[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

I don't think Frodo was burdened with confidence-I also don't think he belittled himself either, he was confident in Gandalf's confidence. As for taking on the ring, I think whether he felt fit or not he knew in his heart at the time of councel it would be him.

By burden of confidence I meant he lacks confidence. He is a loner, he has a few close friends, but not a wide social group. Even before the journey to Rivendell, he is distanced from the majority of hobbits. He lacks at least social confidence and a sense of closeness with these denizens, despite his very strong love for the Shire and for his fellow hobbits. My musings wondered if this insecurity or lack of confidence is what, ironically, empowers him to accept the burden of Ring bearer. He who belongs tangentially accepts the act which will make him the supreme saviour. Yet when he returns, he is just as much a loner as before. He never wins the kind of relationships which Sam's close network provide. As I said before, what is the role of his bereavement in his psychology?

Originally Posted by doug*platypus

Bêthberry, the "mistake of fact" which most readily springs to mind is that Carter referred to Éowyn as Théoden's daughter. I can't recall any others, but they were all minor errors in reading that seemed to give the overall impression that Carter may have only read the book once or twice, and not completely soaked in all the details yet.

Well, that just strengthens the suggestion that he based his interpretation of Frodo on a flimsy reading, then, eh?

Originally Posted by doup*p

Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision? I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir).

Well, I suppose we could consider how much Tolkien's "long defeat" partakes of Catholic ideas of human fallibility. However, his mythology lacks an "original sin" on the part of either humans or hobbits. As I suggested on The Silm chapter by chapter discussion, there is no "fall" among the children.

Another reason why it seems to me that the word 'sin' does not belong in Middle-earth is its connotations. While philosophically it can be argued that the word merely denotes separation from God, it is a word highly marked by extreme connotations of wickedness and depravity. There's something morbid about it which does not seem to me to fit with Middle-earth's sad longing and recognition that evil will always be with us.