Is Frodo the 'King ' who returns?
 

This is an idea that occurred to me recently - That the return of the King refers to Frodo, not to Aragorn. I threw it into a thread on the Movies forum - 'How many changes', & got a mixed response, some shot me down, some seemed interested. The more I think about it the more it seems right, that the title is ironic. I won't repeat what I said on the other thread, but what do others think?

I guess it could be seen as that, but the emphasis is really on Aragorn, not Frodo. Besides, if it were Frodo, why would he return and then leave?

Oh yeah, I just read your thread in the movies. Well, I agree with what you were saying, but I don't think Frodo is the king. And even if it was, it's really not 'ironic'. But it is interesting.

[ January 04, 2003: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

I agree, Frodo is not very King like. He does not act like a king, when he goes to his home country he is basically forgotton. He does just not fit the description of a King, of cource, neither did Aragorn at the beginning, but by the end he was. Frodo never became a king.

I think the king is Aragorn. Frodo, however, does become something other than what he was which is why he departs Middle Earth with the Elves. That light that Sam sees around him while he sleeps is a harbinger of it. More than Sam and Gimli, or even Bilbo, who are allowed to go as well, Frodo is somehow transformed into one who belongs in a land of Elves and Wizards.

I like your idea. The return of Aragorn and the return of Frodo contrast drastically and they fit very well together.

But there are many themes all woven together which you could ask who its about. A lot of the characters have similar experiences after all. Aragorn is still the King.

i think that the title is referring to aragorn, because for many years gondor had no king, only the stewards, who were waiting, (some more breathlessly than others...) but then, aragorn RETURNs and becomes THE KING. hence the name... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Sorry, don't have much to add on this, although I'd love to hear a more complete explanation from davem on this theory.

Here, however, is the link to the genesis of his idea, in the movie forum. Warning: when you get to the line,
try not to choke on your pretzel.

Some threads linking Frodo with another King (not Elvis):

Is Frodo Based on a Religious Icon?

Trilogy and Bible

The Light in Frodo's Face

The Image of Eru

Revision of LOTR as Christian (Catholic)


"And that's it? That's your theory?"
- Renton to Sick Boy, Trainspotting

[ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: doug*platypus ]

Question~Are you suggesting that "The Return of the King" is a double-sided statement or have you not read the book or what? [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

Aragorn is King, simple as that [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Never, never, never would Tolkien use irony to describe Frodo's plight after the Ring quest. And that is what the title would be if Tolkien had used it to refer to Frodo rather than Aragorn. It is just not JRRT's way to use irony when describing the central figure of the Ring quest who had sacrificed all, including his very ability to live as a hobbit.

If you read the author's letters, you will see how sympatheitcally Tolkien felt about Frodo and his "failure" at Mount Doom. He assures one correspondent that Frodo had an impossible task, and that there was not a single person in Middle-earth--whether human or hobbit or Elven or Maia--who could have accomplished the goal of actually tossing the Ring into Mount Doom. Only a perfect being could have accomplished this, and none of us in Middle-earth, or real earth for that matter, is perfect. (For those who have asked the question whether Sam could have done it, JRRT would have said no according to this letter.)

So the "King" must be seen at face value as Aragorn rather than Frodo.

sharon

[ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]