Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[Lyta_Underhill]

Is it possible to have the opposite outcome where "all is light and full of joy"?

For fleeting moments, sure. I am reminded of the beauty of the passage from "The Field of Cormallen," in which the story is told of "Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Doom," where Frodo's story is, for a brief, heady time, made legend, where all suffering becomes meaningful and everything has a sparkle of divine light that makes it all clear and worthwhile, and would, I think, qualify as the moment where "all is light and full of joy." But, as C.S. Lewis has observed elsewhere, joy is fleeting and full-realized only when unlooked-for, experienced in the moment.

And all the host laughed and wept, and in the midst of their merriment and tears the clear voice of the minstrel rose like silver and gold, and all men were hushed. And he sang to them, now in the Elven-tongue, now in the speech of the West, until their hearts, wounded with sweet words, overflowed, and their joy was like swords, and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness.

Joy, by its very nature, is a transient state, and cannot be prolonged into happiness. I think it has a different flavor altogether. Thus, on the opposite end, Frodo's episodes of darkness and despair do not last forever, but, while they do last, their effects are "like swords" that wound and devastate, rather than flow with sweetness, like the minstrel's song at Cormallen.

One of the things that strikes me is how generally moral the Hobbits are, a morality based on instinct rather than formal belief.

A good point, Child. The force that put Frodo on his path to Mount Doom seems inevitable, a logical outcome of this instinctive moral sense. Frodo knows he must take this path, because it is the right one, the one that can save his beloved Shire and the things and people he loves. One need not ascribe such a sense to a personified higher power for it to be a valid driving force in one's actions and thoughts. Frodo takes the path he does for others, for those who will never know the depth of his sacrifice and for those few who know and accompany him along his dark path.

It all comes down to suffering & its effects. Do we grow through suffering - & even if we do, is that enough to absolve the Creator, or fate. If the suffering is so extreme it breaks us (even if we're re-made into something higher, more spiritually aware) would that be enough to make it ok to have broken us.

davem, I think that it would be somehow limiting to ascribe suffering to the realm of "being wronged" in an absolute sense, because, in the end, it does open one's eyes, and often allows one to see into other realms, much like the Elves, I suppose. Again, I return to a quote from Child's insightful posts above:

Because the world has been marred, it will be different in its final outcome. But it will be no less beautiful or full of meaning. This seems to go along with that famous quote in the Silm where even Morgoth's evil acts will be used by Eru to fashion wonders that Morgoth can not even imagine.

I cannot say I have grief-counselling experience, but I do have experience from the other end, having been a sufferer of things I wouldn't wish on anyone. Yet, I cannot say that these evils have made everything empty; rather, they opened my eyes and allowed me to see aspects of the world (and even into the spirit-realm if you'd like to call it that) that I could never have known without them. So, is it better to remain asleep, blind in happiness or ignorance in the protected Shire, or to experience the depth of "reality" in all its wonder and, yes, horror. I think it is easy to look into a situation that is marred by great horror and see only the horror. But there are slow awakenings, lights that come on, that cause one to look beyond the horror; in many ways, they make the horror bearable. But the fact of the horror never goes away, and the "way things are in the world" can, at times, wound beyond imagining. Certainly, in Frodo's case, the cure and redress of suffering is appropriate. The small "lights" that have grown within him, his "clear light" can become primary in the West, so that this aspect can overshadow the horror that would always live too close if he had remained in Middle Earth.

Cheers,
Lyta

[davem]

Yet Tolkien, through Frodo, seems to be saying that 'spiritual' growth merely brings sadness, resignation, & a sense of failure, at least within the world, & so, only has any value 'beyond the World' . In other words, only religious belief, faith in something beyond the world can give meaning to our suffering here. So, athiests actually gain nothing through suffering. Or to put it another way, unless you accept the existence of God, then the only result of extreme suffering in this world is that you will end up messed up emotionally & so broken that your life won't be worth living.

