines that Tolkien clearly refuted by offering a different version in the book. For example, except for the very first sketch, the earlier drafts speculate that Sam pushes Gollum into the pit. This would have been a big change from what we finally got in the end. Sam would have been a "hero" in a more conventional sense and the hand of Providence would be less evident. Tolkien clearly rejected this.

But what about this idea of Frodo being tempted? Tolkien nowhere rejects it. He simply doesn't allow us to get inside the hobbit's head in the final scenes. But there are things here that do ring true. (Pardon the pun!) the Letters specifically mention that Frodo wanted to be a "hero" and that this was one reason he suffered. He simply couldn't accept being a mere instrument of Providence. Doesn't this tie back with the scene depicted in the earlier draft? So perhaps this was going on inside Frodo's mind; only we can't see it. And how typical of Frodo to think of himself as a great King not in terms of battles or power, but rather of feasts (how Hobbitish to think of food!), songs, flowers, and poetry.

I am also drawn to the line with Sauron "offering Life and Peace." Again, to me, by definition, that life and peace would have to come to Frodo in the context of a preserved Shire with Bilbo by his side.

Of course, we'll never know. The final scenes are presented by Tolkien in a more cryptic manner. We have less of an idea what's going on. But the more I look at HoMe, the more I think that this whole train of thought may still have been going on inside Frodo's mind (and Tolkien's). But JRRT chose not to share it with the reader.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 12:18 PM January 17, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

Or were there goals he desired that he could clearly see could be accomplished only by owning the Ring, and hence he wanted it...? Another arabesque on this theme could be that the Ring would be the only concrete proof that he had done something or affected the world in a real way. Frodo's struggle was internal and in the realm of the aversion of disaster, not in the visible construction or conquest of people, places or things. In a spiritual battle, one is alone. The Ring would be not only company, but a talisman to show to the rest of the world that validates his struggle. Without the Ring, Frodo is merely a broken warrior who fought with a ghost long gone.

In fact, it reminds me of what Gandalf said: that he himself would take the Ring out of a desire to do good that would then be corrupted. Indeed, Frodo's situation reminds me inevitably of Gandalf's and the possible road to the Maia's corruption. The desire to do good would lead to the enforcement of that good, a terrible goodness. Of course, Frodo would not have the strength to enforce his will as Gandalf would.

One portion of Letter 246: They (the Ringwraiths) would have greeted Frodo as 'Lord'. With fair speeches they would have induced him to look upon his new kingdom, and behold afar with his new sight the abode of power that he must now claim and turn to his own purposes'. Once outside the chamber while he was gazing some of them would have destroyed the entrance. Frodo would by then probably have been already too enmeshed in great plans of reformed rule--like but far greater and wider than the vision that tempted Sam--to heed this. What a sad fall that would have been! But it does speak to Frodo's thoughts of ruling and of his desire to reform the rule--a grandiose vision of King Frodo indeed!

My previous thoughts on Frodo's inability to ultimately trust to Eru and the unknown in his fate seem to me to tie in to this delusion of reformed rule that Frodo seems to have experienced. The vision, as Sharon points out with excellent HoME references above (which I lack in my 'library', so am very thankful to see here!) points to the blossoming and prosperousness of this imagined new realm, his dream to "save the Shire." Somehow it seems he cannot imagine saving it without having a direct hand in it, without maintaining control in this way. In other words, it points directly to Frodo's inability to reliquish control, his need to be a hero in the traditional sense.

I hope these thoughts added something; I'm sure there is more to it, but I wanted to add a few bits of flying debris from my whirling conscious brain before I lost them! (I, also have a Butterbur-ish tendency to forget things!)

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Sharon, Lyta, this is effectively saying that Frodo fails the test that both Galadriel & Faramir are shown as passing. He seeks to preserve the old ways, his old life, even being prepared to gamble the fate of Middle Earth & all its peoples. Galadriel will lose all she loves. Faramir will risk all he loves. Frodo wont/can't. His life in the world, his old life with Bilbo in the Shire has too strong a hold over him. Perhaps he can't imagine any other existence.

Is this down to the 'negative' side of his Elvish qualities, as Sharon says - I think so. The Elves don't change, actively avoid it - as does Sauron (quote from a review of Fleiger's A Question of Time:

Flieger contrasts the differences between human and elvish perspectives on the nature of time. The most telling distinction between the two kindreds is drawn through their view of the future. According to Flieger, Tolkien's elves see the future as a period of decline and decay, the opposite of humanity's hopeful approach. This creates a backwards emphasis in the elvish mentality - "men are proceeding into the future, while Elves are receding into it." In this, the Elves and Sauron are much the same (since they are both bound by fate and the Music of Iluvatar). The Elvish rings stave off time and decay just as the One Ring does (though without the negative side effects); representing similar desires on the parts of their makers. The Elves and Sauron are seeking to prevent change, and therefore development and growth. Both lack humanity's potential.

Full review: http://www.greenmanreview.com/a.question.of.time.htm

A question that springs to mind is does Frodo's decision to leave also involve a feeling that he will hold Sam back, that he has to leave so Sam can be free, & is this the 'positive' side of his Elvishness coming out. Frodo is a kind of missing link between the Elvishness of the Third Age & the Age of Man. Sam is part of the Fourth age. The Elves, & the Elvish, have to leave to liberate the Followers. Frodo has become too Elvish to stay. Perhaps, also, this similarity between the outlooks of Sauron & the Elves (& the 'Elvish' like Frodo) is the cause of his inability to destroy the Ring. Frodo is simly too Elvish in the end.

[mark12_30]

... this is effectively saying that Frodo fails the test that both Galadriel & Faramir are shown as passing. He seeks to preserve the old ways, his old life, even being prepared to gamble the fate of Middle Earth & all its peoples. Galadriel will lose all she loves. Faramir will risk all he loves. Frodo wont/can't.

I don't believe that of Frodo. Yes, the idea of (basically) destroying Lorien must be devastating to him; but he's followed all that logic through. He's seen what Mordor is firsthand, and knows what the Ring produces. And I don't think he'd buy the logic. That is exactly why the "Save the Shire" idea doesn't sit right with me.

That's why I *still* think it's sheer posessiveness. I go back to the argument that all he could see was the wheel of Fire, even with his waking eyes. He went into the Sammath Naur with the express desire to destroy the Ring; and within the Sammath Naur, the Ring took him. As Tolkien states, I can't judge Frodo for what he decided inside the Sammath Naur, because nobody could have prevailed in there. Once through the doors, his fate was sealed; Tolkien makes that clear; he could not refuse the power of the ring inside those doors.

But I don't see that he ever 'failed the test that Galadriel and Faramir passed'. I don't buy that. Tolkien is clear that within the Sammath Naur anyone: ANYONE: would have failed; Galadriel, Faramir, anybody. That's just not the same "test." Galadriel and Faramir never entered the Sammath Naur. Entering the Sammath Naur was like entering the womb of evil.

letter 191:
If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back.

In other words, Tolkien's point is that he wouldn't surrender it. Not that he intended to use it to save the Shire or anything else. Simple surrender of it was impossible. And that points back to posessiveness, and ownership, and to the phrase "The Ring is Mine." What made him claim it within the Sammath Naur was the same inability to toss it into his own fireplace. And that was on the first day he found out what the Ring really was and what it could do. He wasn't thinking about using it to save the Shire; he was thinking:

The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its color, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious. When he took it out he had intended to fling it from him into the very hottest part of the fire. But he found now that he could not do so, not without a great struggle....

And the Ring, as we all know, ends up back in his pocket.

I've no doubt that once he claimed it, his head was filled with grandiose ideas; but I do not believe that those grandiose ideas were with him before he entered the Sammath Naur or that those ideas were what made him claim it within the Sammath Naur. Tolkien said that we should judge by the intentions BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE SAMMATH NAUR (yes, I'm shouting, but don't take it personally.) And **before he entered** the Sammath Naur, Frodo did not have the intention of using the Ring to save Bilbo and the Shire; he had the intention of destroying the Ring.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:12 AM January 19, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

Just as an aside: Consider also the test that Galadriel and Faramir never had to take in the comfort of their own home. The test is this: carry the Ring for thirteen years on a chain in your pocket and never put it on and then after thirteen years of it being "your ring" in your pocket day after day, THEN try and throw it into your fireplace. Would Galadriel or Faramir have passed? No way. And that was exactly Gandalf's point; the ring already had a hold over Frodo even then, and it never let go.

[Finwe]

Bravo, mark12_30! That was a truly admirable post!


I think that what is happening is that many of us are being carried away by the grandiose scheme of Lord of the Rings. True, there are some infinitely complex characters, with some infinitely comlex motives, but Frodo was not one of them. We have to differentiate his simpler motives from the more complex ones. Especially in this case, all he wanted to do was destroy the Ring. Naturally, the Ring would want to prevent that. Perhaps it was Frodo's intentions that caused him to "fail" when he did. Think about it. If saving the Shire had been his primary objective, the Ring would have shown him visions of "Frodo the Brave, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword, and armies flocking to his banner," all to save the Shire. Naturally, that would have made him fail more quickly, since he would want to give in to that temptation so that he could save the Shire. Sam had to withstand that temptation too. It was by the virtue of Frodo's desire to destroy the Ring, NOT use it in any form or manner, that enabled him to get as far as he did.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen,

I'm not sure if we are seeing this differently or there is just a problem with language here. Let me elaborate and you can let me know whether you agree or not.

I agree that Frodo should not be judged for his decision at Sammath Naur, any more than he would be judged for a boulder falling onto his head.

And I also agree that when Frodo first trudged up that slope, he had no plan or intention to use the Ring to save anything. I'm sure he had rejected any tempting thoughts of rule that had ever crept into his mind (but I do believe they had crept in at some point along the trail, only to be rejected.) It was only standing at the very crack that he actually decided to claim the Ring.

But what I was trying to answer was this (a question that was mentioned earlier on the thread): why did Frodo claim the Ring at that particular moment? Was it mere possessiveness for the Ring itself, as seems to have been true with Gollum, or a conscious desire to claim it to do something?

As can be seen from my last post, Tolkien's earlier drafts for the chapter clearly state that Frodo claimed the Ring because he wanted to do something with it: he wanted to rule.....a rule that would be gentle, filled with poetry and feasts. That language does not appear in the final chapter. Yet while the ideas may have disappeared from the chapter, he never contradicted or refuted them (as was true with other scenarios such as Sam pushing in Gollum or Gollum repenting). Frodo's intentions were still there at the back of Tolkien's mind, a fact we can clearly see by studying the Letters.

In my earlier post, I mentioned that Frodo is grieving that he can't be a hero, only an agent of providence: something that Tolkien explicitly mentioned in his earlier draft and his Letters. The statement from the Letters is well known; on Frodo's desire as expressed in JRRT's earlier draft see this:

After all he is a great hero, Hobbits should become lords of men, and he their Lord, King Frodo, Emperor Frodo.

In her last post, Lyta Underhill came up with an even stronger argument than mine. It is based on Letter 246: the reference to the Ringwraiths bowing low and Frodo's dreams of reformed rule.

They (the Ringwraiths) would have greeted Frodo as 'Lord'. With fair speeches they would have induced him to look upon his new kingdom, and behold afar with his new sight the abode of power that he must now claim and turn to his own purposes'. Once outside the chamber while he was gazing some of them would have destroyed the entrance. Frodo would by then probably have been already too enmeshed in great plans of reformed rule--like but far greater and wider than the vision that tempted Sam--to heed this.

My apologies to Lyta for 'stealing' her quote! But it clearly implies what I am trying to say. Based on the Letters and the earlier drafts of the chapter, it's clear Frodo had ideas of "reformed rule" in mind when he claimed the Ring. It was not simply the Ring itself, as was true with Gollum.

This all suggests that Tolkien may have deleted the specific reasons why Frodo claimed the Ring, but that it was more than desire for the thing itself -- he had intentions of claiming power.

I do think Frodo must have run many ideas through his head on the journey, including saving the Shire, and then firmly rejected them. If you had asked Frodo in Lothlorien what he intended to do, he would not have hesitated even a single second to say that he was going to destroy it, in terms that were swifter and more certain than Galadriel's. He was absolutely certain that he wanted to throw away the Ring until he stood on the very steps of Mount Doom. There, in the seat or womb of all evil, other thoughts took over: he desired both the Ring and what that would enable him to do.

