Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[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...............

[Child of the 7th Age]

Essex,

You raise this point:

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.

What about this quote from a draft letter written in September 1963? It clearly states that part of Frodo did crave recognition as a hero. The italics are my own....

.....it was not only nightmares of past horrors that afflicted him, but also unreasoning self-reproach: he saw himself and all that he done as a broken failure. 'Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same, for I shall not be the same.' That was actually a temptation out of the Dark, a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned as a 'hero', not content with being a mere instrument of good.

Child

[davem]

Lyta, I can see what you're saying, & part of me agrees with it - except the idea that his wounds could be considered his own fault for 'slipping' at certain points - it seems a bit harsh, but maybe I'm taking a too negative view of your point.

But Frodo is hardly allowed to make a free choice & is told by both Gandalf & Elrond that he is meant to have the Ring, & that the task is appointed for him & if he doesn't find a way, no-one will (shall we translate: 'if you don't succeed in detroying this Ring we'll all be killed or enslaved, & it will be all your fault'.?)

He is given a task he cannot suceed in achieving, told it will be his fault if he doesn't achieve it, & in the end is left with nothing, except the overwhelming sense of failure & only the option of exile to relieve his suffering. And, rationalise it as we will, it is wrong, & cruel, whether Illuvatar, or fate, or the Music, or Morgoth, or Sauron, or simply 'the way things are in the world' is responsible.

We, looking on from a distance, may be able to see that he's 'grown' into a more spiritual' person, but i don't get any sense that he feels that. So, what is the value to him, as opposed to all those 'charming, absurd Hobbits', & the 'great' in their palaces? What does he actually get out of it all? Not too much. So, while it might be 'fair' & good, & admirable from the perspective of others that he's done all that for them, given so much for them, while we might be able to look at him & say 'My, how he's grown!', he is broken & lost, & we have no idea what form his healing will take, how 'healed' he will feel at the end of his 'treatment'. But the rest of the world will be OK, so that's alright?

Except its not alright, really, is it? Not for him, & that's the point. What he suffers is wrong, when all's said & done. Its not really enough to say these big, cosmic battles have to be fought (which is true), because those who fight them (as with Tolkien's generation) suffer horribly so the rest of us can carry on.

Frodo doesn't actually do what's right - he really does what's 'wrong'. because as Sam says 'Its all wrong', & that's in a way what's both truly tragic, & truly admirable about him. He's placed by Eru, or fate, or the way things are in the world, without being asked, in a world that's all wrong, & is told 'Its your job to help put it right, now, get on with it - people are depending on you!' What becomes of him seems almost secondary - but its 'alright', because when he's been wrecked & broken they (the ones who put him in the position where he got broken, will come along & put him back together again, & say, 'There you are, young Hobbit, that's alright then, all better now, off you go to your destiny beyond the Circles of the World'.

It feels 'wrong', & I can't shake that feeling.

[mark12_30]

davem,

I disagree that the ones who assigned the task to Frodo leave him hanging. The very three who assured Frodo that carrying the Ring was his task-- Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel-- are with him, on the very ship on which he sails away. They each are Ringbearers. They know (more than anyone else could) what Frodo went through. They alone (of any living creatures save the Nazgul) could empathize with him. Yes, they knew the task was impossible; they understand his final failure; they accept him nevertheless, and continue their commitment to help him.

In a sense, they are his kinsmen now.

[Imladris]

But Frodo is hardly allowed to make a free choice & is told by both Gandalf & Elrond that he is meant to have the Ring, & that the task is appointed for him & if he doesn't find a way, no-one will (shall we translate: 'if you don't succeed in detroying this Ring we'll all be killed or enslaved, & it will be all your fault'.?)

I wouldn't say that. What I think Galadriel is that the only person who had a chance of doing it was Frodo. Everybody else was either too foolish (eg, Merry and Pippin) or had too much power that could easily be enslaved to the ring (eg, Gandalf). I believe I read in another thread once was that they knew he would fail...how could he not? They knew he was "human" and had his faults. They knew there was not much hope. Why would they blame him for that?

Of course he suffered wrong. But this is an imperfect world. No one would have suffered at all if Melkor hadn't gotten on his high horse and corrupted Middle-earth. As hard as it is to accept, this is the way that Middle-earth and our world works. It's unfortunate, but it's the hard truth. There is suffering in this world, and none of it is fair. But what can be more beautiful than a few soldiers giving up their life, their happiness, for the good of the human race? It's called self-sacrifice. Would you rather have Middle-Earth suffer under Sauron because what would happen to Frodo would be wrong? Would you rather have Sauron king of Middle-earth because what would happen to Frodo would be unfair?