Perhaps this explains why Tolkien, for all the horror & loss he experienced on the Somme, never lost his faith, refused to give it up, as so many others did - he felt that only God could give meaning to what he'd seen, & to his life after.

So, for an athiest, LotR offers a cop out - there's no hope of happiness within the world, so Tolkien offers a deus ex machina. Because if you remove the spiritual dimension from ME, you have the story of Frodo being slowly destroyed until he dies.

It also implies that the other Hobbits, Sam, Pippin, Merry, et al are not happy, but spiritually ignorant. If the way into the West requires the kind of 'spiritual growth' Frodo has to go through, then how is it that Bilbo, Sam & Gimli pass into the West at the end without going through that degree of suffering? And if they can get there without experiencing the degree of suffering & purification Frodo does, then that implies that Frodo's suffering is not necessary to pass beyond the circles of the world - which means his suffering cannot be justified as the only way to gain Paradise. Which strengthens the sense of 'wrongness' about it, even if it is 'like things are in the world'

[Essex]

Let me apologise, as after reading my preview I ramble about a bit here, so bear with me.........

I do not believe Tolkien is saying that for suffering to count you must believe in a God and be rewarded this way. Frodo was already rewarded by saving the Shire.
But exactly WHAT TYPE of suffering are we talking about here?

For example, in my opinion, Frodo's place on the boat was because of 2 things:

1/ Reward for defeating Sauron
2/ Healing for his WOUNDS.

I emphasise wounds, as one can read into what Tolkien says as the trip West would heal him of his PHYSICAL pains. IE Stab, Sting and Bite.

But mental pain is another thing. I think Frodo’s mental pain and suffering boils down to one point. He did not throw the Ring in the cracks of doom. It was ripped off of him and then lost in the fires of mount doom. In the end Frodo did not want to get rid of the ring. THIS is the problem Frodo has. Gollum was tormented for 60 years by losing the Ring, and Frodo had to put up with the loss for a few years as well. Bilbo seemed to handle the Ring being destroyed as he, somewhat, gave up the ring voluntarily. Would going West help him get rid of his mental aguish? I think not, unfortunately.

Also, I believe, to some extent Frodo knew what he was letting himself into. He obviously would not know the details of the pain and suffering he would go through during and after the Quest. But what we DO know is that the Quest was undertaken because of his love for the Shire and the people in it. (and maybe some forbearance on his part? See the bold text in the quote)

I should like to save the Shire, if I could – though there have been times when I thought the inhabitants too stupid and dull for words, and have felt that an earthquake or an invasion of dragons might be good for them. But I don't feel like that now. I feel that as long as the Shire lies behind, safe and comfortable, I shall find wandering more bearable: I shall know that somewhere there is a firm foothold, even if my feet cannot stand there again.

Davem,

Frodo is asked to do too much, & he isn't told what he is being required to sacrifice.

I’m not too sure. I think he has an inkling of what he is letting himself into, and especially what WOULD happen if the Quest was not completed. What’s the saying “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. If you had the chance to save your country, and the world as a whole, but not be able to enjoy the fruits of your labours, wouldn’t you still go ahead and do it? I hope I would.

Do not feel too sorry for Frodo, someone had to save Middle-earth, and he became Great in doing so……..

[davem]

But even if he had gone ahead in full agreement, knowing exactly what would happen to him - which personally I don't believe, as his final state is such that he would not have been able to understand it before it happened to him * that still doesn't make it acceptable that he is broken to such a degree. Its still 'wrong', in the same way that even if all the young men of Tolkien's generation who fought on the Somme had volunteered (& most of them did) in order to save their country, & went over the top willingly, the mass slaughter was still 'wrong', because willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering. It may be a 'fact' that that's how things are in the world, but that 'fact' is simply not good enough.


*It would almost be equivalent to saying to someone who had never felt any pain before that you were going to drill into one of their teeth, & that it would hurt - but even if they agreed to you going ahead, having no real conception of what 'hurt' means they couldn't be said to have really agreed.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I am running out the door to work, but just wanted to raise one brief but critical question:

willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering.

