[Bêthberry]

Lalwendë, perhaps what lies at our difference of interpretation is a way of viewing the nature of relationships in LotR. I don’t object at all to seeing “a hard determination” in either Frodo or Aragorn, but I do think that this passage from The Forbidden Pool should not be read within the context of a Machiavellian perspective of self-interest. It is not that Gollem is useful to Frodo, but that Frodo believes in the obligations of binding relationships in spite of what he would personally wish. Aragorn’s and Frodo’s actions belong to a world view where reciprocal and even ritual exchange marks the nature of human relationships.

In this view, there is a moral as well as material aspect to human community. You might almost say it is a living fabric of community to which their actions give being and purpose. Think back to Tolkien’s view of heroism in his essay on Maldon. There is a web of personal interconnection which holds this world view together. That is why it is possible to read of the destruction of the Ring and understand it as eucatastrophic rather than simply random or absurd.

Gollem is not a commodity which Frodo can get rid of however much he pleases. Of course Frodo has his private and personal feelings that Gollem is a millstone—this is part of the psychological reality of his characterization--but he moves beyond that. It is “He wished … But no.”

It is not a fragmented, dehumanized society. Nor is it a self-less, disinterested world. Tolkien’s world is one where obligations and interactions generate community and meaning. It provides a vision of embedded social action where one repays the grace done to oneself and initiates gracious actions on one’s own and where, entirely unexplicably, such transactions can generate a surplus of grace or worth far exceeding their own measure, even in the midst of actions which deny or belie that vision.