[davem]

Firefoot, we seem to be saying the same thing. What happens to Frodo is wrong - everyone in the story seems to know that - Sam certainly does - his last words to Frodo show him struggling to accept the wrongness of his fate. The world is wrong, & what happens to Frodo is wrong. It is the 'way things are in the world' & has to be lived with, but it must still be acknowledged as 'wrong'.

To stray into a 'dangerous' area - Christ comes to die, to save the world. If he hadn't died on the Cross, if he'd lived a quiet life as a carpenter, got married, had kids, grown old & died peacefully in his sleep, that would have been a 'good' life for him. But no salvation, no hope beyond the world, everything would just have carried on in the same old messed up way. So, he had to die, as he did. But still, when we look at, think about him hanging there, being tortured to death, our instinctual response is that's its wrong, that it should not be happening. Intelectually & theologically we might understand why it happened & even be thankful for it, but on a gut level we what see is the 'wrongness' of the world symbolised in that one event.

Now, back to the 'plot

Moral choices are not made in a vacuum, & Frodo is put in a postion of having to take up the responsibility laid on him, or end up feeling a worse failure than he does in the end anyway. He is manouvered, by Eru, among others (Gandalf tells him he was meant to have the Ring - & not by its maker). And ultimate responsibility lies with Eru, not with Morgoth or Sauron, because Eru states that none may alter the Music in his despite.

So, does Eru have any 'moral' responsibility for his 'intentions', for what happens to individuals as a result of the changes He does or does not allow? Surely He must, if he can demand that of the inhabitants of Arda? Can Eru be held to account? Would He also require, perhaps, forgiveness from his creatures?

And please remember, none of this is to question God in this world - (though Jung seems to ask these questions about God in his 'Answer to Job'). Eru is a character in a story, God of Arda, not of this universe & we can analyse his behavour with just as much right as we analyse that of Frodo or Sauron.

[Dininziliel]

Davem,

I think if Eru/God/Love/The Universe could be held accountable for doing wrong, and thus eligible to be sued for pardon, Jesus would have come down from the cross, else he was a most insane fanatic. On a lesser scale, there could have been no LotR.

It is a matter of acceptance, pure & simple. This is not the limited level of "that's all right then."

The journey from thinking God responsible for the wrongness in life to acceptance of God's will is pretty much what LotR is all about. Tolkien repeatedly explained that its central theme was Death vs. Immortality: Men's acceptance of death, the Elves' acceptance of the "long defeat", and the consequences of attempting to usurp Eru's/God's place with the intention of altering these fates--death being the most historically perceived "wrong" thanks to the skillful wielding of fear. If we kept faith & behaved as we were created, we would not be having this discussion; instead, we chose to believe illusions which fatten on our fear and make the world most of us experience.

The ones worthy to be forgiven are the people you see, talk to, sit next to, write to, read the writings of, think of, and are one of. It is because of our own free will that the world is a cruel, harsh, and most unfair place. IMHO, this is precisely why Tolkien made the whole story pivot on pity & mercy. This was certainly Frodo's journey, and though at the end he may have been irreparably scarred, he was not bitter, nor did he say, "If only I'd known," or "I wish it had never happened," or even "I wish it had not happened to me." It was because of his pity--an inherent part of acceptance--that he could be healed. He may have failed at Doom, but he completed the larger journey. And so can we all.

[davem]

Dininziliel

I can see all your points, & from the perspective of faith, they are correct. But faith, as Tolkien stated, is trust, Hope without guarantees. It is faith that God, loving us & desiring our happiness, but also our spiritual growth - well, growth into our full humanity - will make all things well in the end.

Tolkien, in LotR, has Frodo, after the destruction of the Ring tell Sam 'Its like things are in the world, hopes fail, an end comes. And from the perspective of our life here, in the world, that is a fact. Its not the only fact - there is love, joy, here in the world. But it ends in death. as for there being anything beyond the circles of the world, we only have faith. So we can read LotR from a 'materialist'/athiest perspective, & we find it the story of an individual who is broken & dies as a result (going into the 'west' was always symbolic of dying in celtic myth). Hence is it inspires only a sense of the cruelty of fate & the deep 'wrongness' of the world. The only sense of joy that comes is joy beyond the walls of the world - he does not achieve happiness in this world. His 'spiritual growth brings sadness, resignation to the inevitability of suffering, evil & death (at least within Arda Marred) & desire to leave the world.