I agree but exactly who is it that "inflicts" the suffering on Frodo? Tolkien seems to make it fairly clear in his writings that the suffering came because of Morgoth and Sauron who clung to their own plans for power or control rather than following along with the music that Eru had spelled out: that plus those Elves and Men who elected to follow a similar path for reasons of greed, immortality or whatever .

If Eru (or God) gives us free will to make our own choices, is he 'inflicting' suffering on us, or is he giving us the chance to function as mature beings in a very complex world?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Yet Tolkien, through Frodo, seems to be saying that 'spiritual' growth merely brings sadness, resignation, & a sense of failure, at least within the world, & so, only has any value 'beyond the World' . In other words, only religious belief, faith in something beyond the world can give meaning to our suffering here. So, athiests actually gain nothing through suffering.

I think this is what Tolkien meant by making Frodo a "sacrificial hero." Frodo couldn't gain for himself that which he saved for others. The wounds of Frodo are sufferings that cannot find redress in Middle Earth simply because of the rarification that they have caused in him. He is aware that the Shire has been saved, and he knows that he played a part, but he is discontent that he is not recognized in a traditional manner for it and that he cannot, in good conscience, share in that kind of glory.

I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one must give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.
--Frodo to Sam in "The Grey Havens"

Its still 'wrong', in the same way that even if all the young men of Tolkien's generation who fought on the Somme had volunteered (& most of them did) in order to save their country, & went over the top willingly, the mass slaughter was still 'wrong', because willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering. It may be a 'fact' that that's how things are in the world, but that 'fact' is simply not good enough.

It is, of course, impossible to say that slaughter and evil on any scale is 'right.' I hope I didn't say that it could be, because it cannot. But it is also impossible to deny its existence, because the wrongness does exist, and it must be dealt with as it is, not as it should be. So, Frodo's choice is really:
1) Take the Ring away from the Shire, and on to Mount Doom and have some hope that the Shire will not be devastated.
2) Give up the Ring and entrust the safety of the Shire and all of Middle Earth to someone else who has no more defense against this force you know all too well (through 17 years of possession) and give up your attempt to do good through resignation or assigning the task to another.

The fact that Frodo is the perfect one for the task and the fact that he realizes it is one thing. The fact that Frodo goes the extra step and takes on the responsibility is another. I think certainly, if he had known at the outset the depth of the suffering he would endure, he would have (at least in theory) thrown the thing away and bolted. But then, he would have a greater guilt to deal with, knowing that anyone, good or evil, benevolent or inimical, could pick it up and do what he would with it.

So, the "wrongs" I believe are perpetrated on the part of the evil forces, as Child mentions, Morgoth and Sauron and all they corrupted. The sufferings of Frodo are inflicted as a direct result of this evil. The fact that he takes them on himself, rather than allowing another or many others to suffer in his place simply points to Frodo's strength and clear sight.

This question of "why does Eru/God allow suffering in the world" has been a theme question in the world for many ages itself. If He were to simply quash Morgoth and Sauron and all their abominations and deeds, the world itself would be laid to waste and he would have to start again. Instead, the good creations fight "The Long Defeat" and thereby prove their goodness. Why fight "The Long Defeat?" Why get up in the morning when so much evil surrounds us? ...Why not? The alternative is rotting in idleness and bitterness, cursing reality for being, cursing evil for existing when one cannot simply wipe it out by asking God to use the cosmic eraser on it. "Start again!" The director might say, but, alas, the same flaws and darknesses would flow again; the universe would exist in an endless stutter of sameness, a haunted fugue with no development or resolution, waiting for the solution that can never come unless the Long Defeat be allowed to proceed to the Last Battle and the remaking of Arda. I think the inevitable outcome of the temptation to shake one's fist at God or any "higher being" is to fall into the trap of bitterness and follow the fallen into the Void, where there can be no beauty or goodness.