As to the question of Bilbo and preserving the Shire....we can never be sure. This is admittedly conjecture based on the nature of Frodo's personality and his 'Elvish' nature. But it sounds likely to me that any reformed rule Frodo envisioned would have surely included Bilbo and a 'preserved' Shire as well.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 11:52 AM January 19, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[mark12_30]

Sharon, I do think we are seeing it differently... as usual? smilies/wink.gif

In terms of Tolkien's previous texts: I don't see that they guaranteed what is behind the final text. There is much that between the early sketches and the final version.
In the earlier versions Frodo puts the Ring on outside the Sammath Naur; this was not crossed out, but it was tossed.
"He struggles to take off the Ring and cannot." Tossed.
"Here we will perish together, said the Wizard King. But Frodo draws Sting. He no longer has any fear whatsoever. Frodo is master of the Black Riders. He commands the Black Rider to follow the Ring his master and drives it into the Fire." Tossed.
In the same vein, Frodo's decision about world domination occuring to him outside the Sammath Naur and claiming the Ring outside the Sammath Naur were both also tossed.
Frodo doesn't put on the Ring til he's standing on the edge of the chasm, and the final text says nothing about world domination. It simply says, "I will not do this deed. The Ring is Mine."

Tolkien also writes as a footnote to letter 246:
"Actually, since the events at the Cracks of Doom would obviously be vital to the tale, I made several sketches or trial versions at various stages in the narrative-- but none of them were used, and none of them much resembled what is actually reported in the finished story."

The quotes from the letters look to me like they apply to after he put the Ring on. Before he put it on, I think his struggle was the same as the one he had back beside his own fireplace.

Once he put it on, then yes, its heady, raw power got to him instantaneously and he was overwhelmed; just as Sam was pretty quickly when he wore the Ring near Minas Morgul, imaginng Sam's Great Big Garden. So also with Frodo. Once he put it on, yes; the fantasies multiplied. But in the final version I don't think that's why he put it on in the first place.

We've seen Frodo again and again demonstrate violent posessiveness over the Ring, towards Gollum but also especially towards Sam. Gollum's attack just before they got to the doorway was all about posessiveness again:

This was probably the only thing that could have roused the dying embers of Frodo's heart and will: an attack, an attempt to wrest his treasure from him by force.

Meanwhile, in the Letters, it's precisely the letter that Lyta quotes that convinces me otherwise; that the decision to rule as 'Wise and Gentle Emperor Frodo' took effect AFTER he put on the Ring. I think that's why Tolkien left it out of the final version.

From the same area that Lyta quotes:

They (the Nazgul) would have greeted Frodo as Lord. With fair speeches they would have induced him to leave the Sammath Naur-- for instance 'to look upon his new kingdom, and behold afar with his new sight the abode of power that he must now claim and turn to his own purposes.'

There, I see an echo of the very same sales-pitch that I imagine the Ring gave Frodo the moment he put it on. However, Tolkien continues:

Once outside the chamber wile he was gazing some of them would probably have destroyed the entrance. Frodo would by then probably have been already too enmeshed in great plans of reformed rule-- like but far greater and and wider that the vision that tempted Sam-- to heed this. But if he still preserved some sanity and partly understood the significance of it, so that he refused to go with them to Barad Dur, they would simply have waited.

"Sanity" to me is the key word to that whole passage. "Sanity" points me to the Shadow of the Past, and Gandalf's repeated statements: if anyone tried to take it from you, you would go mad. Posession again.
And just as Sam recovered from his megalomania, Tolkien implies that Frodo would have recovered too, if he had had time-- and if he had not been so desperate not to lose, as Tolkien calls it, "his treasure."

One page previous, Tolkien says this: (letter 246) which begins by talking about Gollum:

Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale.) But 'posession' satisfied, I think he would have then sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and voluntarily cast himself into the abyss.

I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together--and in a flash he may have seen that this would also have been the greatest service to Frodo. Frodo in the tale actually takes the Ring and claims it, and certainly he too would have had a clear vision-- but he was not given any time: he was immediately attacked by Gollum. When Sauron was aware of the siezure of the Ring his one hope was in its power: that the claimant would be unable to relinquish it (my italics, posession again) until Sauron had time to deal with him. Frodo too would then probably, if not attacked, have had to take the same way: cast himself with the Ring into the Abyss. If not he would of course have completely failed.

So Tokien takes the stance that if Frodo had put on the Ring, claimed it, and then had time to *think*, he would have realized the folly of trying to use it to rule (as did Sam). But he had no time. And rather than giving up the Ring, Frodo would have gone into the abyss with it.

Going back to letter 246, Tolkien says this: however that may be explained, he had not in fact cast away the Ring by a voluntary act: he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still to desire it.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 1:34 PM January 19, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

But Frodo's 'Elvishness' predisposes him to take the Ring in the end. He thinks in terms of 'going back' to the old days with Bilbo in Bag End, of things being that way & never changing - which makes his realisation on the way home that 'There is no real going back' so terrible. Perhaps what we see going on in Frodo after the destruction of the Ring is what also went on in the mind's of the Elves - feelings of overwhelming loss, grief, failure, no option but to go back to Valinor.

Also, it seems Elves & mortals concieve of the Ring(s) differently. For Elves its a means of keeping things as they are, a way of stopping things moving forward, being pushed further & further from the only place they have any desire to be, their ideal past. Men seem to see it as their way forward - use it, get rid of Sauron, then use its power to change things.

I still think Frodo does fail the test Galadriel & Faramir pass, yes, he does suffer more than them, but in terms of a moral choice, a 'consenting' to what the Ring offers, they pass & he fails. 'The Ring is mine' is his surrender to the Elvish vice of 'flirting with Sauron' as Tolkien says the Elves have done in creating the Rings. He becomes more & more 'Elvish' as he goes on, more & more backward looking, till the future holds nothing for him, only a movement away from the place he wants to be. He stands at the Sammath Naur, an Elf in all but physical shape. The future is a horrible, grey nighmare, leading to nothing worth having. The Past is Bilbo & Bag End, woods, fields & little rivers. Destroy the Ring & guarantee that future, save the Ring, claim it & guarantee the past will go on forever. Tolkien says that Frodo expected, hoped even, to die in achieving the Quest. When did that desire arise - certainly not at the outset. I suspect it grew, along with the realisation that the destruction of the Ring would mean the end of the past, a guarantee that it would never return. Whether its Frodo's nostalgic mindset that draws him to the Elves, or the time he spends surrounded by Elvish things which affects him & changes his outlook from a mortal one to an Elvish one is another question. The destruction of the Ring is the destruction of what someone has called the Elven Block, a liberation from the weight of the past, freeing up all but the Elves to move forward - even, in a way, freeing up the Elves (against their will, perhaps) to go home to the only place they could be happy. Frodo tries to stop that. Psychologically Frodo was incapable of giving up the Ring at the end. He claimed it, because he'd already, mentally, 'claimed' the past. Destroying it would be destroying the past & leaving the way open for the future to happen. What Elf would choose the future over the past?

[mark12_30]

davem, the reason that I don't agree with your statement quoted below is that in the Letters, Tolkien said that *nobody* could have resisted the Ring within the Sammath Naur. Frodo passed Faramir's and Galadriel's test all the way from Bag End to the doorway of the Sammath Naur. But Tolkien says that within the Sammath Naur, defeating the Ring was impossible. Comparing Galadriel and Faramir's tests to Frodo's experience within the Sammath Naur is illogical. They are not the same test.
I still think Frodo does fail the test Galadriel & Faramir pass, yes, he does suffer more than them, but in terms of a moral choice, a 'consenting' to what the Ring offers, they pass & he fails.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 8:19 AM January 20, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

Well, he couldn't have resisted the power of the Ring, especially at the end, not physically or mentally, but the question is, did his will assent to claiming the Ring. Did he continue to resist spiritually? He was going to get 'stuck' with the Ring at the end anyway, because it would overwhelm anyone, but Galadriel could not only reject the Ring physically & mentally - which Frodo could not at the end, she could also reject it 'spiritually'. I think the fact that Tolkien can relate the words of the Lord's Prayer to those last moments in the Sammath Naur - 'Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us' & refer them specifically to Frodo's act of mercy to Gollum - ie, Frodo 'forgave' Gollum's trespasses against him, & so Frodo was 'forgiven' by The Authority - implies that Tolkien considers that Frodo was in need of 'forgiveness' for something, that he had 'trespassed', gone where he shouldn't have gone, claimed something he had no right to claim. His mercy to Gollum lead The Authority to show him mercy.

None of this makes Frodo a 'bad' person, or lessens his struggle. Frodo was forgiven, by The Authority. Frodo did break in the end, & in the end he failed, but he failed in not trusting & giving in to despair. He couldn't trust in providence, or believe there was hope in the future. He couldn't, in the end, trust The Authority. He couldn't believe that, as Julian of Norwich put it 'For sin is behovely, but all shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. For Frodo, All had been well, but wouldn't, couldn't, be so any more, because once the Ring had gone, the past would be gone with it. 'The Ring is Mine' - the past is mine, Bilbo, Bag End, the Shire, the Green Dragon, wandering in the woods of the Shire, the innocence of childhood, the comforts of the past, suffused with a golden glow of nostalgia, is mine, & I will keep it forever & ever & ever. The future will never happen. Everything will be preserved for ever, just as I want it. (Just like the Elves. Like Galadriel, wanting to live in a land where the trees & flowers don't die. Like Tolkien himself, perhaps, in the trenches, with his friends dying around him, would have maybe wished to go back to his childhood at Sarehole.)
Its understandable, & not deserving of condemnation - certainly not by us - but it is, in the end, wrong, because it rejects Illuvatar's plan & trust in The Authority. So, Frodo, I think, does 'sin' because he does as the Elves did & 'flirts with Sauron', seeking control & domination, not motivated by malice, but by fear, exhaustion & hopelessness. Galadriel could take the Ring & have everything she'd dreamed of, but is wise enough to know how it would end & humble enough, finally, to trust. Frodo, in the end, did claim it.

Of course, you're right, it was only after he put on the Ring that the fantasies of world dominance surfaced in his mind, but the Ring had taken what was already there, the desires that had tormented him for so long. Those desires were his, not planted by the Ring.

(Isn't this kind of discussion great? I love this smilies/smile.gif

[mark12_30]

davem,

Yes, I do like these discussions... quite a bit.

Meanwhile, you've caught me without Letters... again. But in Letters if I may paraphrase, Tolkien discusses the difference between a moral failure and a failure that comes from being utterly spent. He says that one cannot judge the two alike.

Let me try an example of my own... let's suppose two men are each supposed to carry a message to a king. The first is twenty-seven miles away from the king. The second is half-a-mile from the king.

The first runs twenty-six miles and drops dead of a heart attack. The second (who only has to run half a mile) just gives up and chooses instead to get a cup of coffee. The half-miler who gave up is a Moral failure. He was able; he had plenty of miles left in him to spend; but he chose to give up.

The first, however, completely spent himself trying to deliver the message. He gave himself over to his mission. The king did not get the message, true; but one can hardly fault the messenger; he did all he was able to do. He was utterly spent.

Tolkien discusses this difference between failing at something you CAN do (the man who chose to give up during his half-mile run) and failing at somthing you CANNOT do (the man who died on Mile 26.)

His point is that Frodo's body AND will had been utterly spent, and he had been placed in an impossible situation. There was no way he could have thrown the Ring in. In both will and body, he was utterly spent.

Tolkien says that Frodo's failure, since he was utterly spent in will and body, was not a moral failure, any more than if he had failed in the quest because for instance he was killed by a large falling rock. We wouldn't call that sin. We'd call that being flattened. Frodo was flattened, and put in a situation completely beyond his ability. He was honored because he got that far, which nobody else would have been able to do.

Tolkien says that Frodo was at peace once the Ring was destroyed. Peace is key. He's neither under conviction nor condemnation (if you understand the Christianese; if not let me know, I'll explain.) Anyway, he was at peace immediately after the experience at the Sammath Naur. Tolkien does qualify that he also expects to die, however. But that doesn't happen-- no glorious martyr's death.

If anything, Tolkien says that his sins come in later.

One of them is pride, in that he wished he could have come home (or die) a hero instead of coming home quietly as a "tool of Providence." The other, was that he was tempted to regret the destruction of the Ring and *still to desire it*. ("It is gone, and now all is dark and empty." )

Pride, regretting the destruction of the Ring and desiring still to posess it, those three things are what Tolkien clearly pinpoints as Frodo's sin, and what he cannot get past. For that, he sails west to what TOlkien describes as a purgatory and a reward both; to understand his true place both "in littleness and greatness."

EDIT:

Rereading your post and seeing this

did his will assent to claiming the Ring
I believe, if I uderstand what I've read, that Tolkien would say, No, he had no will left. I think this is what TOlkien means by saying that his will had been "utterly spent" along with his body. (I wish I could say what letter that was; I'll look it up tonight if nobody beats me to it.)

ANOTHER EDIT:
Sharon, I think I just explained why I don't think Frodo put the ring on intending to rule. Because of that line of Tolkien's: "His will and body were utterly spent." According to Tolkien, he had no will left; he had spent every scrap of it in getting there.