So, Tolkien is saying our true happiness (not only our ultimate destiny) is to be found only 'elsewhere'.

Quote. If we kept faith & behaved as we were created, we would not be having this discussion;

But this is exactly what Frodo does - to the fullest extent that he can - & he still suffers terribly, is broken, & 'dies' ( ok, dies to the world) & it is not a 'willing' death - one can will the sacrifice of ones life, but one does not will the death that comes as a consequence - does that make sense?

It seems to me that Tolkien is precisely not saying that if we lived as God willed we would be happy in this world. He is saying the opposite - this is Arda Marred, & whether we live according to Eru's will or not, we will suffer, because suffering is part of it - it is simply 'like things are in the world'.

But here we must perhaps separate ME from this world - the Bible tells us that we (as decendants of our 'primal parents') are responsible for the Fall, & must be redeemed. We have brought our sufferings on ourselves. In ME, Arda was marred before it was even given material form. Melkor spoiled it & introduced evil & contention into the blueprint - but Eru then chose, knowing the suffering that would result for all those, Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits who would be born into it. God creates a perfect world which then 'falls' as a result of human free will & defiance. Eru creates a world which has corruption & evil already present in it from before its creation. So, while we cannot hold God accountable for suffering & evil in this world, we can at least question whether Eru bears any responsibility for the wrongness in ME.

[littlemanpoet]

Child:

When a person is totally immersed in despair, they are incapable of appreciating either goodness or beauty. The fact that Frodo could look on those shores and sense their underlying purity suggests that something in him was still capable of responding to goodness.

No. I must disagree that despair removes one's ability to appreciate goodness or beauty. I speak from personal experience. This simply does not ring true. It is quite possible for Frodo to be in the midst of despair, the world seeming grey to him, and the present goodness and beauty around him not touching him, because it cannot reach past the despair; but other beauty and goodness can reach him; it simply cannot be found where he had always looked before. There is Frodo's Elvish nature, which, because the 3rd age has died, no longer can find fulfillment in Middle Earth.

Davem:

If we accept the 'conceit' behind LotR - it was written by the Hobbits involved - then who exactly wrote the account of Frodo's arrival at the Undying Lands? Sam did.

In this case, the conceit doesn't work. At this point we have omniscient narrator. Not Sam. I really don't think that the conceit does work. (hmmm.... has there ever been a thread about this?) Whereas the conceit serves it purpose as a means of adding to the historical feel of the story, by this point in the story, the conceit is no longer needed, nor affecting the reader. If the reader has stayed with it as far as Frodo's journey across the Sea, the story itself, and all that has transpired, is enough to move the reader, and does so, obviously.

Davem:

I can't see Frodo thinking 'Whoo, yeah! I'll have some of that! Where do I sign up?'

Firefoot:

Frodo could not have known what he would go through when he volunteered to take the Ring in Rivendell.

But Frodo did, at the Council of Elrond, have a notion of what was going to be required when he volunteered to take the Ring; he knew then that it was a sacrificial quest, and likely would end in his own death. He had already experienced the Morgul Blade, and been changed by it. Think of Gandalf's thoughts as he watches Frodo: "to the wizard's eye there was a faint change, just a hint as it were of transparency, about him, and especially about the left hand that lay outside upon the coverlet." And Frodo "signed on". Why would anyone do such a thing? Would you? Would I? The answer is that indeed, some of us, many of us, would. Why? Because we weigh the thing out as did one high priest a couple thousands of years ago: the sacrifice of one is worth the saving of many - even if that one is myself.

Firefoot:

I believe Frodo had hope - not for himself, but for the whole of Middle-earth.

Precisely.

Child:

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

It's not really based on instinct. Tolkien's Hobbits are strongly based on pre World War One English society, the culture of which was deeply rooted in Western Christianity. Those underpinnings remain among Tolkien's Shire, even if they have been unmoored from their initial context. This is proven all the more by the familiarity between the Hobbits and the Rohirrim, by which Tokien essentially evokes a time travel within his novel from 19th century England to Anglo-Saxon England of 1000 years previous. In other words, the Hobbits travel back in time as they travel south toward Rohan, Gondor, and Mordor. All of which is to say that the Hobbits' morality is basically God-fearing, even if the text does not say so, per sé.