As a last musing, I'll review an argument that my husband, aka, "The Witch King," as I call him, differs with me about. The fact that Gandalf leaves the hobbits to fight their own battle upon the return to the Shire after the War of the Ring. Gandalf could have gone and righted all through his terrifying "Gandalf the White" presence, couldn't he? He could have saved Merry and Pippin a whole lot of trouble and kept them all from experiencing the direct threats they did experience by confronting the corruption in the Shire head-on. Mr. Witch-King believes that Gandalf should have helped them, but I disagreed and thought that Gandalf was wise to let them fight this battle on their own. In microcosm, this could be seen as a higher power allowing the lesser ones to fight a battle that must be fought. By doing so, Gandalf allows the flowering of the strength of the hobbits he knows is there. Merry and Pippin come into their own and are hailed as saviors of the Shire. They are ready for any challenge and can handle their realm without the need for intervention. This, too, is spiritual growth, albeit in a visible, physical way. It is the flowering of the sleeping Shire of the Third Age into the awake and capable Shire of the Fourth Age. It is evolution, maturation, what have you. The growth of Sam, Merry and Pippin is not the same as that of Frodo, but the growth is there and is practical.

I sure hope I haven't rambled on too long and put you all to sleep! I hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have been enjoying this topic myself!

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. I couldn't help but address this part of davem's post above:

And if they can get there without experiencing the degree of suffering & purification Frodo does, then that implies that Frodo's suffering is not necessary to pass beyond the circles of the world - which means his suffering cannot be justified as the only way to gain Paradise. Which strengthens the sense of 'wrongness' about it, even if it is 'like things are in the world'

It is interesting to note that the instances of Frodo's woundings along the path come mainly when he loses his focus and gives in to temptations or urges that are presented by the evil he is fighting against. He gives in to the temptation to put on the Ring at Weathertop, thus opening himself to the Witch King's Morgul blade wound; Shelob gets him after he lets go his caution and runs whooping loudly along the pass, leaving Sam and all good sense behind him, and finally, his major fall to temptation at the Cracks of Doom results in his loss of the Ring and the finger on which it resides. I can't say this is a one to one causal relationship, and I do admit that Frodo is a special case, a "study of a hobbit broken down completely," so that I would not take his example as the norm for Everyman but rather a mythical example that can inspire and make one think. (I'm not sure this answers anything, but I thought it good to mention...)
Now, I'm really going...

[Essex]

Lyta, very interesting. The only thing I strongly disagree with in your post is the point that you, and many before you, have made regarding Frodo's 'disontentment' as you call it. i.e.:

He is aware that the Shire has been saved, and he knows that he played a part, but he is discontent that he is not recognized in a traditional manner for it and that he cannot, in good conscience, share in that kind of glory.

I have never seen ANY proof in the texts that Frodo is discontent that he is not recognised as a hero. This is totally against his nature.

Now if you can find something that proves this, be it the text or a letter from Tolkien then I will stand corrected, but I've asked this point on different threads on and on different sites before and nothing has swayed my belief.

Frodo does not need to be seen as a hero to his people. If he really wanted praise (which he didn't), then the King of Gondor kneeling before him I reckon is good enough.

Davem, re:

Its still 'wrong', in the same way that even if all the young men of Tolkien's generation who fought on the Somme had volunteered (& most of them did) in order to save their country, & went over the top willingly, the mass slaughter was still 'wrong', because willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering. It may be a 'fact' that that's how things are in the world, but that 'fact' is simply not good enough.

Unfortunatley you are talking about a Perfect world. I think Tolkien's work is showing, that even in his Fantasy, Middle-earth is not perfect. Even the Elves themselves, his 'higher echelon', maybe comparible to Christian Angels, were not perfect. In fact they were quite a nasty bunch at times........ So, yes you can say it is 'wrong', but then not everything is black and white in this world. There are shades of grey.

PS Lyta, re the Scouring. Gandalf's work was done. I agree with your point that it helps the hobbits grow, but really his hands were tied anyway, as his job was already finished and he was in retirement! He needed to pop down to the Old Forest anyway to see Tom (his Boss) to pick up his P45!!!! Oops, opened up a can of worms there...............