Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[davem]

LMP, Bethberry,

So, we have Frodo 'repenting'. I wondered at first. Then the question got too big. Has Frodo anything to repent of? If he claimed the Ring in full knowledge of the implications, then, yes. He is, like Job, broken - but broken by his own 'sins', or by God, or by the way things are in the world?

Julian of Norwich wrote 'Our life here is penance'. For what? If our whole life is penance, then not for something we as individuals have done or not done. So penance for what? Being imperfect? Yet that's how we were made. Yet, if our life was not a penance, we could not be remade through suffering into something wholly different - as Tolkien says of Frodo. So, we repent of what we are - no matter who is responsible, or how it came to be that we did not appear already perfected. The 'wrongness' we feel - about the way world is, is because we are 'wrong'. We see as in a Glass, darkly. So everything seems dark. Till the Light shines - or until we can see it, till our eyes are opened. And Lewis said that pain is what opens our eyes, wakes us up. Suffering is God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world. So, we are awakened, & see beyond this little world, the 'Shadowlands' as he called them - always in shadow because the 'light' seems always to be shining somewhere else, over the next hill, around the next corner. We seem forever to be chasing that light, never realising that the reason it seems far away is because our eyes are darkened. The Light is everywhere, but we see it only in other people & other places. Chasing after God, without realising He is right here. Frodo feels lost, confused, broken, because he can't see himself as we or as God (thanks for that, Helen) see him. And his 'healing' will come when he is finally able to open his eyes & see what's really there, who's really there. So, it all seems 'wrong' simply because we're not able to see that its 'right' - or at least that its well on its way to being so.

Frodo's story cannot be completed - not till our own is completed. Because till ours is completed we won't be able to see Frodo's complete. Or perhaps that should be we cannot hear the Happy ever after of Frodo's story, till our own is told to its end.

On a personal note, I remember, many years ago, walking by a river on a foggy day. Suddenly I had this sense that our lives are 'stories' God tells us, stories that while they are being told, seem absolutely real. But when they're finished we can step back & laugh, or cry. But the stories will go on till the final word of the tale is spoken. And then we shall live 'happily ever after' beyond the stories, whether or not the story itself ended happily, because, after all, it is only a story. As Lewis put it, 'real life has not begun yet'.

And now I'm so far off topic I expect this to be removed not just to another thread but to another site altogether

[mark12_30]

Julian of Norwich wrote 'Our life here is penance'.

Although I respect Julian, here she and I disagree (I think the whole penance thing is obliterated by the power of the cross.) I think our life here is war. And I think that shows Frodo's state thru a clearer lens. Yes, he had stuff to repent for, but I think it was the War that wounded him most.

To quote an old friend-- "This thread is deep, deep..."

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I admit that I have come to this thread late, and while I have done my best to catch up on the full debate, the overwhelming volume and complexity of the posts has defeated me (somewhat) – so if I am about to replicate points that have already been made, please do let me know!

At any event, the first thing that has spurred me to post here is the idea of Frodo and repentence. Davem, you ask (and then answer):

Has Frodo anything to repent of? If he claimed the Ring in full knowledge of the implications, then, yes.

The moment at which Frodo claims the Ring has always struck me as being wonderfully ambivalent on just this point:

“‘I have come,’ he said. ‘But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!”

At first glance it does indeed appear as though Frodo is making his own choice, albeit under huge (perhaps, as Tolkien argued, irresistible pressure) from the Ring. But the language is so loaded. Syntactically the sentences as Frodo utters them are clumsy, but they do allow the following two phrases:

“I do not choose now” and “I will not.” This would seem to open the door to the idea that Frodo’s will has been overmastered by the Ring, and that he is not in control anymore. He is “not choosing” for his “will [is] not” his own anymore.

Also, the pattern of this little scene is suggestive that Frodo is not making his own choice here. It begins with the acknowledgement of his heroic act (“I have come” ), then moves into the above ambiguous expressions of intent (that is, he has lost the ability to choose and will to the Ring), and then he claims the Ring as his own. It is only after he has reached the point where he can “not choose” and “will not” that the he claims the Ring.

So, in answer to your question Davem: no, Frodo has nothing to repent of for he did not claim the Ring, the Ring claimed him!

The other thing that I have had flitting through my mind as I read over the posts is Frodo’s parting words to Sam:

“‘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 has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.’”

Now, before I started ploughing through this thread, I had always thought that this referred to the sacrifices people made in war to preserve or save the homeland. But now I think about it differently: it seems to me that with the end of the War of the Ring, much that is good and beautiful is passing from Middle-Earth: Galadriel, Elrond and Gandalf are all on the same boat with Frodo. These beings are the repository of memory: the memory of Westernesse, and the First Age and of all that is now gone. For them to leave and Frodo to remain means that in Middle-Earth there will no longer be beings who remember the light, but at least one being who remembers the darkness. It’s not that Frodo will remain in Middle-Earth like the blot of ‘sin’ but as a reminder and commemoration of Sauron’s works -- that is, he knows the full nature of the One Ring.

I’m still not entirely happy with this last thought, but it seems intriguing enough (to me at least) to throw out there.

[mark12_30]

Fordim, thank you for a well-crafted and thorough description of Frodo's Sammath Naur experience... I'll bookmark that post.

--mark12_30

ps. Dare I say it: your purely Trilogy-derived position also *happens* to agree with Letters... (ducks flying objects)

[littlemanpoet]

I thought I might regret throwing out Job's words, "I repent in dust in ashes." I do. The analogy is imperfect. To apply it to Frodo is to jump into a bush of thistles, I think.