When he says "I do not choose to do what I have come to do. I will not do this thing. The Ring is Mine.", I don't see that as Frodo choosing, *willing*, a new outlook and change of plans. Tolkien says his will is spent, so how could he choose? What he does "choose to do", if choice you call it under such circumstances, is to submit to the Ring and stop resisting it. I see that as an ultimate surrender to the Ring itself. I see that as, he is so spent, he cannot resist the domination of the ring for another moment. He simply surrenders to the Ring because he is utterly spent, and overwhelmed. He obeys it instead of resisting it.

At that point, the Ring owns him. It takes over. All of its' powers are free to work, and they do, like an avalanche. Because his will and body have been "utterly spent", he cannot resist it at all, and he becomes its tool; he belongs to it, and not the other way around.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:35 AM January 20, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

But if The Ring dominates Frodo's mind & Will then 'Sin'/evil is external, not internal, & we go for the Manichean view. Evil is an objectively existing force which can dominate & manipulate the individual against the individual's will, even if the individual does not consent. But this is not traditional Christian teaching, as I uderstand it. This would, in fact, mean that Frodo, or any of us could 'lose our soul' against our will, simply because we suffered too much for too long, & were broken by it. We could be 'damned' simply because we're not superhuman. Doesn't Christianity teach that we have to consent to an act before it can be called a sin? Surely from the Manichean perspective it would be a case of 'I am the Ring's', but Frodo says 'The Ring is mine'. He claims it as his own, as Feanor claimed the Silmarils (& later as did Morgoth). This kind of claim is posessiveness. Frodo can still say 'I' - so he's still 'in there'. If Frodo's 'sin', that for which he requires to be 'forgiven' only follows the destruction of the Ring, how would 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us' apply to the events at the Sammath Naur? He isn't 'giving in' to a piece of jewellery, but to something which the Ring is a physical 'locus' for. I think that is a very 'Elvish' thing - magic, the Machine, control & coercion - for understandable reasons, while in a state physically & pyschologically for which we can only feel absolute sympathy, but he fails because he's too Elvish. If we look back over his story we can see this clinging to the past & avoidance of even thinking about the future. Sam wants to marry, have children & is ultimately fulfilled by that. Frodo has no such desire. He's almost a Galahad figure on an anti Grail Quest, & they both leave the world at the end of it, because they're both born only to undertake that quest. I may have got a bit carried away & overstated my case, but I can't shake the feeling that on some level Frodo knew what he was doing when he claimed the Ring, knew what the Ring was - as far as anyone could, & that on some level he assented to it, & that though he felt at peace immediately after its destruction, the realisation of what he'd assented to, & the resultant guilt began to eat away at him. I think he blamed himself for all the things he saw himself failing at - saving the Shire, saving Gollum, & not only failing to destroy the Ring, but actually trying to save it. If we absolve Frodo of any guilt & present him as helpless victim, merely a kind of automaton, then the shock of the events at the Sammath Naur are lost -'Frodo' is not present, & its just Sam, Gollum & the Ring manipulating the puppet Frodo's body. I can't think of that scene without a Frodo who is conscious & aware & assenting, to some degree. It seems too much of a cop out to 'excuse' what Frodo did by saying he wasn't really there.

[mark12_30]

davem, how else do you explain Tolkien's statement that Frodo's will and body were "utterly spent"? I'll dig up the relevant section of Letters when I get home. But that's the essense of it.

On the other hand, I don't for a moment think that that would "cost him his salvation"; not for an instant, any more than having a rock land on you. I think that's why Tolkien made it so plain that Frodo's failure was not a moral failure. I think it's also why Frodo was at peace (in the midst of the lava.) If he had sinned, he wouldn't have been at peace; he'd have been drowning in guilt.

It'll be a couple of hours til I can get that quote...

Whether all this is manichean or ... whatever, I don't know (my Christianese doesn't extend that far) but it is Catholic; it is TOlkien's view that he developed as a Catholic.

Anyway... more later.

[doug*platypus]

According to Tolkien, he had no will left; he had spent every scrap of it in getting there.
An important distinction between will and resistance needs to be made at this point. To imply that Frodo had no more will left in the matter gives the situation over entirely to the Ring (an inanimate object?). As davem so eloquently notes (in what I incidentally believe is the finest post of an already fine posting career), this is to take the Manichaen view of a good external power versus an evil external power. This is the overly simplistic belief that many light readers find in The Lord of the Rings, and which has been used frequently in popular fantasy ever since the book was published.

As T.E. Shippey points out in his fantastic book, The Road to Middle-Earth, Tolkien shows us a world delicately balanced between the Boethian and Manichaen views, both of which are too simplified or polarised to provide a comprehensive answer to reality (not that we'll ever know all the answers, hopefully).

Anyway, while it may be true that Frodo loses all resistance to the temptation of the Ring through his arduous physical and emotional journey, this doesn't necessarily mean he has lost his will. That is, if by 'will' you mean "the ability to make your own decision", or the meanings given by Merriam-Webster as: 3: the act, process or experience of willing
or
5: the power or control over one's own actions or emotions If Frodo no longer had any will in the matter, then you must believe that the voice he was speaking with in the Sammath Naur was not his own, and that he personally did not make the decision to claim the Ring.

I believe that he did make the decision himself (see my earlier post), and that the voice was his own. While he may have had no resistance left, he certainly had the will to make the decision. And thus, as davem says, he did 'fall' and commit that particular sin of claiming It for himself.

[mark12_30]

Letter 191:

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

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

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



(There follows a paragraph about publishing the Silmarillion, and then the letter ends.)

192:
By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem to even have observed it. But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event. And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere 'fairy-story' ending in which the hero is indomitable? It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome-- in themselves. In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted. .....

Frodo deserved all honor because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said.) See Vol 1 p. 65. A third (the only other) commentator on the point some months ago reviled Frodo as a scoundrel (who should have been hung and not honoured), and me too. It seems sad and strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good will are tortured, 'brainwashed', and broken, anyone could be so fiercely simpleminded and self-righteous.


There follows a paragraph about Walter de la Mare and then the letter ends.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 7:10 PM January 20, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

From the letters quoted above, I would draw attention to several phrases in particular:

not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back

unless 'bearing temptation' is taken to mean resisting it while still a free agent in normal command of the will.

In the case of those who now issue from prison 'brainwashed', broken, or insane, praising their torturers, no such deliverance is as a rule to be seen. But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will.

It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome-- in themselves.
…
Frodo deserved all honor because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further.

These passages indicate to me that Tolkien held Frodo blameless. Phrases like "a free agent in normal command of the will" indicate to me that he did not consider Frodo to be such. A previously quoted passage from letters used the word "sanity".

While I'm at it... Letter 246:

Frodo undertook his quest out of love-- to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try and find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been-- say, by being strangled by Gollum, or being crushed by a rock.

...

But what Frodo himself felt about the events is quite another matter.

He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt (III224-5); he was restored to sanity and peace. But then he thought that he had given his life in sacrifice: he expected to die very soon. But he did not, and we can observe the disquiet growing in him.

Tolkien follows with a discussion of two temptations that Frodo suffered: " a last flicker of pride, a desire to have returned as a 'hero'"... and the second "he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still to desire it." ... "He went {west} both to a purgatory and a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and greatness..."


Sorry, I'd have typed more of it out but I have chores to do... But I think that this much underscores exactly where Tolkien felt that Frodo sinned; and it was afterwards, in the Shire. Not in the "breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment".

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 7:32 PM January 20, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

Y'all move too fast for me! smilies/wink.gif
davem: I can't shake the feeling that on some level Frodo knew what he was doing when he claimed the Ring, knew what the Ring was - as far as anyone could, & that on some level he assented to it
from Helen's quote of Letter 246: I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been-- say, by being strangled by Gollum, or being crushed by a rock.
Perhaps there are two degrees of the same thing being considered here. One asserts that Frodo knew what he was doing when he claimed the Ring, the other that it was the natural result of his being utterly spent and not so much a conscious decision. The part of Letter 246 that I had previously quoted does seem to point to the immediate aftermath of Frodo's claiming the Ring, the "what do I do now?" moment, rather than the "what will I do?" moment where he initially claims the Ring. I'm pretty sure he isn't thinking just as Sam does, of Mordor as a flowering paradise, etc., but undergoing an internal battle. As Tolkien says, the test is too much for any incarnate being. All are broken under this test. But the breaking takes different routes depending on the one broken.

I would not classify Frodo as someone who was in “normal command of the will” at Sammath Naur. Certainly not. But I believe he had a consciousness that could see what was happening to him, even if he could not remember it entirely, nor control it in the end. I would liken the state of mind to a hopeless addict, who is given the final choice of throwing away his last dose of drug so that he can be healed. By himself, that would probably not happen. The addict knows what is the best choice, but he cannot make it, being weakened by extreme physical and mental need. I can’t say this is a perfect analogy—it certainly isn’t. But I think there is an element here that echoes of the inner voice that knows the action is wrong but cannot help taking the action anyway, a human failing. Without the awareness, the person becomes an automaton, a cocaine lever-pressing rat. With the awareness, there is humanity, sentience, the ability to discern.

I would never suggest that Frodo’s failure would make him undeserving of forgiveness. I do agree that he is no more culpable than if he had been crushed by a rock, as noted above. The idea I get at the point of greatest struggle is that of an inability to let go, to trust to the higher power. Rather, as I believe was said earlier in this thread (I can’t remember where at the moment), the Ring was everything. For Frodo, it was either embrace the Ring in its entirety, with all that entails, or embrace nothingness, the realm of Morgoth, the opposite of Light. I would be afraid to take that plunge too! I cannot really speak to the theological aspects and I’d probably sound like an idiot if I tried, and you all seem to have read 100% more critical/analytical works than I. I would agree with Helen that there is no real sin in Frodo’s claiming of the Ring, but I don’t think that he necessarily is unaware of what he is doing. I hope that made sense!

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Firstly, Doug, thanks for what you said, but I find myself undeserving. I am happy if people find anything I post even readable!

Helen,

this failure was adumbrated from far back.... A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning.....No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of evil is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

I think these are central quotes. Frodo does 'fail' - because no one could succeed. The power of evil is not finally resistble by incarnate creatures. Frodo cannot resist it. He fails. Because both Good & evil are external realities (at least as far as Middle Earth prior to the fall of Sauron is concerned) and internal responses/reactions to those realities then for an act to constitute a moral failure or 'sin', there must be an internal consent. Frodo 'fails', he cannot finally resist evil, because it seems to him at that point that the result of that final act of resistance will be so terrible he would not be able to live with it.

" a last flicker of pride, a desire to have returned as a 'hero'"... and the second "he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still to desire it." ... "He went {west} both to a purgatory and a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and greatness..."

This is central, though, isn't it? Pride & desire - pride the great sin, & desire. The fact he is sent not simply to a reward, but to a purgatory, to be purified of his 'sin' implies that he had something to deal with, to take responsibility for. Lyta's point about the addict stands, in that Frodo is not addicted to the Ring as a piece of jewelery, as something with sentimental value, but to what it offers - control, the 'Luciferic' sin - pride, desire, to usurp The Authority, to re-make the world in his own image, to 'put right' what he feels The Authority has got wrong, to stop The Authority doing what he has planned. There is also fear, which comes ultimately from a lack of trust, which comes from a sense of seperation ('My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?). So, Frodo feels alone, deserted & desperate to get back to a time & place when he was happy & things made sense, but this is, harsh as it may sound, not 'the escape of the prisoner' but the 'flight of the deserter'. He is broken, exhausted, desperate for it all to stop. He wants to run away, run back to safety, & at the last moment, he deserts, fails, sins, but cannot be blamed, must be forgiven, because he has done what no-one else could. Only, as we find Tolkien stating in the Athrabeth, can The Authority Him/Her/Itself go the whole way, & not be broken in the end. Frodo sins, finally, because we are all sinners. Frodo cannot be free of sin, because if he was he wouldn't need to be saved. For Tolkien the Catholic we all need to be saved. The Authority must enter into the world He has given being to, because it cannot save itself, because however hard anyone in that world tries, however much they sacrifice, at the end, they will fail, because they're fallen, & cannot stand by themselves.

David (thought I'd give my real name finally!)

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:03 AM January 21, 2004: Message edited by: davem ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

David,

You have said this far better than I could have done. I do see it as pride and desire both for the Ring itself and for what that Ring represents: Frodo's unwillingness to surrender fully to the Authority, his choice to assert his own will. And he continues to question his place in the scheme of things even after the Ring has been destroyed, and he returns to the Shire.

As seen through the prism of Tolkien's Catholic faith, the nature of man is such that Frodo simply could not have thrown the Ring away. In that one sense he can not be "blamed" for his act. Yet the 'failure' is still there, within Frodo's mind and heart, extending even beyond the life of the Ring. Therefore, it must be dealt with. And so Tolkien speaks of "sin" and the need for a place of purgatory.