At the beginning of the story, even, Frodo is different than the other Hobbits, which is in part why Bilbo chose him as his heir. Even here, I suppose, Frodo didn't have a choice. Bilbo made it for him, to be the heir of the Ring. As Child said, davem, when it comes right down to it, none of us has a whole lot of choice in much of anything, only sometimes between the worse, and the lesser, of two evils. Such is fallen/flawed life. And it hurts. Heh. Reminds me of an aphorism I made up for myself: "The essence of humanity is not in the exercise of free will but in the nuanced expression of suffering." Ouch! But I guess I still believe it, two years later.

Dininziliel:

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

I believe that is is possible. Notice the quote in my sig. It's the essence of being human, I think: "You will be healed in such a way that the harm done to you, and the suffering you endure, will become the stuff of your healing." How this happens, I don't know. Does it happen in LotR? It's hard to say. Does it happen in real life? Absolutely. Thus, it seems to me, that light and joy take up into itself all the darkness and horror and suffering, and transform it into something new. How? It depends on what you believe, I suppose, and it's a little bit what this season is about for some of us.

Well, I haven't waded through the entire thread, but I'm getting long winded here, so I'll post up and be quiet for a bit.

"May your song always be sung." -Bob Dylan

LMP

[davem]

Hookbill & Firefoot,

Eru creates a flawed world - out of his own free will (& being 'God' - within ME - He is the only being who truoly has free will). It is not a world which, like this one according to the Bible, was created perfect & then fell. It is pre-fallen. So, while man's 'fall' in this world was a possibility, it was not inevitable. In ME 'falls' are effectively inevitable, because Melkor's influence is written into the blueprint.

Of course, Eru has stated that none may change the Music in His despite - so we come to te conclusion that He accepted Melkor's input. So Eru, in full knowledge, makes a world in which, because of its nature, falls are more or less inevitable, or at least incredibly difficult to avoid.

The fact that God knew of the fall of man is not the point. He knew it would happen, but that isn't the same as causing it to happen. god created a good world, in which there was no evil in either the planning or in the making. Eru creates in full knowledge, a world was, or had become, flawed in the planning stage. He knows all things predicted in the Music will come about, because He has created the world in such a way that they must come about - because 'none' may change the Music in His despite.

So, He is responsible. In choosing Frodo to carry the Ring, He is responsible for what happens to him. In this world Christ comes to save us from our sins through his death. But in ME Eru's incarnation (as predicted in the Athrabeth) & subsequent death, would be about putting right the Flaws he had deliberately allowed in His own creation. The first is God putting right our 'wrong', the second is Eru putting right his own.

LMP - long time no hear!

As to the 'conceit' of LotR, for me it still applies, & makes the ending more beautiful & moving - no, we don't have final confirmation that Frodo comes safe to the Undying Lands & the healing he needs - but we have Sam's hope for him. And this is a story about Hope, without guarantees. It leaves us feeling that it should be true - & this is what inspires hope, faith, & trust. What inspires in the Christian story is a deep sense that it should be true, it ought to be like that - & that, not all the textual or archaeological 'evidence' is what first connects with people. Not the 'wrongness' - which that kind of death also inspires - we always feel that cruelty & death is 'wrong', & that 'someone' must be held accountable. But there is a sense that because of that event something is now put right that wasn't right before. In this sense, the 'conceit' of LotR works, even at the end. Our emotional connection is stronger because we don't really know what happened - we have Sam's hope that it will all work out for the best. A simple faith, not a stated 'fact', dead as a doornail.

As to Frodo's willing acceptance of the burden - yes, he did - at least he accepted it in stages. What he could not accept or agree to is what he would become, how he would end up. So, can we say he 'brought his final condition on himself, because he agreed to take the Ring? If we can't say that, then can we hold anyone or anything else responsible - Eru, who made Arda Flawed, & will allow none to change the Music in his despite - or 'the way things are in the world' (which again brings us back to Eru, because 'the way things are in the world is down to Him).

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Davem, I bring you back to what I said earlier.

In my opinion, Tolkien is trying to make the point that for us to have free will, there must be flaws in the world. Whether they come through Men's fall or through deliberate Creation of Flaws. Without Evil, we cannot make the choice to do what we will.

