[Dininziliel]

doug*platypus--ahem . . . [shakes her head slowly, still trying to recall the iron-clad, sterling logic that had added up to a sum that turned out to be far less than its parts] um, gosh . . . having gone back and read my own criteria, I guess there's not much to defend Gollum. He could never have been considered as possessing a noble character. Tolkien says as much in Letters of . . . ; Gollum merely had the potential to become noble in that one brief moment of pity & love for Frodo. Gollum could have opted for forgiveness and transcended the fate of his path to that point; however, he chose that path and its fate. I think this may have been what was on my mind--he could have been a contender and all he "got" was a lousy one-way ticket to palookaville. Sad, yes; tragic, no. Now, if he had opted for forgiveness in that moment w/Frodo and gone on to carry the Ring to Doom and then wrestled w/himself on the edge and fallen to a firey, molten death below . . .

Frodo, though, we could argue, albeit the points are fine and feathery. Frodo was definitely a noble character pitted against a situation in which he was doomed to fail and fall low. The falling low part is the wishbone of contention. This is what is most fascinating to me this week about Frodo--if he had not been gifted with a healing in Aman, he would, indeed, be a candidate for tragic hero. He was fading out to the world and the world was fading out to him--all was joyless and gray. But, he did get the healing in Aman. The question as I consider it now is: can Frodo qualify as a tragic hero because of his suffering and certain end in this world (ME), or must he be disqualified for being healed out of this world?