The thing that confirms Frodo's "failure" is that Tolkien was not sure whether the hobbit would ever find healing within the circles of the world, even within the white shores of Tol Eressea. I've never been able to comprehend that fully and find myself inserting a "happier" ending by painting a mental picture of Frodo's possible "redemption" in the West, just how and when that coming to terms with guilt and sin might happen. (I wonder if I am the only one to do this?) Yet, given the nature of Man, sometimes the images from the Sea Bell comes wafting into my head, and I question whether any healing was really possible within the bounds of Arda, no matter how much I would like to will it to be so.

Perhaps, those critics who berate Tolkien for "happy endings" haven't actually taken time to read the book. Like much of life, the ending of the story is bittersweet, filled with a solemn joy but also uncertainty and loss. I think we read these final chapters again and again because they touch a raw cord in each of our hearts, and remind us of what it is like to be human.

sharon

[davem]

Sharon,

I think Tolkien is saying there is hope, at the end, beyond the circles of the world - even if all we have here is 'hope without guarantees'. But the Sea Bell does echo(!) & Tolkien only offers hope & speculation about Frodo's ultimate fate. Does he eventually learn to accept his 'littleness'? As 'The Sea Bell' its a haunting poem. As 'Frodo's Dreme' its devastating. Its entirely possible that Frodo never does achive happiness in the world. Perhaps happiness is one of the things that Frodo mentions some people having to give up so that others may keep them. Who says happiness is something any of us will end up with - I'm not sure its the same thing as 'Joy', but thats getting too far into semantics. He learns wisdom, but wisdom can be about suffering as much as about joy. In the end, we aren't given enough information about what's going on in Frodo's head & heart to be able to truly know.

The problem with the idea that Frodo does not give in at the end, & 'desert his post' (accepting all the while that all the rest of us would have fled long before), & basing that on the argument that he was not physically strong enough, or that his will was not strong enough is that it implies that if he had been a little stronger in body or will he would have succeeded. Its the Nietzschian view - God is dead, & the Superman will save us. Lets strengthen our bodies & our wills, & we will conquer. But Tolkien says we are fallen beings & we will always fail. Its like Peter denying Christ at the end, through fear, & a desperate desire to escape bad experiences. Survival instinct cuts in, perhaps. But its still desertion, because of a lack of trust.

I'm reminded of one of Charles Williams Arthurian poems, where Taliesin, the King's poet, while Arthur is leading the main battle to gain Kingship, goes to Camelot with a small force to depose Cradlemas, the dictator. There is a combat & Taliesin deals Cradlemas a mortal blow & stands watching him die. There's a line, that Taliesin felt 'Righted by earth, but from Heaven displighted', & that 'Cain & he had one immingled brain'. Taliesin has done the 'right' thing - killed a dictator, a monster, helped liberate the people & make way for the peace & justice of Arthur's rule. But at the same time he's taken a life, broken God's law. But what was the alternative? To stand by, be 'Righted by Heaven, but from earth displighted'? Reject his human responsibility & go live in an Ivory Tower & write poetry? Basically, Taliesin is a fallen being in a fallen world & will fail in one way or another, & can only be saved by 'Grace'.

Frodo 'fails' at the end because failure is our destiny, we will give in at the end because we're not strong enough to stand alone. So The Authority has to intervene to lift us up, even if we fell in betraying 'Him', because His only alternative would be to leave us on the ground. Its not to condemn Frodo to say he deserted at the end - as I said elsewhere, I tend to idealise Frodo - its merely to acknowledge his humanity.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 4:12 AM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: davem ]

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:36 AM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: davem ]

[Essex]

In all these eloquent and interesting posts, I believe it all boils down to one simple thing.

Whether Frodo claimed the ring of his own accord or via another power forcing him to do so, to me he did not fail at the end because of his compassion to let Gollum live. He, and Middle-earth were redeemed because of this one act.

Sorry if I've gone off tangent, but this is surely what Tolkien meant when you look at the plot of the book.

Frodo, no doubt helped with guidance from Gandalf at Bag End, does not kill or let Gollum be killed. Because of this Middle-earth is saved.

Whether he MEANT to claim the Ring or not at the Cracks of Doom is immaterial. He did not fail.

He may have THOUGHT in his own mind that he DID fail, but that is different. Is not the pain of bite, sting and blade enough to go to the West to seek healing, and not because of any failure or sin on his part?

[Evisse the Blue]

This is a wonderful discussion which I have followed for many days, and not dared to interrupt.

I basically agree with Helen, because everything that Tolkien said seems to back up her point of view, but I think that Sharon and David have argued eloquently some very interesting ideas.

Right now I want to point out something. Helen, you said that Tolkien believed that Frodo's real sins were made later on: namely, his pride and his temptation to still desire the ring:
It has gone and now all is dark and empty.But if his temptation and desire for the Ring still lived on, even after the Ring was destroyed and his power was quenched, how can Frodo still desired for it, if all he desired was the Ring itself, as you argued. If in his choosing to claim the Ring, Frodo was simply obeying the demonical influence of the Ring over his mind in Sammath Naur, why would he still desire it in the peaceful Shire, years after it has been destroyed. Moreover, his choice of words "and now all is dark and empty' speaks precisely in favour of that Elvish nostalgia for the things that passed along with the passing of the Ring, the preserving of which, as David had argued, represented Frodo's motivation when he claimed the Ring.

[mark12_30]

Elvisse, because the same held true for Bilbo, even after the Ring was destroyed. He still desired it. And he never ha any plans for world domination either. "What has become of my old ring, Frodo?" "I lost it, uncle." "Pity..."

I've been mulling all this over the past several days, and I think it is finally coalescing into something summarizable. I'll see what I can put together... more later.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:21 AM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

Essex, The question of failure is complex. How & why he did or didn't fail goes to the heart of the story. I can only repeat that if he succeeded then we have Tolkien saying we fallen creatures can save ourselves & have no need of any outside intervention, which as a Catholic he would never have even thought, let alone written & put his name to. He does fail at last, because the task is too big for him. He claims the Ring for himself, with all that entails, because he cannot bear the thought of a future without it, or any 'future' at all, if his cri de coeur 'There is no real going back' is anything to go by. He can't go back so as far as he's concerned there's no point. He can't have the past back, so he feels all is pointless.

He succeeds up to a point, & gets farther than any of us would have done, but in the end he fails. He doesn't destroy the Ring. He claims it for his own. Moral failure - a stark, harsh, thing to say but a fact, & inevitable. Frodo knows it, & he blames himself for it, because at the end, back in the Shire, he still believes he should have succeeded. As Tolkien says, one of the reasons he has to go into the West is to learn that, like Bilbo, he is only a little person in a wide world, & his desire to be a hero & save the world was beyond him. Even at the end he can say to Sam 'I tried to save the world', but he can then add 'and it has been saved' (implication: but I failed to do it all by myself, so I have to leave).

I'm not saying Frodo failed in a condemnatory way, as if to imply that someone else would have succeeded. I'm just saying that in the end he failed, because he gave in & claimed the Ring, which everyone else would have done, & most a lot sooner. I'm saying we are all fallen, & will all fail in the end, because the task is too big for us to succeed at alone - whatever certain writers may say about building a 'republic of heaven'!

[mark12_30]

EDIT: Whoa! Many more posts since I began this one: Apologies to those in between!

Original post (book):

Why do I feel so strongly that the answer to the question "Why did Frodo claim the Ring" isn't to rule the world, to save the Shire, or even to save Bilbo, but simply that he wanted to possess it? And why do I feel that Tolkien does not hold Frodo responsible for his "failure" at the Sammath Naur?
Since I've already gone over it before, I'll put my arguments in favor of "posession" into italics so you can skip it if you like:

(begin posessiveness section)

For one thing, Tolkien says that Frodo's failure was adumbrated from far back. " to foreshadow vaguely; to give a sketchy representation or outline of, to suggest or disclose partially; overshadow, obscure". Tolkien then refers to the fact that Frodo couldn't even toss it into his own fireplace. So for starters, even if Frodo had been airlifted at that moment from Bag End to the Cracks of Doom, he would have failed. Why? Frodo had posessed the Ring for (50 - 33 = ) 17 years before Gandalf informed him the thing was deadly. It was something Bilbo had given him, that few knew about. No doubt he and Bilbo had many secrets; this was one of them, one that he touhed every day. For those seventeen years, he carried it in his pocket on a chain. That meant that every time he changed breeches, he re-chained the ring into his breeches pocket. We know from his gaffe at the Prancing Pony that he had the habit of playing with the things in his pocket, fingering them, whenever he was nervous. The Ring was always there when he was nervous. (along with other items such as coins or a pocket-knife.) Now look at his response when Gandalf challenges him to toss it into the fireplace:

The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its color, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious.
Remember Gandalf told Frodo that a Ring of power looks after itself; that the owner never loses it or gives it away; he may toy with the idea at first, but he won't be able to do it; and to Gandalf's knowledge, Bilbo was the first person ever to freely (with prodding!) give the Ring away. The Ring itself enforces the idea of posession. Gandalf said Frodo would be and indeed demonstrated that he was very posessive of it at the Fireplace. Throughout his journey, Frodo makes two serious efforts to give the Ring away: once to Gandalf; once to Galadriel. Other than that, book-Frodo keeps the Ring close and hidden (as he is directed to do.)

THe language that Frodo uses whenever his posession of the Ring is challenged, by Sam, or by Gollum, is language of posession. Sometimes it's that he posesses the quest; sometimes it's that he posesses the burden; when aroused to anger or self-defense, however, the language is that of posessing the Ring. "No, you won't, you thief!" he tells Sam. He is always reluctant to let anyone else, including Gandalf at his fireside or Bilbo at Rivendell, to handle or touch the Ring. We are told frequently that he grasps at it, that his hand reaches for it, sometimes uncontrollably. Whenever there is Nazgul-pressure that reaching-for-the-ring is more difficult to resist.

So... from The Shadow of the Past onward, Frodo's posessiveness of the Ring is foretold, implied, described, discussed, and both subtly and overtly displayed. It's not like Tolkien hinted a few times. He repeatedly hammered the subject home that Frodo was jealously posessive of the Ring.

The outlines and drafts that he wrote saying that Frodo had prior intentions of world-rule, or perhaps ordering Elrond or Galadriel to preserve the Shire for him, or Bilbo, are not in the final version. There is nothing in Frodo's statement in the final version to imply ambition. There is only language implying relationship between him and the Ring. "I have come; but I do not now choose to do what I came to do. I will not do this thing. The Ring is mine." Nothing else is mentioned besides the Ring, Frodo, the thing he came to do (destroy the Ring) and his choice. The old posessiveness which has been there all lalong is still there; and Tolkien gives no indication in the final version that any new sin has occurred. (Of course the sin of posessiveness is still there, as it has been all along. But there is no indication that ambition to rule has been added to it.)

(end posessiveness section)


Tolkien discusses the Sammath Naur in his letters in terms of insanity and demonic opression ("Sanity restored"; "the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment".) In addition, he compares Frodo to those recently released from torture and prison: "In the case of those who now issue from prison 'brainwashed', broken, or insane, praising their torturers, no such deliverance is as a rule to be seen. But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur."
Clearly, Tolkien considers Frodo claiming the Ring as
(a) under demonic opression "the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment".
(b) insane: "if he still preserved some sanity" and "He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt (III224-5); he was restored to sanity and peace." (Tolkein's italics, not mine, BTW)
(c) not a free decision, from the statement "a free agent in normal command of the will"
To me these statements by Tolkien sound like a legal defense: "Not guilty due to demonic opression and torment, insanity, and unbearable coercion of the will."

Reconsidering the references to " those who now issue from prison 'brainwashed', broken, or insane, praising their torturers", I believe Tolkien spent time considering the results of World War II. Now it's my turn to guess, but looking at TOlkein's statements about prison camps and torture, I think he was affected by the prison camps of WWII and the horror stories of what had happened to the inmates of the prison camps. While he may have begun the tale with plans of having Frodo decide to "defect", he was mailing the final Mordor chapters to Christopher throughout the war, and the outlines came before then. I think that WWII changed him and that he felt that "defection" was no longer neccessary; that Frodo had been through such torment that he was broken, and defeated, and changed inwardly by the torment, like a prison-camp inmate. "It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome-- in themselves."

Further, Tolkien discusses Frodo's temptations later, from the perspective of having returned to the Shire. He discusses pride (the desire to have returned a hero: as maril once said, to walk up and casually toss the Ring into the Chasm) and he discusses the temptation to still desire the Ring and to regret its destruction "It is gone, and now all is dark and empty": no more wheel of fire. Tolkien does not discuss in the letters that Frodo felt guilty over his decision to save the Shire by force, or to order Galadriel or Elrond (or Gandalf) to preserve the Shire, or anything similar to that.