But still, ultimately the flaws are made up for and all get what they deserve, whether that be to live in bliss with God / Eru, or to suffer eternally. The choice is left to the peoples of M-E, that is why Eru created the flaws, but yet still makes up for them in the end.

That, I think, is the essence of Christianity, if the world was without flaw, we would all Love God from the moment we were born and it would not be anything special. God Loves us from before we were born, that is something special. But if we are given the choice to Love God or not to, then if ones choose to Love God then that connection becomes more intimate and special to the person.

So, I believe that Eru was making the flaws to give the people a choice, To have a special relationship with him, or not to, thus they were the most free of all races on M-E.

It is for that reason that I do not consider Christianity to be a religion, because the word religion suggests simply following a set of rules for life, where as in Christianity it is more based on having a loving and personal relationship with God. So we can guess that as Tolkien was a Christian, he will have wanted to get this message across to people.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Except its not alright, really, is it? Not for him, & that's the point. What he suffers is wrong, when all's said & done. Its not really enough to say these big, cosmic battles have to be fought (which is true), because those who fight them (as with Tolkien's generation) suffer horribly so the rest of us can carry on.

It feels 'wrong', & I can't shake that feeling.

I, too, have this 'wrong' feeling at times, but there is also a warring feeling that I get that my view of this 'wrong' is a human conceit, a desire for things to be handed to me, for the truths and beauties of the vast universe to be handed to me on a platter. Thus, I cannot condemn inevitable suffering, nor place blame on a higher power. Ultimately, I am responsible for my own enlightenment, and to seek personal fulfillment to the exclusion of all other realities seems, to me, too egocentric a berth to proceed from. The closest label I can put on it is "spiritual envy," and that does not cover it completely, I am sure.

I cannot remember exactly when I came to the realization not only that life really wasn't fair, but that it was a dangerous conceit to wish it to be so. I found that, the more I railed against the injustices that could not be controlled, foreseen, nor avoided, the more depressed I became. I still become depressed, but I maintain these warring views and a firm conviction that, as Eru maintains in the Ainulindalë, there is no part of the Music, not even the discord of Melkor, that does not have its source in Him. The danger is to ascribe to Eru a willful malice, a desire to harm or toy with the creation. The danger is to believe that we know better than the Creator, but we would not be human if we did not question the creation, and, yes, rail against it as well. Of course there is the view of absence, that there IS no will controlling the progress of the universe, and, if I were to subscribe to this view, then I might as well stick my head in physics books and never emerge, because I'd STILL have to try to explain it somehow. I am only human after all, even if I am a hobbit!

Lyta, I can see what you're saying, & part of me agrees with it - except the idea that his wounds could be considered his own fault for 'slipping' at certain points - it seems a bit harsh, but maybe I'm taking a too negative view of your point.

I don't, in fact, blame Frodo for losing focus. Most who would try to carry such a burden would fall much more quickly and easily. It is inevitable that Frodo will have some failings, but my point was that his failings resulted in immediate and definite consequences, thus bringing home the narrowness of focus required to see this quest through. The wounds of Frodo Baggins are not his fault; they are the result of evil or chaotic forces acting upon him. The relationship with his loss of focus or will seems to me to point out the gravity of the quest and just how difficult it is to carry it through. I do not cast blame upon Frodo himself, for, under the circumstances, I think he did as well or better than any other being could have done.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I think you are asking something so basic, something so fundamental to being human, that it simply can't be contained in the character of Frodo alone, or on the pages of this thread.

The basic reality is this: there are no assurances in this life. Tolkien recognized that in his own childhood, and he wove that truth into the characters he created. Frodo is the most obvious example of someone who did the right thing, yet had to pay the consequences. Yet there are other characters in the book whose lives were tinged with untold sadness and loss: Arwen, Elrond, the Ents, and even poor Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, to name but a few. Sometimes, like Frodo or Arwen, we make a conscious decision to do what is right, knowing that stance will require us to sacrifice. More often, we are like Elrond or Lobelia, trying to muddle through things until something hits us in the stomach--something so massive that we know we'll never truly be ourselves again.

You might laugh at the inclusion of Lobelia's name in the list, but stop and think about it. She was a mother who saw her son murdered and probably cannibalised. With all her small sins and shortcomings, did she (or her son) really "deserve" such a fate. As a mother myself, I think it is clear that she did not.

