Davem wrote:
Quote:
This is why i feel the Scouring of the Shire is so essential to the story - Its what finally breaks Frodo. Its the final 'failure'. After giving everything he was capable of giving, the Shire is still devastated. ... Sam has his family, his life. Maybe most importantly, he set out only to help Frodo, or die in the attempt. Frodo wanted to save the world. Sam set himself an achievable goal, Frodo set himself an impossible one. ... And what kind of existence could he have had in the Undying Lands, after Bilbo dies? A Hobbit among the immortals, lost & alone, for all the love he may have been shown by Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel.
|
Davem,
THe reflection of Frodo's brokenness in the brokenness of the Shire (and its need for scouring) is fascinating.
I think that aligning Frodo's brokenness with that of the Shire indicates that the West will indeed heal Frodo.
If the Shire's devastation reflects the devastation in the soul of Frodo-- and I think it does-- then Frodo arrives home to see outside of himself what has happened inside of himself. And it shakes him, or rather, it reveals how he has already been ravaged by the quest.
But Sam took the box of soil from Galadriel, and grain by grain, replanted the Shire. Frodo saw the beginnings of the healing of the Shire. And it was an essentially an Elvish healing, albeit one requiring Hobbitish cooperation. One could say that the hand of Samwise administered the healing of Galadriel... ("laying on of hands"-- transferring a power not owned by the hands themselves? hmmmm....)
"Spring surpassed his (Sam's) wildest hopes." Frodo saw that the year of 1420 was one of the best in living memory. And not only agriculturally; the Smials were rebuilt, and the mills and ugly sheds were torn down, and with the bricks, "many a poor hobbit's hole was made snugger and drier." The Shire (and especially Hobbiton) was healed, with a rich supernatural air about it; although much had been lost, much was gained, and it was New but still the Same Old Shire, both at once. It even had a Mallorn tree.
I see that as Tolkien's deepest promise to Frodo. His healing could not come at the hands of Sam, and for that we all grieve, but the promise of elvish healing is certainly vividly portrayed.
Indeed, I find myself wondering if that in itself did not convince him to sail. No, I realize there were many contributing factors... but to see the elvish healing worked on the Shire itself, and to touch his white jewel and remember what Arwen, Elrond, and Galadriel herself ("Maybe thou shalt find Valinor; maybe even thou shalt find it; farewell!") had to resonate within him as he felt the internal devastation left by the quest. Galadriel had provided Sam the means to heal the Shire, and she (and her healing) had proven correct and faithful. If she recommended Valinor to him, and Arwen gave him the means to go, and Elrond discussed it with him as well, I can see him deciding that he needed, not to be healed IN the Shire, but that he needed to be healed LIKE the Shire.
And considering the Shire in the long run, that is a very hopeful thing.
Thanks, Davem.
Dear,
dear Sharon, here we go around again. I have to smile. Destiny, doom, divine intervention.... You and I seem to take the same passages and interpret them in a diametrically opposing manner.
(I meant to address this particular issue in the Philosophy thread, but the thread ran on before I got to it. Feh.)
Anyway, back to our polar opposition. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
In letter 192, there is this section:
Quote:
|
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 oint, 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).
|
Catholically speaking, this Person is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent; in Him all things hold together; in Him we live, and move, and have our being. Whether we name him or not He is never absent. He may be remote in terms of the awareness of the common man (or hobbit or elf) but he is not remote in terms of action. Tolkien calls him The Writer of the Story, in this letter and in 191.
When Tolkien says in letter 181:
Quote:
There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers. ... But the One retains all ultimate authority, and (or so it seems as viewed in serial time) reserves the right to intride the finger of God into the story: that is to produce realities which could not be deduced even from a complete knowledge of the previous past, but which being real become part of the effective past for all subsequent time (a possible definition of a 'miracle'.) According to the fable Elves and Men were the first of these intrusions...
There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology... the Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write.
|
(Italics "
infinitely" are Tolkien's, not mine.)
All right. So where are we going?
Sharon, my point is this. The way I interpret all this, when Tolkien says that Iluvatar is "remote", what he means-- again, Catholically speaking-- is simply that Jesus doesn't show up in the flesh. Don't look for Jesus in Gandalf or Strider or Frodo; he's not there. Catholically speaking, Eru hasn't been incarnated. Hence (Catholically speaking) He hasn't yet redeemed us; and so He is remote in the sense that he is unapproachable by us acting on our own merit. However, in the Catholic sense, spiritually, Eru is NOT remote-- he can't be-- in terms of Omnipresence, and omnipotence. He is everywhere, all-powerful, and therefore, in Him we live and move and have our being; in Him all things hold together. (Including us.)
"....sustaining all things by the Word of His Power."
In that sense, He intervenes all the time. We normally do not notice it, but He can't stop being Omnipresent or Omnipotent or Omniscient.
Hence, Tolkien quotes the critic with approval: "that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named". Tolkien clarifies this: "The Other Power, the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself)..." I do not interpret the phrase "Writer of the Story" to mean that he is uninvolved, lightly involved, or "remote" in terms of participation. I interpret "Writer of the Story" to mean that He is very involved indeed.
Quite a study in contrast, aren't we, Sharon? (I can hear Lush chuckling now.)
Much love, --Helen
[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]