So, to sum up what I see as Frodo's sin in all of this: Posessiveness (which he had had all along, and which he was unable to resist in the end) ; pride (wishing he had returned a hero and not an instrument of Providence) and the temptation to regret the destruction of the Ring and still to desire it (possessiveness again.) Was he imperfect? Certainly. Did he fall? Yes; before the quest by his Fireplace, if not before; and again, once he returned to The Shire, he was tempted by pride, and regret. Do I count The Sammath Naur as another fall? Not separate from his fall at The Fireplace; I see it as one and the same; and in terms of "falling" at the Cracks of Doom, like Tolkien I hold him not guilty (demonic opression, insanity, and coercion of the will.)

Does he need salvation? Yes. He did at his Fireplace, too. He needed salvation all along (just like the rest of us; all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.) There was nothing about his decision at the Cracks of Doom that changed that in any way.

Tolkien stated in Letters that Frodo was a study of a hobbit broken by long torment. Does he need healing? Of course; that's made apparent by his pride and his desire to still posess the Ring that he can't free himself of, but his need is also due to the torment and breaking and opression that he went through.
***********

Good Grief, this was supposed to be a summary??? smilies/rolleyes.gif

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 12:18 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[mark12_30]

davem, your last post I can heartily assent to except the single part that calls Frodo's failure a "moral failure." Tolkien expressly states that the Sammath Naur wasn't a moral failure on Frodo's part any more than being killed by a falling rock. (See the demonic opression/ sanity/ free will argument above.) Other than that, I heartily agree with all you say; I guess I see that Frodo's salvation (from his own sin of posessiveness and pride) was always needed, and not just at the Sammath Naur. It was the World that needed saving at the Sammath Naur, and for that, Frodo himself according to Tolkien was placed in a sacrificial position.

And in that, Essex, what you say (also) is true: although Frodo's freedom, free will, and sanity were (at the Sammath Naur) sacrificed, nevertheless at that moment, the pity and mercy that Frodo had shown to Gollum were used by Providence to save Middle-Earth.

Also, Essex, I believe that the sting, tooth, blade, and long burden drove him west, but also so did his own pride, and longing for the ring that was gone forever. Tolkien indicates that he needed to understand his position in littleness and greatness; that is a pride issue... So it was both sin and injury; his pride and posessiveness, and also his emotional and physical pain.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 3:56 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Essex]

Dave,

I can only repeat that if he succeeded then we have Tolkien saying we fallen creatures can save ourselves & have no need of any outside intervention

and

He succeeds up to a point, & gets farther than any of us would have done, but in the end he fails. He doesn't destroy the Ring.


Let’s see what his task actually WAS. Elrond’s last words to Frodo are:
The Ring-bearer is setting out on the Quest of Mount Doom. On him alone is any charge laid: neither to cast away the Ring, nor to deliver it to any servant of the Enemy nor indeed to let any handle it, save members of the Company and the Council, and only then in gravest need.

Yes, the Quest was to destroy the Ring. Does it say anywhere, you Frodo, must throw the Ring into the Cracks of Doom. No (not anywhere I can see). Frodo did not fail, because the Quest was for the Ring to be destroyed. It was. Frodo did his work by getting the Ring to the Cracks of Doom. Then Redemption, because of Frodo’s (and Sam’s at the end) Mercy towards Gollum took over. (This is the outside intervention you mentioned, Dave. It does not mean he failed, it just assisted Frodo in getting the job done)

In my opinion, Frodo's success or failure is NOT complex. The Quest was to destroy the Ring. The Ring was destroyed. Just because he himself did not through the ring in the Fire is not failure. Indeed, in a previous post, it has been mentioned that Tolkien himself stated in a Letter that no-one could have thrown the ring into the fire at Mount Doom. So it was impossible for Frodo to do this on his own, he required assistance and got it because of his Mercy.

Frodo knows it, & he blames himself for it, because at the end, back in the Shire, he still believes he should have succeeded.

I Agree. Frodo thinks he HAS failed, but he is incorrect, due to his great modesty. This is what makes his leaving even more of a bitter pill to swallow. I say that Frodo has modesty because I’m struggling to find Frodo’s pride that Tolkien himself has spoken about (?) I can see that Sam himself is sad that the people of the Shire do not see Frodo as a hero, but I do not see Frodo being bothered by this.

[davem]

Ok, this is a bit of an awkward post, because as I still haven't got around to setting up my new ibook, I'm posting from work, & I'm being blocked from accessing the whole of p2 for some reason, so I can't see any posts from yesterday, but a few things have come to me that I want to throw in.

It seems that a lot of people 'blank' out Frodo's behaviour at the Sammath Naur, & jump mentally from him entering to the destruction of the Ring, or they decide he wasn't really aware of what he was doing, like some tacky SF movie where the hero seems to do something bad, but it turns out to have been his 'evil' twin, or a clone or a robot. To think Frodo wasn't really conscious, or aware of his actions: his 'betrayal' is like that, I think. But Tolkien doesn't allow that. It [i]was[i] Frodo, we can't escape it. The 'saintly', self sacrificing Frodo, who we have suffered with for so long, who we want so desperately to be the Hero. It is disturbing, horrific, but true. He did give in. But Tolkien doesn't blame him, or make him into a villain. Tolkien forgives him, & asks that we also forgive him, while still acknowledgeing that forgiveness is required, because there is something that needs to be forgiven.

Imagine the end of Return of the Jedi, if Lucas had done the same thing - had Luke turn to the Dark Side. Another Darth Vader. And we'd have left the cinema feeling, what? Depressed, cheated, angry? Its too easy to let the 'glamour' of Middle Earth get in the way, the Elves & Wizards, Rivendell & Lorien, to just jump to the Ring falling into the Fire, & forget what Frodo did. Its almost too distressing to contemplate the implications of his act, so too many don't, because they care too much about him, but that misses one of Tolkien's esential points, I think. Forgiveness is not only possible, but even sometimes essential, even for the greatest 'sins'.

[Evisse the Blue]

It seems that a lot of people 'blank' out Frodo's behaviour at the Sammath Naur, & jump mentally from him entering to the destruction of the Ring, or they decide he wasn't really aware of what he was doing, like some tacky SF movie where the hero seems to do something bad, but it turns out to have been his 'evil' twin, or a clone or a robot.
Although I wouldn't phrase it like that, it does look like the Frodo who claimed the Ring was not the exact same person as the Frodo who started on the quest. He was so changed by all the pains he had undergone, by the Ring most of all that we can call him 'a shadow of his former self'. This expression implies more than just his being 'thinned' by pain, it implies a change in personality: the shadow is the hidden side, the evil side that resides in us all an waits to be awakened. The parallel that Helen made with a prisoner in a war camp is believable. The doom that comes with the gift of free will leaves our mind to be a battlefield between the devil and the angel in us. Maybe this is a tad dramatic, but I think this describes adequately what happens to Frodo. The Ring is the great deceiver. When one is wielding it, you feel at your strongest, but in reality you've never been more vulnerable. The illusion of strength and control is by definition evil because it opposes the desired state of 'humility' and modesty.

So, to come more to the point - I believe that when Frodo claimed the Ring - the angel in him colapsed under the burden, so his control was relinquished. His goodness, his core, everything that defined him as the Frodo we knew and loved, fell in the line of duty. Can he not be held responsible then? In Tolkien's view, no, he is to be forgiven, because the burden was too great for any to have withstood it: it is not necessary to succeed, all we have to do is try our best; and then the Writer of the Story will take care of us. Frodo's good nature came back to life, only to face the bitter responsability of his inevitable failure.

So why can't Frodo forgive himself? he can't grasp his alter ego's motivation. he never can. In the words of Faust: "Two souls, alas, are kept within my breast." (translation not entirely accurate). There are two opposite forces that still coexist within him: the one who wishes to be a hero, and the one who still desires the Ring. the first cannot understand why he had failed at the last moment, the second feels bitter pain that the quest had eventually succeded. Feeling himself so torn between the two, between holding himself responsible for an act that he felt not to be his own and bitterly regreting his last moment salvation must be a horrible torture.

[Essex]

the one who wishes to be a hero

When does Frodo believe or wish himself to be a hero? I cannot see this. I only see modesty.

But

the second feels bitter pain that the quest had eventually succeded.

I agree totally. This, to me, is why he feels so much pain after the ring is destroyed. ie He did not give it up volantarily, so it was wrenched from his body and mind. I do not believe he felt so bad because he thought he was a failure, but because the Ring has gone.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 12:08 PM January 23, 2004: Message edited by: Essex ]

[davem]

This is my first posting with my new imac, & I hope everyone feels as excited by that as I do!
Anyway,

I think it does count as a 'moral failure' on Frodo's part at the end, because of the surrender involved on his part, however small it may have been. He has achieved numerous moral victories, all along, & that, perhaps is why his failure at the end is so shocking to us, & so sobering. To be shown that even Frodo would fail, at the last is shocking to us, & should make us think.

As for him almost being too people, so that he can be 'shocked ' at his own alter-ego's failure, this, for me, is too close to the 'evil clone' scenario. Frodo's failure & 'sin' is his own, & is the reason he finds it so difficult to live with himself.

I think this is one area of the story which has never been sufficiently dealt with, There is a betrayal of self, & of personal values, which is in a way worse than betrayal of others, & harder to live with, as it is harder to tell a convincing lie to oneself, & make oneself believe it, And if there is also the knowledge that someone we care about, someone who has suffered & sacrificed for us, has witnessed our failure, that makes it so much the worse. I woulldn't rule outfeelings of shame & embarrassment on Frodo's part, with regards to Sam.

Frodo couldn't live with the idea of himself that he had come to have, a hero, a saviour, & needed to be taught how small he really was. He couldn't do that in the world, & certainly not in the Shire, so he had to go where he could do that, with the Elves he'd come to identify himself so strongly with.

[mark12_30]

davem, congratulations on the new imac!

You wrote:
I think it does count as a 'moral failure' on Frodo's part at the end, because of the surrender involved on his part, however small it may have been.

Rather gutsy of you to directly contradict with the professor!

Concerning the rest of your post, especially from Frodo's perspective, I think most of us are in agreement. Tolkien made it clear in Letters that Frodo did see himself as a broken failure.

Briefly off-topic: how are those two books coming along? (I'm waiting for reviews.)

Grace and peace, --mark12_30

[davem]

OK, let me be clear, its not Frodo's inability to destroy the Ring that constitutes a 'moral failure. that was obviously impossible. His moral failure comes in claiming the Ring. Basically, he decides 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

This is effectively Saruman's sin - he decides Sauron cannot be beaten, so he changes sides. My own feeling is that it is this which enables his subsequent ability to understand & offer forgiveness to him. Without Frodo's own moral failure at the Sammath Naur, Saruman's final chance of redemption would have been lost. Tolkien seems almost to be saying that we have to go through experiences ourselves, be put through what other's go through, in order to truly understand them.

In short, Frodo knows what Saruman has been through, He knows he failed in exactly the way Saruman did. He knows that even one of the great can fall. Of course, this realisation will also help Frodo to eventually forgive himself. A lot of people seem to think that Frodo's state at the end is one of acceptance - like in the movie, where we see on Frodo's face a smile of calm, regretful 'acceptance'. But for me Frodo is still struggling & suffering. Frodo's story is left incomplete & we can only speculate on where he will end up. His struggle is in a way just beginning when he departs for the West.

As for my reviews - well you're partly responsible for the delay - you posted such a good review of Tolkien in the Land of Heroes that I've ordered that & I'm expecting delivery. I've also been re-reading, or skimming a couple of volumes -- including Tolkien's Legendarium, which someone, Bethberry? said they would be interested in. As an aside, I've met one of the writer's of one of the essays in the collection, Charles Noad - who proof read some/all? of the volumes of HoME. We had a conversation at last year's Oxonmoot, about such things as why Elves don't make up stories, & whether the One Ring is really just like the Elven Rings, only more so, where he wanders around with his camera as the Tolkien Society's official photographer, in his black leather jacket, with grey hair & beard, looking like Gandalf dressed as Aragorn.[

I will get around to the reviews asap.

[mark12_30]

In short, Frodo knows what Saruman has been through, He knows he failed in exactly the way Saruman did.

But I don't see that he did. Saruman didn't carry the Ring; he plotted how to get the Ring; he built an army; he spent years scheming. Frodo, on the other hand, entered the Sammath Naur intending to destroy the Ring, and ended up insanely claiming it under demonic pressure. Frodo's demonized "bad attitude" lasted somewhere between a few minutes and an hour, as opposed to Saruman's entire years of subjugating neighbors, imprisoning fellow wizards, spying, breeding armies, and wantonly destroying trees...

Two completely different things.