I'm in my mid-fifties which is older than most people on this thread or site. As I've gone through life, one of the things that's struck me is how few people come to middle-age without being touched by a major tragedy in some way. As I talk to friends and neighbors, I compile a list of truly heartbreaking things, families touched by all the shadows and griefs of the universe, things that just shouldn't happen to good and decent folk.

Tolkien became an expert in such things at a very young age: losing both his mother and father, having to contend with the anti-Catholic prejudice that was rampant among his relatives, and enduring the horrors of trench warfare including the loss of close friends. The young man had a choice. He could have become embittered and unproductive, and turned his back on the faith his mother gave him. Like so many others of his generation, he could have embraced alienation and made cynicism his hallmark. But he didn't do that.

Instead, he kept plugging along, combatting the depression, which evidently did come in bouts, by finding meaning in friends and family, religious faith, and the myths he loved so much. When I read LotR, the impression I come away with is of sadness, loss, and sacrifice, but with one important difference. I sense that there is something good and decent that lies at the core of Middle-earth and also at the core of life so that perhaps Frodo's suffering (and ours as well) has some meaning, even if I am too limited to understand it fully. When I set down the book, I do not feel despair, horror or alienation, which is true with many other works I've read, but rather sadness deeply intertwined with joy.

Sadness intertwined with joy..... I think Tolkien has it right. Life is like that. One minute you're laughing, the next you're crying, and sometimes you're doing both at once. This is not to belittle one feeling or the other, merely to say that they're both there, and we simply don't have a lot of control over what hits us in the face. As Gandalf more eloquently said, we can't control what's presented to each of us, we can only try to make the right and decent response. And sometimes that's so hard....

I grieve with Frodo and with those around me who've hit a tough spot in this universe. I grieve for my own losses. Only a blockhead would deny that injustice doesn't exist. I've seen enough of it to know. Yet is that all there is? I just don't think so, and Tolkien's writings resonate with me precisely because he felt the same way.

Read those last words that Tolkien wrote when Frodo first saw the shores of Tol Eressea. Really read them.... the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back , and he beheld white shores and beyond them a green country under a swift sunrise. There is no way that could be Samwise speaking. It sounds nothing like him. It is Frodo and Frodo's visions from the house of Bombadil, and to me it speaks of the possibility of healing. Not the assurance but the possibility, and that's all we can expect in this life.

[Firefoot]

Perhaps it wasn't right or fair or just that Frodo had to suffer. Nothing is fair, and that is becuase the world isn't perfect. It is Arda Marred - sin, if you will. As long as there is not perfection, there will be those that have to suffer, to lose things, that others might have them. I agree that what happened to Frodo was wrong, but that is the fate of Arda Marred. If it wasn't Frodo, it would be someone else. And it wasn't just Frodo - Child gave some great examples of that. Frodo is maybe the most "obvious", the one that lost the most and suffered the greatest pain, but there were others too. Is any suffering right? How are right and wrong defined? What is more right: that Frodo should suffer; lose it all; or that all the free peoples of Middle-earth suffer and lose it all? The problem is, that in Arda Marred, right and wrong can be hard to distinguish. And it isn't always just "right" or "wrong". There are several shades of gray, where you have to wonder what is "more right" or "more wrong." Where do you draw the line? Why is Frodo's suffering wrong? Is it because he suffered more than anyone should have to? Because of the sacrifice? Because there is no guarantee that healing will come? I would say it is somewhat of a combination. Frodo suffered greatly - there is no doubt about that - much more than most people ever suffer and much more than anyone should ever have to suffer. But someone always has to suffer so that others won't because the world isn't perfect. Everyone is required to make sacrifices, but some like Frodo's are much greater than that of others. There is no guarantee that Frodo will be healed, but there is hope. This grace was granted to Frodo - that he could pass into the West and be given a chance for healing - and a hope that healing could come.

It seems that for Frodo, it all comes back to the hope or estel - trust that maybe somewhere there is healing for him. Because if there wasn't hope for Frodo, then there really was nothing left. Nothing for him to hold onto. But hope - if there was hope, then maybe there could still be something left. Hope for healing, for peace; maybe not withing the world, but even beyond it. I have to believe that Frodo had hope - because if there is no hope then there really is nothing. Not for Frodo, and not for anyone else.