Now I must take my pruning hook to the thistle bush. (If I may make so bold)

I don't know if Frodo has anything to repent of. Actually, I'm not sure the question is appopriate to ask. Why not? Because so far it's based on an analogy to Job, which I don't find altogether appropriate either, and I'm the one who broached it! Job's repentance in dust and ashes was, I think, if one looks at the context of the book, was because he thought he could do a better job of running the world than his God; which is precisely where Yahweh questions him. This was not at all what Frodo was about. So in that sense, the analogy was poor, and I rescind it (in dust and ashes). :P

Whether Frodo has anything to repent of or not, I must oppose, as kindly as I may, the general direction in Fordim Hedgethistle's post (no wonder I came up with the thistle analogy!). It splits hairs. Such hair splitting is called "casuistry", which developed, at least among Protestants, as a new legalism after the Protestant Reformation. It had to be reformed from. Long story.

I don't think it works to use casuistry at all, and not in the context of Frodo's choice at Mount Doom. Whether stated negatively or positively, a choice was made by Frodo, whether or not his will was overwhelmed by the Ring. Does it make him guilty? The question doesn't matter to me, because I think it's beside the point.

Tolkien's purpose, in part, was to present an impossible task that a normal hobbit (read human being) would not be able to achieve, and would be broken by it. He succeeded admirably, to say the least. I think that he succeeded just as admirably in tapping into the reality of human existence in that all of us, who truly live, have the impossible task of living whole lives. None of us succeed. Any of us who are willing to admit it, do, that we are broken, and need to be made whole. We need the numinous.

LMP

[mark12_30]

I see LMP's point also, about the casuistry. Let me clarify:

When discussing "Does Frodo need to repent", the usual question is, "Of Treason." Tolkien in letters (Letter 191) responded with a resounding "no" to that, which is why Fordim's post appeals to me. WHile Tolkien's logic is not quite the same as Fordim's, there are similarities.

However Tolkien also states (in Letters; I'm still ducking flying objects from the Canon Book Vs Reader thread) that Frodo does need to repent of pride, and, desire to still posess the ring and regret its destruction. But that's very different indeed than having to repent of treason.

I'm not sure how that all weaves into LMP and Fordim's discussion and I don't want to derail that. I hope my references to Letters have not done so. I offer them as "additional information."

Grace and peace, --mark12_30

[The Saucepan Man]

There is a great discussion of whether or not Frodo made a conscious decision to claim the Ring here:

Frodo at Sammath Naur

Personally, I think that the words used (I choose ..., I will ...) indicate that it was a conscious decision on Frodo's part, albeit one which he had no power to resist (anyone for casuistry? ).

[davem]

LMP

Clearly the 'Job question' is a difficult one - a 'surface' reading of the text has God & Satan playing a game, with Job as a pawn - Satan says to God 'I bet I can turn him against you', & God replies, 'Go on then, try it'. Job is then broken by Satan while he & God watch from a safe distance, like a couple of vivisectionists testing a lab rat. When its all over, & Job has lost everything, including his wife & children, God pops up, tells him he's an ignorant, ungrateful worm, but then, in His infinite mercy, decides He'll 'forgive' him & gives him a new family & replaces his livestock.

So, we have the impression of a God who doesn't really care about anything but His own majesty, & plays vicious games with His children's lives.

This, I suppose, was where I was coming from with my original criticism of Eru's treatment of Frodo. Frodo is used by Eru to help get rid of Sauron. He is simply used as a pawn in a 'game' between Eru & first Melkor, then Sauron. Frodo is broken as a result, but Eru, in His infinite mercy, takes Frodo off into the West & fixes him up.

Paul states 'All have sinned, & all have fallen short of the glory of God'. So, did Tolkien feel this statement applied in Middle Earth? If so, then Frodo has sinned. But then we are left with the question of what Frodo's 'sin' actually was. Are we talking about 'original' sin, or individual sin?

If it was 'original' sin, then why should Frodo suffer more than anyone else, be broken more completely, suffer more absolutely? If it is an 'individual' sin, then that sin must be more severe than any other, if the consequence is more severe.

But now we are back to your point - we cannot look at things in this way, because suffering cannot be 'explained' or accounted for logically, or in terms of credits & debits totted up & punishment assigned. Suffering is a fact, 'sin' - at least 'original' sin - is a fact, part of the way things are in the world. Suffering can only be transcended, climbed above, like the storm in Jung's analogy, & the reasons for it left behind. We have to leave suffering behind, as God, in' forgiving' our sins, is effectively leaving them behind, so that in the end we can say 'suffering' was , 'sin' was.

To bring in the idea of 'enchantment' from the 'canonicity' thread, enchantment is what happens when suddenly, for a moment, we step out of the Shadowlands into the Light, out of galadhremmin ennorath - 'tree tangled Middle Earth', & see suddenly the light of the stars of Elbereth. So, 'enchantment' in this sense is not a delusion, but a sudden clear sight of the truth - which we here find in Tolkien's secondary world. The truth 'enchants' us, whether the light that suddenly shines on us has its source in this world or in Middle Earth. In the Shadowlands, in tree tangled Middle Earth we stumble blindly in the dark, & 'sin' & suffer. Frodo, at the end, will not so much be 'healed' as 'enchanted'.

But the 'living happily ever after', as we see in Frodo's story, takes place beyond this world, because here the light shines fitfully, & the enchantment passes often before we realise we were enchanted.

And, yes, I realise I've now adopted the polar opposite position to the one I started out with!