I think Frodo pitied Saruman because he had learned the value of pity well before the Sammath Naur, mostly in dealing with Gollum. Perhaps he had also considered what would have happened if Gandalf had ever accepted Frodo's offer of the Ring (but it doesn't say that either.)

If one has to go through exactly the same thing in oder to pity another person, then Gandalf would never have pitied Gollum.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 12:33 PM January 26, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[davem]

Ah, but how long would Saruman's decision to go over, take? A moment, because there would have been a point of saying yes, finallly & incontrovertably. And if Frodo hadn't been saved by providence, how long would he have taken to fall,, & imagining for a moment that he hadn't been taken, how bad would his behaviour have become? For me, Frodo sees in Saruman a kindred spirit. Frodo knows what that surrender was like. Frodo in his moment of claiming the Ring committed himself just as totally as Saruman did. Frodo began to find a way back, & offered one to Saruman, who wouldn't, or couldn't take it. Its like Illuvatar makes use of Frodo's fall to give Saruman one last chance to repent.

Oh, I've done a 'book report' - if you ever finish it you may wish you'd never asked smilies/smile.gif

[mark12_30]

Oh, the Legendarium review is fabulous. Many thanks! I didn't want to reply and knock your post off of "Today's Active Topics."

[ArathorofBarahir]

I like the concept of how Frodo did not have a choice in the matter. The decision was made for him, not by himself.

[ArathorofBarahir]

I never noticed that! I bet they put that in there to see if we would notice it.

[Sleeping Beauty]

Wow, I don't even know if I want to post here. I feel so small and insignificant. x_x But this has been an interesting thread. Too many thoughts have now been added to my pysche. Thanks, you've know added an extra 30 or 40 minutes to my falling asleep time. smilies/wink.gif

they achieved what no one else has done in the entire Legendarium -- for a short time at least, incarnate evil in the form of Sauron is beaten back. And Frodo is a very important piece of that puzzle. Indeed I would argue that he is the most important piece.

That is so true. In a world where men falter and fall, the light prevails. Frodo allows for the light to be spread for a short while. I know it's so not true, but I always felt like the light and hope he was always given to help on the quest i.e. encouragement, Sam, the phial, and his inner strength that shown through in that one 'bite' is relased into the world. And that unshakeable hope is what rocks the world and allows for the evil to be suppressed.

I guess I'm still struggling with the idea that Frodo would have fallen for that deception. He's brighter than that.
So-- for preservation of The Shire (and Bilbo)-- I see that he would want those things, yes, but I'm just not convinced he'd buy the Rings' offer to do it. He knew better, and I think his "good hobbit sense" would have told him (as it told Sam) that such things would not be.
As for the question why he bought it, I do sincerely believe he just wanted to go back to his simple life. The way things were. He was in such a state, he would have taken anything, just to go back to living a simple life. As someone pointed out earlier, he kept asking Why me? Why this? Why now? We ask the same questions in our own lives when we are handed things in life. Why do I have to deal with this diease? Why did they have to die? Why does life have to be so complicated? I think someone mentioned that he knew his life was going to end as he knew it. He had been wounded, hurt, and mentally abused. The only thing that seemed to make sense of his life was the ring. The Ring had been always around him. Bilbo had always had it. A small trinket of his adventures. Frodo came to live with Bilbo and saw it even more. Then Bilbo came up and left and he now was in possesion. Somewhere in his mind, he found solace in the ring. It reminded him of his life. It sounds so twisted, but it was a comfort. Actually, I do believe somewhere it mentions Gollum saying something along the lines of 'The ring has always existed. There was nothing before the precious.' I must find that.....

And I do believe in his mind somewhere he wanted to protect the Shire, and the ring played off of that. It took the Shire away from him. Sort of 'If you take me, I can give you back your Shire.' And towards the end he craved it so much. He knew the ring 'had' the memory and it was always on his mind. It's not that he didn't have Hobbit sense enough, I don't think in that moment he may have really remembered what it was like to be a hobbit.

Sorry, when I started this post, I didn't realize there was already a second page. Sorry to be so off-topic...

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 7:47 PM January 26, 2004: Message edited by: Sleeping Beauty ]

[davem]

Firstly, Helen, thanks for the positive review. I didn't intend for it to be that long. I wonder how many people will read it through.

Charles williams wrote: 'Sin is the preference of an immediately satisfying experience to the declared pattern of the Universe'. So, Frodo 'sins'. He chooses an 'immediately satisfying experience' claiming the Ring & all it offers & symbolises to him, in preference to the 'declared pattern of the Universe', & while he may not know exactly what form & shape that declared pattern has, he at least knows it isn't Ring-shaped.

Frodo makes a choice, claims the ring. Will, consent, assent, must be involved, Hence Frodo is not free from 'sin'. The problem is that too many people want him to be, or need him to be. It seems to be a result of our 'good guys' versus 'bad guys' culture. I can't see that Tolkien would have had any problem with the statement that Frodo was a sinner - he considered us all to be sinners. Frodo's was a moral failure, a 'sin', but it was an inevitable sin. 'For sin is behovely' as Julian of Norwich put it. This idea of sin as behovely - useful, profitable, or at least, necessary is central to medieval thinking - if man hadn't sinned, Christ would never have come, & for the medieval Church at least, the 'redeemed' world was believed to be better than the unfallen world would have been.

Frodo sins, & is therefore like all of us. Imagine him not falling at the end, would we have believed in his 'reality'? Wouldn't he have been essentially uncnnvincing, a Hollywood Hero, who beats the bad guys with his .44 magnum & a sharp one liner? Frodo doesn't. He falls at the end, reminding us of who we are & what we're really like. That we're not the cool hero, always unflappable who will win out in the end. Sadly, the fact iis, we wont. We'll go through life failing, ''sinning' in William's sense. Tolkien says that's a fact of life. But that there is something 'more' going on, which we're a part of. Hope without guarantees, but still hope.

[Essex]

We’re going round in circles here.

The Quest was for the Ring to be destroyed. The Quest was not for Frodo to destroy the Ring. The Ring was destroyed, through Frodo’s Mercy.

Yes, you could say that Frodo ‘sinned’, and he can be forgiven for this, but he did not fail. If he had killed Gollum, and claimed the Ring (and Sauron no doubt would then have won it back, but that’s probably another Topic) then he, and the rest of the Fellowship, would have failed.

Does Frodo HIMSELF think he failed? Possibly, but I read by his thoughts and feelings one of LOSS not Failure. The Ring was wrenched from his body and mind, and then destroyed. He did not give it up willingly. He still craves for the ring. On a similar line, Gandalf says that if he had taken the ring by force from Bilbo it would have driven him mad (or something like this).

Yes, it might have been silly to see Frodo get to the cracks and throw the Ring in. I can see that this would have been pure Hollywood. But HE DID NOT. Frodo’s mercy is what won the day, and why the Quest succeeded.

The Quest succeeded. Frodo did not fail.

[davem]

But Tolkien does say that at the end Frodo feels like a 'broken failure'. He has a sense of having failed - probably because he had by the end convinced himself that he could after all succeed - in destroying the ring, in saving gollum & in saving the Shire. This discussion, for me, is not about outer events, which were all unavoidable - Frodo simply could not have achieved any of the things he set out to do, But the fact that he set out to achieve them, & by the end had convinced himself that he could achieve them, is what broke him. He took on tasks which he could not succeed in fulfilling, & then blamed himself. He broke & ran, claiming the Ring for himself. He knows that if he had had his way at the end he would have brought the world to disaster & ruin. His mercy to Gollum is undeniable, but so is his ultimate sin - in William's sense is to claim the Ring, putting his own desires, at last, first. He cannot forgive himself & knows he failed & cannot accept that, or live with it. He feels like the central figure in The Sea Bell, alone rejected because of his overweening pride.

The reason this thread has gone on so long, I think, is that it is a central issue. Frodo is the central character, he is the carrier of Tolkien's central message. LotR is about death, as Tolkien said. But that is also to say its about life, & our response to it. the question of whether or not Frodo fails, succumbs to 'sin' in the end is a question for all of us. Or perhaps the question is 'why do we need Frodo not to have failed. What does Frodo's 'success' or 'failure' meean to us? Frodo is a character in a story. Why do we feel so strongly about him? Only because in some way we identify with him. Tolkien is holding up a mirror to us. He is asking us a question about ourselves, & I think our position on this issue, whether we see Frodo as failing or succeeding, says a lot about us as individuals. anyone who thinks that those of us who have posted most on this topic have only been talking about Frodo at Sammath Naur, in an objective way, simply as 'literary criticism' will have missed some very important insights into the individuals who are posting. We are asking questions about our own beliefs & judgements, of ourselves, others & The Authority.

[Firefoot]

Just because Frodo feels like a failure does not mean he failed. His goal, of course, was to cast the Ring into the fire, but that was an impossible task. He was to go as far as he was able, and he did. He went as far as he possibly could, until he had no will left in the matter.

Frodo did not fail, and if he did sin, he cannot be blamed for it. I do not think that at Sammath Naur, Frodo sins. He had no resistance left. He had resisted and resisted, as he had ever since Bilbo had given him the Ring. But the Ring had been gnawing at his mind ever since then, and in my mind Frodo succeeded.

I do think that Frodo sinned by still desiring it, though perhaps because of the manner in which it was wrested from him, that could not be helped. I think that the phrase "all is dark and empty" is not a part of Frodo's sin, because the Ring had been his all for so long, the only thing that mattered to him, and he had nothing to replace it with. Frodo was at peace, but he was still in a lot of pain.

[davem]

But he still claims the Ring. 'The Ring is mine' is more than a simple statement of ownership. It is not his, it never was, so that statement is a lie. He becomes a thief, taking & claiming as his own something which he has no right to. He gives in, on some level, makes a claim which excludes all his responsibilities to others. For all Tolkien's defense of Frodo in the letters he still states that Frodo is going into the West as a 'reward and a purgatory'. His fall, his 'sin' is inevitable, because by the end the Ring has had so much time to break him down, twist his perceptions, but on some level he knows what he has done. He set himself a task too great for him to achieve & was broken by the attempt. The extent to which he came to identify with the Ring, so that his statement 'The Ring is mine' is the same as 'I and the Ring are one. I am the Ring' is open to question. At the same time, Frodo is a free being & there must be assent, some surrender, at the end. The fact he can still speak of 'I' & 'mine' confirms this, as far as I'm concerned. The old Frodo is still 'in there'.

His 'sin' is tiny, & he cannot be blamed for it, but the consequences of it could have been terrible - hence his increasing feelings of guilt & failure. When he returns to the Shire & sees the devastation there, he knows that his claiming the Ring would have brought the whole of Middle Earth to that state. Think what must go through his mind at that point. Saruman may be responsible for the devastation of the Shire, but execpt for the 'Grace of God', the intervention of The Authority, Frodo could have been responsible for doing that to the whole of Middle Earth. At the Sammath Naur it was a little step to claim the ring as his own, but it was a step that could have brought the whole world to ruin, & Frodo knows it. The Ring is gone, & all is dark & empty, but Frodo's innocence is also gone. He knows himself, & cannot live with what he has learned. The task was too great, & should never have been given to him, because it was inevitable he would fail to achieve it, & that he would be broken by it. Tolkien is showing us a deep truth about ourselves & about The Authority.

[Essex]

Davem,

I think your post at 2:58pm yesterday sums it up. We all have our viewpoints, and no one can say for sure exactly what happened to Frodo (except the author).

I concede now that Frodo thought of himself as a failure, as Tolikien says so in Letters, but as I've said before, this does not mean he failed, he just thinks in his own opinion (wrongly!) that he has failed. As I alluded to in a previous post, this makes his leaving Middle-earth even sadder.

Just one final point, execpt for the 'Grace of God', the intervention of The Authority, Frodo could have been responsible for doing that to the whole of Middle Earth.

I don't see the Gollum episode as the Grace of God, or intervention by the Authority. It was because of Frodo's Mercy that it was inevitable that something like this would happen at the Sammath Naur. I do not see this as Providence, I see this as Redemption for Frodo and Middle-earth because of his (and Sam's at the end) kindness towards Gollum.

PS 'Authority' - did you get this term from Phillip Pullman?

[davem]

No, I didn't get it from Pullman, I got it from Tolkien, who may, or may not, have got it from Charles Williams.

Of course, Frodo does 'curse' Gollum before entering the Sammath Naur - "Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."

So it may not have been The Authority who caused Gollum to fall, but Frodo, using the power of the Ring to pass a death sentence on Gollum, which would be another 'sin'. Frodo condemns Gollum to be cast into the fire if he ever comes near him again, which action, I suppose, is a precursor to his claiming it, as it shows he clearly believes he has a right to use it to sit in judgement & pass sentence on any who dare to 'offend' against him. It is a terrible thing to say, especially knowing, as he does, that it will happen, & goes against Gandalf's injunction not to deal out death in judgement. I think we're seeing Frodo moving closer & closer to making his final claim on the Ring, at this moment, (earlier still in the Tower of Cirith Ungol) so that the idea that the claim is not a conscious act, not really Frodo, but the Ring or Sauron speaking through him, is difficult to sustain. Using it to curse Gollum to death is to claim it as his own in deed, if not yet in words.

[Essex]

Davem,

You seem to have thrown a curve ball with your last post. Are you now going against the whole premise of the book to say that Frodo did not show Gollum Mercy? That I cannot agree with........No Mercy, no redemption, which (to me) is the core of the story, not anything to do with failure/success.

Frodo's words to Gollum were one of warning. "...you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom". This did not actually happen. Frodo did not forsee this, becuase, as we know, Gollum slipped and fell. He was not cast into the Fire by Frodo or the Ring.

I believe we will not agree on the failure/success side no matter how much we post, but I have a healthy regard for all the points of view (except maybe the last one!) I've read here.

PS the reason I mentioned Pullman is that he uses the term "The Authority" in his Dark Materials trilogy. I haven't yet read Tolkien's Letters, but it's on my list, so I'll no doubt come across Tolkien's words on the Authority.

[davem]

Of course Frodo shows both mercy & compassion towards Gollum, but at the end he says, 'If you touch me again you will be cast into the Fire of Doom'. That is a threat. Gollum does touch Frodo again & he is cast into the Fire, which is either a result of Frodo's threat being carried out - the Ring's power of command in service of its current master, Frodo, brings about its own destruction - how's that for irony! Or Gollum's fall is 'engineered' by Illuvatar in order to bring about the destruction of the Ring, or its all just pure fluke.

But none of that is relevant to this thread, which is about what Frodo actually decides, the choice he makes. Frodo does show great mercy to Gollum, which he hasn't done anything to deserve, & his motivation is pity & compassion, but at the end he calls him a 'creeping thing' & threatens him with death if he touches him again. You could say that Frodo's mind has been warped, so that he is seeing the world & those around him through Sauron's eyes, without compassion, love, pity or mercy, & the question remains, does that vision come upon Frodo so slowly that he doesn't realise its happening, or is there a moment of choice for him, as on Amon Hen when he is trapped in a battle of wills between Gandalf & Sauron? When he threatens Gollum with death & goes on to claim the Ring, has he 'sinned' (again in William's sense) or not?

[Essex]

Yes, this is off tangent with the question raised at the start of this topic, but it's been like it for a couple of 'pages' now, as a lot of topics go.

I believe Frodo was under total influence from the Ring at the Cracks of Doom. But what else could he do if he WASN'T to throw the Ring in? Sit there and wait for Sauron to kill all his friends and then finally notice him and claim the Ring back? No, it was a logical step to claim the Ring himself. As Frodo says to Sam earlier, he was UNDER THE RING'S CONTROL. This is what happened at the Sammath Naur. The Ring finally took total control of Frodo. But (and how many times do I need to say this), Mercy won the day. If you had to call it something, I would call it Fate. Not help from 'above' or a fluke. But FATE that this was to have happened.

So, in my opinion, the answer to the original question is that Frodo was under the total influence of the Ring, and is not to blame. My answer here has nothing to do with success, failure or 'sin'. Just a basic reply to the original question.

I am not idolising Frodo by stating this. If we look at it from an 'outside' view, how boring it would have been to have Frodo throw the ring in without much of a struggle. Tolkien got it right.

[davem]

So when did he surrender to the Ring, if not at the Sammath Naur? Was it when he used it to threaten Gollum with death? Was it when he claimed it from Sam at the Tower of Cirith Ungol? Was it way back - had he unconsciously claimed it when he struggled to throw it into his own fire? When did he commit the 'sin' of putting his own desire first? The further back you place that transgression, the less excuse Frodo has for it.

As for 'fate' what do you mean by the word? What is 'fate' - destiny? weird? miracle? intervention by The Authority - which Tolkien states in The Athrabeth will be the only way the world can be saved from the power of evil? Tolkien seems to say that Frodo was rewarded by The Authority for the mercy he had shown to Gollum by being 'saved' from his ultimate failure in claiming the Ring, but of course, this does bring Illuvatar close to being a murderer, in causing the death of Gollum in order to bring about the destruction of the Ring. So, from that point of view, its easier to put it down to 'accidental death'.

[Essex]

So when did he surrender to the Ring, if not at the Sammath Naur? Was it when he used it to threaten Gollum with death? Was it when he claimed it from Sam at the Tower of Cirith Ungol? Was it way back - had he unconsciously claimed it when he struggled to throw it into his own fire? When did he commit the 'sin' of putting his own desire first? The further back you place that transgression, the less excuse Frodo has for it.

I put it exactly at the point where Frodo said it. In other words where the Ring had pretty much taken control. Just before they climbed up Mount Doom.

I am almost in its power now. I could not give it up, and if you tried to take it I should go mad.

Frodo to Sam, Chapter 3, Book 6, Mount Doom.

Not Sin, (no doubt he desired the Ring, but that is not a sin), but as Frodo says himself, he was under the Power of the Ring.

Tolkien seems to say that Frodo was rewarded by The Authority for the mercy he had shown to Gollum by being 'saved' from his ultimate failure in claiming the Ring

Fine. Call it what you want then, the will of Illuvatar and not Fate, I don’t mind. It just proves my point that Mercy is what the events at Sammath Naur is about. Not failure, success or ‘Sin’.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Quote from Essex: Fine. Call it what you want then, the will of Illuvatar and not Fate, I don’t mind. It just proves my point that Mercy is what the events at Sammath Naur is about. Not failure, success or ‘Sin’.

Essex, Davem,

Hope you two don't mind if I poke my nose in here. I was an early participant, then a lurker, so just wanted to say something before my final departure from this thread.

I totally agree that mercy lies at the heart of what happened on Mount Doom in terms of Frodo, and is more central than any other concept.

However, I also feel that you can't look at either "mercy" (or conversely "sin" and "failure") in a vacuum. These terms and concepts are linked.

Take one step back from the concept of mercy and you are left with an obvious question: why was 'mercy' necessary? It was only the fact that Frodo claimed the Ring that put this whole scenario into play. If Frodo had been a perfect being, he would not have needed mercy because he could have thrown the Ring into the crack. He wasn't perfect, and he couldn't throw it in, a fact that is hinted at as far back as the fireplace at Bag-end.

So neither of these things can be seen in isolation: Frodo's failure of will (what Davem terms "sin") or Frodo's prior acts of mercy. These two are part of one equation. And just as in a chemistry problem, neither half can be ignored or set aside, or you end up with something that is less than the truth.

Tolkien makes it clear in his Letters that Frodo was doomed from the start. And he did not shrink from the using the actual word "failure' in connection with Frodo.

...he is in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will'.

The italics here are mine. (It is certainly interesting that Tolkien suggests two different options here--actively falling and broken by pressure--and does not rule out either of them, since these two views were put forward and debated earlier in this thread.)

In Letter 191, the author put Frodo's "failure" even more bluntly:

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


Despite this failure of will, Tolkien distinguishes Frodo's shortcomings from "moral failure." He makes it quite clear that there can be no 'blame' attached to the hobbit, since "by a situation created by his 'forgiveness' he was saved himself." Tolkien also clearly states that Gandalf did not blame Frodo, even though the hobbit would have been revealed the whole truth in their conversations.

Helen is right in saying that the real burden of sadness and "sin" comes after, not before, Mount Doom. The hobbit starts out relieved and at peace, but guilt comes creeping up to plague him. He can't accept that he is a simple flawed instrument rather than a hero, and, more critically, he still desires the Ring. This is one reason he must leave the Shire and go to the West to gain healing and work through everything in his head and heart. (I do not think it is the only reason, but that is another argument and thread.)

However you interpret these scenes, Tolkien is quite clear in stating that the final outcome of Sammath Naur is determined by Eru, not merely "Fate" as Essex suggests:

Frodo deserves all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named" (as one critic has said).

Essex - :The "Writer of the Story" is not "fate": it is a clear reference to God. In my mind, this is indeed "help from above."

Is Eru a "murderer" as Davem hints at in one of his posts when he speaks of Gollum's death? I don't think so. Gollum condemned himself a hundred times over. He condemned himself by slaying Deagol and clinging to life hundreds of years after he should have accepted death. He condemned himself again in that poignant scene when he touches Frodo's knee, is repelled by Sam, and then makes a decision to withdraw utterly from his "master". He condemned himself yet again by making a bargain with Shelob to slay Frodo, betraying the one being who had shown him compassion in all those years.

Gollum's fate is now sealed. He has sunk to "persistent wickedness" and "damnability", as Tolkien says. It is only a question of time until his doom is sealed. That final link in the chain comes at Sammath Naur when he again claims the Ring.

The only way in which Eru might be said to enter into this equation is in the timing, not the end result. Gollum has long ago chosen the path he will take, despite the help that is sent to him in the form of Frodo; the end of that path is clearly death and destruction. In Tolkien's words...

"by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deedwas the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo!

Eru was no murderer unless you feel that those who flagrantly break the moral code of the universe are not responsible for the end result which is inevitable death, physical or spiritual! (And in this situation, the two coincided.)

******************************************

Helen,

Getting back to an old, old discussion: was it desire for the Ring, or desire to use the Ring?

We may have to disagree on this, as I feel both factors were involved. Tolkien never repudiated the ideas set down in his earlier drafts; he simply chose to keep Frodo's motives private. I've looked back through the Letters and found one or two places that also seem to imply Frodo did indeed have a desire to use the thing, but hesitate to resurrect this on the thread.

In the end, we don't know for sure. And perhaps it's meant to be that way. The central points and ideas don't change, whichever way you look at it.

And yes -- it's fun to guess. smilies/rolleyes.gif

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 3:04 PM January 29, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Vitesse]

If I may interject with an alternate theory? I'm a semi-noob so don't mind me if I'm horribly half-baked here.

So far everyone is looking at this from the perspective of the reader examining Frodo. But Frodo, Gollum, and Sam are not the only major chracters at Sammath Naur.

The Ring itself is a character and deserves some discussion here.

From the moment the ring is introduced we are told that it is, to some degree, self-aware. While it is not a sentient being per se, it is imbued with part of Sauron's consciousness.

Just as Sauron seeks the ring with all of his servants and abilities, the Ring seeks Sauron. The only way it can do this is to manipulate the mind of whomever bears it. It manipulates everyone who comes in contact with it except for Tom.

It manipulates Deagol into retrieving it. It manipulates Smeagol into killing Deagol to have it - and to keep it safe until it needs to be put into play. It manipulates Bilbo by drawing him into contact with Gollum, and then manipulates his actions later in life.

But perhaps most telling is it's manipulation of Isildur at Sammath Naur. Isildur knows from whence the Ring came, and he knows what it can do. He also knows that it is irrevocably tied to Sauron. But he can't destroy it when he should - and indeed when told to by a higher authority (Elrond).

I personally do not believe that either Frodo or Isildur necessarily failed when they were within reach of destroying the ring. If anything, Isildur is more of a failure than Frodo - because Frodo merely submits to the Ring is a moment of weakness, while Isildur is corrupted by the Ring in a moment of relative victory. But I believe "corrupted" is the operative term.

My theory, however half-baked, is that the Ring is self-aware to the extent that it knows where it needs to go to get back to Sauron, and it also knows when it is in danger.

There can be only two reasons for the Ring to return to Sammath Naur - either to be reclaimed by Sauron, or to be destroyed. The Ring uses whomever wears it to get it's will. So presumably the Ring knows what the wearer wishes to do with it.

As the Ring's power would be at it's very apex at Sammath Naur, presumably it's awareness also increases - as does it's ability to manipulate whomever possesses it. The Ring is able not only to find it's way back to Sauron, but also to find it's way out of danger at Sammath Naur - the only place it can be damaged or destroyed. At the point where it is most powerful, the Ring itself can manipulate it's bearer into removing it from danger - thus allowing Sauron another crack at finding it, and allowing itself another crack at finding Sauron.

The "failure" we speak of could really be the "success" of the Ring, the triumph over the will of it's bearer.

This would jive very well with the theory that nobody can conciously cast the Ring into the fire of their own free will. The Ring will not let them. To cast it into the fire is to let go of it - and letting go implies possession.

I don't believe that Frodo fails morally, I think - as many people seem to - that the Ring is firmly in control at Sammath Naur, no matter who wears it.

[Lyta_Underhill]

A few thoughts...(if I wait for my brain to get them all together, it will be 2010 sometime...)

davem The task was too great, & should never have been given to him, because it was inevitable he would fail to achieve it, & that he would be broken by it. Tolkien is showing us a deep truth about ourselves & about The Authority. I do agree with your points about Frodo knowing what he is doing and also that he could not possibly succeed. I cannot, however, agree that he should not have been given the task, for this task, important as it was, could be achieved ultimately only by The Authority, Eru, the writer of the story, who, as Tolkien points out “is not one of us.” The fact that the task is given to Frodo is in fact fortuitous, for he is probably the only one who could have gotten as far as he did with it.

Frodo condemns Gollum to be cast into the fire if he ever comes near him again, which action, I suppose, is a precursor to his claiming it, as it shows he clearly believes he has a right to use it to sit in judgement & pass sentence on any who dare to 'offend' against him. It is a terrible thing to say, especially knowing, as he does, that it will happen, & goes against Gandalf's injunction not to deal out death in judgement

Is Frodo in fact condemning Gollum directly, or is he “merely foretelling,” much as Saruman does with Frodo later in the Shire? Your point above is interesting, inasmuch as there is some question as to the motivation of Frodo’s mercy to Gollum. First it is in conscious regard to Gandalf’s admonition, and Frodo voices his own wishes along the way that he did not place such high stock in Gandalf’s words, because he would just as soon be rid of Gollum. But Frodo, despite his wavering thoughts, does not abandon or betray Gollum. In fact, Frodo is, as Sharon says above, the one being in all Gollum’s years who had shown him mercy. Sometimes I think that the rarified nature that becomes more and more evident in Frodo as the journey progresses also causes some readers to think of him as less ‘human’ and less vulnerable to the same failings that other ‘normal’ beings are susceptible to. I think Frodo shows an amazing strength of will to overcome this “basic nature” that is so common to all. It is his conscious effort along the way, even in the face of his better judgement or his fears, that goes above and beyond and makes it impossible for me to blame him for what came along at the end, because he is fallible and heir to the native failings of incarnate beings like any other. How can I judge when I know I would never be able to measure up to that standard? I think this lesson is internalized at first within Frodo with regards to his respect for Gandalf’s stature and experience but then slowly with regards to his own insight.

I do think that davem’s point about placing Frodo’s “claiming” of the Ring farther and farther back may play a part in this tossing about of “blame,” but I think this point of view may be more of a reflection of the thoughts of Frodo himself after all is said and done. I can see him questioning his own motives in this way and finding himself wanting. I, however, cannot find fault with him, except in that he is human. Whatever fault arises from that inevitable circumstance, must be applied to us all, who have perhaps not been so sorely tested as Frodo.

I think I, like you, Child, prefer to keep the true ends obscured to some extent, but the guessing game is irresistible. Of the idea of possession vs. desire to use the Ring, the Ring as active agent, I cannot speak at the moment. I hope to participate more later! I can never resist threads like this!

Cheers,
Lyta

P.S. Someday, if I can get it together, I'll wonder aloud about the ideas of the impossibility of Frodo's task to the impossibility of the task of the Elves of the First Age against the ancient evil of Morgoth, the need for intercession from "higher powers," etc. etc., but that's for later I suppose!

I take my leave. smilies/wink.gif

[davem]

I think the reason this thread has gone on for so long is that in a way what Frodo does or does not do at the Sammath Naur is the biggest event in the book. But the question is simple. Does he, in any way, claim the Ring for himself, & if so, What exactly does he think he is claiming? The other question follows from that: when Eru intervenes, is he intervening to save the world, or to save Frodo? If Frodo is claiming the Ring, & the power that goes with it, for himself then Eru's intervention could be said to be as much, or more, to do with saving Frodo, in response to the mercy he showed to Gollum, as it is to do with saving the world. If Frodo did not claim the Ring, if his mind had been overthrown, then Eru is intervening not to save Frodo from his 'sin', but to save the world in general, but not Frodo in particular, as he would be 'without sin'. But this makes Frodo 'sinless', & is that what Tolkien intended? Has Tolkien given us a world inhabited by a number of 'sinless' beings, who are not in need of being 'saved'? This would mean that at least some beings, perfect in their essential nature - ie 'unfallen' - are without need of salvation. But then, why the struggle, why would a perfect being like Frodo need to undergo the Quest? If he was perfect he would have nothing to learn, & be incapable of moral growth - yet Sarauman tells him that he has grown. He has moved from a less, to a more, perfect state. But if Frodo does need to be 'saved' then he needs to be saved from something. He must have commited some kind of 'sin', & if so, what was that 'sin', if not the claiming of the Ring? I cannot think of any other 'offence' that he has committed.

As for Eru 'murdering' Gollum - hyperbole, I admit, said for effect. Someone once pointed out to me that when Gandalf agrees with Frodo that Gollum 'deserves' death, he may have meant it differently to Frodo - intending 'death' as a release from centuries of torment, & peace at last. He could no longer live without the Ring, so only death could end his torment, & Eru, in bringing about his death at the Sammath Naur is finally forgiving Smeagol & allowing him to rest.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Vitesse, your points are interesting, and the extent to which the Ring is aware and 'sentient' in itself has long been argued in many threads here, at least to the best of my memory! I personally do not believe that either Frodo or Isildur necessarily failed when they were within reach of destroying the ring. If anything, Isildur is more of a failure than Frodo - because Frodo merely submits to the Ring is a moment of weakness, while Isildur is corrupted by the Ring in a moment of relative victory. But I believe "corrupted" is the operative term.
Interestingly enough, I read the account of "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" last night in Unfinished Tales, and Isildur, despite his failure to relinquish the Ring at Sammath Naur, came to understand just how unequal he was to the task of using the Ring. (Even donning the Ring at this time caused him pain!) It is to his credit that the excursion he undertook to Imladris appeared to be for the outer purpose of retrieving his wife and son but also had the hidden purpose of relinquishing the One Ring to the "Keepers of the Three," as confided to his son Elendur as they were fighting off the Orc attack at the Gladden Fields. Of course, he would have done better in this endeavor to take it to Lothlorien; at least he might have made it there!

I don't see Isildur as any more or less a failure at this task than Frodo, for neither had the strength to destroy the Ring by his own will. The circumstances of Isildur's failure to destroy the Ring do not, to my mind, have in them any more of a moral failure than Frodo's. I don't think either of them failed 'morally.' Both had the insight to realize its danger and their ultimate unsuitability to the task, but neither had the strength to withstand the pressure at the Cracks of Doom. The fact that Isildur takes the Ring as "weregild" for his father and brother merely shows the path of the evil influence to Isildur's heart. If it had not conquered him in this way, it would have found another way. If Isildur had lived, he would have had much longer to reflect on his failure and what it meant, without the reprieve at the end such as Frodo was afforded. He at least understood the need to take responsibility and attempt to make disposition of the Ring in the best way he knew.

My theory, however half-baked, is that the Ring is self-aware to the extent that it knows where it needs to go to get back to Sauron, and it also knows when it is in danger.
Another interesting tidbit from "Disaster of Gladden Fields" is that the Ring was said to be 'broadcasting' its location in all directions, in effect drawing the dark forces toward it. Thus, we could say that Isildur was an "orc magnet," but more precisely, the One Ring was a homing beacon for the remnants of the forces of Barad-dur. I don't know how to equate this to the Ring being 'self-aware' though. I suppose that it would also broadcast in this way at the Sammath Naur, bringing all its 'protective' forces to bear on the one who bears it.

More later! I take my leave. smilies/wink.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 1:57 PM February 01, 2004: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]

[davem]

'Who' is claiming the Ring in each case, then? Frodo & Isildur's bodies, as their minds were no longer present? When did the 'real' Frodo & Isildur disappear, to be replaced by puppets, moved & inspired to speak by the Ring? So, we have the Ring in each case 'claiming' itself. Its the Ring that says 'I do not choose to do what I came to do. The Ring is mine.' This 'I' & 'mine' is the Ring referring to itself? But the first sentence would then imply that the Ring itself came to the Fire to destroy itself, but at the last minute changed its mind. No, Frodo is saying 'I came here to destroy the Ring, but now I've changed my mind, & I'm going to keep it'. As did Isildur. Both knew, on some level, that it was wrong, but it was too hard to resist. Whether that's a 'moral failure' depends on how you look at it. I would say it is a 'sin' in William's sense of the term:

'Sin is the preference of an immediately satisfying experience to the declared pattern of the Universe'.

As long as we understand 'immediately satisfying' in this situation as the avoidance of terrible suffering. In the end, the question is, is it Frodo who is speaking those words at the Sammath Naur?

[Lyta_Underhill]

No, Frodo is saying 'I came here to destroy the Ring, but now I've changed my mind, & I'm going to keep it'. As did Isildur. Both knew, on some level, that it was wrong, but it was too hard to resist.I agree with you, davem, on the point that neither Frodo nor Isildur 'disappears' when he claims the Ring. I am merely saying that they could do no other, since the pressure to claim the Ring was too great for them to bear at this point. They succumb, but they do not go somewhere else, while the 'Ring claims itself.' I couldn't really say where the semantics break down.
'Sin is the preference of an immediately satisfying experience to the declared pattern of the Universe'. This seems to imply that the 'declared pattern' of the Universe is ultimately followable by incarnate beings, but I think Tolkien's point is that incarnate beings cannot hope to succeed on this path without intervention (grace) from a higher power--that they are too weak to bear some burdens without help. Perhaps the fact that the Ring was lost to the attackers of Isildur and his Dunedain was also a sort of 'grace,' so that Isildur did not wholly fail in his task to keep the Ring away from Sauron's minions (but he succeeded, albeit temporarily, in a way he could never have imagined nor desired.)

More later...I take my leave. smilies/wink.gif
Cheers,
Lyta

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 11:33 AM February 02, 2004: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]

[davem]

Well, I think what Williams was talking about was choice, or 'preference'. What is Frodo's preference at that point? Does he consent to the Ring's control, or not? Is he almost 'looking on', observing himself, & providing a commentary - 'Frodo, at this point, is not going to destroy the Ring. He is going to keep it'. Or is he telling us his decision? Is he telling us that he has decided to go along with what the Ring wants, give in to the temptation, & would have done so anyway, even if the Ring didn't have the power to force him.

Taking as a starting point the obvious fact that there was no way that he could have destroyed the Ring, the question is, was his will so completely broken that he had no control over his actions, or even his words, so that effectively he is an external observer/commentator on events at that point, or had he in some way consented to the Ring's dominance, & stopped struggling, surrendered the last of his will & just stopped fighting? Is Tolkien saying that in the end evil will defeat us, even if we don't give in, because its too powerful & we're too weak, or is he saying we will all give in & 'sin' in the end, because we're fallen beings.

Back to the Manichaen vs Boethean thing - Was Mani right, evil is an external force, which is too powerful for us to resist, - however hard we try we will be broken by it in the end ( which begs the question, why even bother to struggle against it in the first place), or was Boethius right, & 'sin' a human failing, a weakness, a giving in, preferring our own satisfaction over the willed pattern of the Universe. If evil wins, is that because an external enemy defeats us, or because we surrender to our own 'dark, 'sinful' side? Personally, despite everything Tolkien says about events at the Sammath Naur in his letters, I don't think, deep down he ever really comes down on one side or the other, which is what Shippey seems to think.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I'm not sure if this completely addresses the fine points of your last post, davem, but I thought it an interesting reflection that might be pertinent here, even if it is written to illustrate another incident from LOTR, Pippin's stealing and use of the Palantir.

from the article "Peter, Pippin and the Palantir" at hollywoodjesus.com: Second, and a little less obvious, is the fact that when we transgress -- "fall", if you're Boyens and Walsh, or "sin" if you're Tolkien -- we've no one to blame but ourselves. Pippin wants to claim that he "had no notion" of what he was doing; but Gandalf chides him, "Oh yes, you had. You knew you were behaving wrongly and foolishly; and you told yourself so, though you did not listen." So the problem with sin is not in knowing the difference between right and wrong, but purely in the doing. As the Apostle Paul notes, we are "without excuse."

Was Mani right, evil is an external force, which is too powerful for us to resist, - however hard we try we will be broken by it in the end ( which begs the question, why even bother to struggle against it in the first place), or was Boethius right, & 'sin' a human failing, a weakness, a giving in, preferring our own satisfaction over the willed pattern of the Universe.
I suppose I can't come down on one side or the other, either, as I would think both factors have an effect on what one does in the end. (Not that I have a great grasp of Manichean vs. Boethian views!). But what Gandalf said to Pippin regarding the Palantir I think could also have been said to Frodo regarding the Ring. Gandalf made sure Pippin did not come into further contact with the Palantir rather than heaping blame upon him. He shows understanding but a firm hand. So those who knew what happened at Sammath Naur showed understanding and did not blame Frodo. But, to different extents, I'm sure both Pippin and Frodo must go over in their mind what drove them to their acts. (This is not to equate the acts but to illustrate the nature of the hobbits' fall to an urge to do something they know is wrong.) I hope that comes across as I wished! If not, I blame my fuzzed out brain, which is part of me, so I must, in the end, blame myself! ;)

Cheers!
Lyta