LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 02 - The Shadow of the Past

[davem]

First of all, if anyone is interested in seeing how this chapter developed, I posted an 'analysis' (for want of a word that implies less competence) yesterday on the chapter by chapter thread:http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10847 post no 19).

What's interesting to me is that in the earlier versions, Gollum is far less 'evil' In fact He seems to become increasingly 'monstrous' as Tolkien develops the story. Its easier to feel compassion for the earlier Gollum than the later one. Perhaps this is to emphasise the evil of the Ring - as it is transformed from being just 'one ring' among others into being the One Ring' to rule all others, its effect on those who come into contact with it also grows. Tolkien is making Gollum increasingly monstrous - in the end he makes Gollum into the most evil, psychopathic, twisted 'thing', we could imagine.

But the most interesting thing is Gandalf's statement that in the end Gollum 'had no will in the matter'. The Ring has dominated his will completely & he has no ability to choose - so in one of the first statements about the Ring in the book, Tolkien is going all Manichean on us - the Ring is a malevolent force that can dominate one's will & control one's behaviour - but, from a Christian perspective, this is heresy. Also, from a Middle Earth perspective - Tolkien has stated in Osanwe Kenta that no individual's will can be dominated by another - the individual must submit, & can end that submission at any time if they choose.

So, has Gollum's will really been destroyed by the Ring? And if it has then where is the hope? The whole thing becomes merely an external battle between forces of 'Good' & 'Evil', & the moral choices of any individual have no real part to play in deciding the outcome of the battle - simply put, the more powerful side will win. But Tolkien's position is that moral choices will decide the outcome, not strength of arms. But if Gollum's will can be overthrown against his will this is not the case.

[mark12_30]

ShadowOfThePast

Here is another instance of "Torn Frodo", plus evidence of "Tookishness"; but more fascinating still, the first mention of his prophetic dreams:

He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams. He began to say to himself: ‘Perhaps I shall cross the River myself one day.’ To which the other half of his mind always replied: ‘Not yet.’

It is left unclear whether he is a born seer, whether the dreams are an effect of his contact with the elves that pass thru the Shire, or whether the dreams are the effect of the Ring

A hint of the Conspiracy soon to be Unmasked:

.Frodo ...took to wandering further afield and more often by himself; and Merry and his other friends watched him anxiously.

Another delicate hint of the Conspiracy:

Sam sat silent and said no more. He had a good deal to think about. For one thing, there was a lot to do up in the Bag End garden.... But Sam had more on his mind than gardening.

In Defense of Frodo's offering the Ring to Gandalf:

It is far more powerful than I ever dared to think at first, so powerful that in the end it would utterly overcome anyone of mortal race who possessed it....... A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness.'

Why was I chosen?’
‘Such questions cannot be answered,’ said Gandalf. ‘You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom, at any rate. But you have been chosen, and you must therefore use such strength and heart and wits as you have.’
‘But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?’

One might guess at Frodo's thoughts thus: "Not only am I mortal, but the only power or wisdom I have is Bilbo's leftover money and a little lore-- in contrast to this ancient wizard who is far wiser and more powerful than I."

In addition, though Frodo did not know it, Gandalf even now carried the Ring of Fire-- proving that (in one sense) he could wield a ring and wield it well. Frodo was, as far as that went, correct; Frodo had not yet been told that *even Gandalf* would succumb to the Rings's temptation and curruption, and was clearly susprised by Gandalf's saying so. Up to this point their discussion had focused on incorrupt elves versus corrupted mortals. Frodo had no way of knowing that even Gandalf would be corrupted by the Ring. If it were not for the temptation to use it for good, for pity and mercy, Gandalf would have been a better choice.

An intriguing visionary moment:

Frodo gazed fixedly at the red embers on the hearth, until they filled all his vision, and he seemed to be looking down into profound wells of fire. He was thinking of the fabled Cracks of Doom and the terror of the Fiery Mountain.

... followed by a fairly selfless decision on Frodo's part:

‘Well!’ said Gandalf at last. ‘What are you thinking about? Have you decided what to do?’
‘No!’ answered Frodo.... ‘Or perhaps, yes. As far as I understand what you have said, I suppose I must keep the Ring and guard it, at least for the present, whatever it may do to me. .... ...it seems that I am a danger, a danger to all that live near me. I cannot keep the Ring and stay here. I ought to leave Bag End, leave the Shire, leave everything and go away.’ He sighed. ...... '...But this would mean exile, a flight from danger into danger, drawing it after me. And I suppose I must go alone, if I am to do that and save the Shire. But I feel very small, and very uprooted, and well – desperate. The Enemy is so strong and terrible.’

An indication that Frodo was not quite so solitary as his wanderings and isolation might lead us to believe:

‘It can’t be helped, Sam,’ said Frodo sadly. He had suddenly realized that flying from the Shire would mean more painful partings than merely saying farewell to the familiar comforts of Bag End.

[HerenIstarion]

Excellent rendering of the Ring poem, Fordim

I feel like adding that there is a third pun on the 'shadows' theme, which occurs in Sam's reciting of Gil-Galad poem. The very last line goes as 'In Mordor where shadows are'. And that passage is even more interesting than deceitful shadows, but I withdraw my judgement until we reach the respective chapter (11, Knife in the Dark it is)

Coming abck to chapter 2, it should be added that just before reciting the Ring poem, Gandalf says something just very interesting:

The letters are Elvish, of an ancient mode, but the language is that of Mordor, which I will not utter here. But this in the Common Tongue is what is said, close enough

This is the first notion of Tolkien's very interesting concept - words themselves (i.e. in their meaning) are less dangerous than the language in which they are recited, if language is corrupted/created by Dark Lord. For, later on, (mark you, in parallel chapter of Book II chater 02 - Council of Elrond!), he recites it again, now in Black Speech, an gets reprimanded not for the context, but for the form:

Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Gandalf the Grey

I.e. Gandalf may have said 'good morning, dear fellow councillors', but if it were to be said in Black Speech, he would have got the same scolding.

[davem]

Heren-Istarion

I.e. Gandalf may have said 'good morning, dear fellow councillors', but if it were to be said in Black Speech, he would have got the same scolding.

I think we're also dealing with the Light/Dark symbolism here - Languages in Middle Earth form a continuum - from Quenya, the language of the Calaquendi, the 'Light' speakers,the returning Noldor, on through Sindarin which replaces Quenya as the language of everyday speech in Beleriand, which is then replaced in Numenor by Adunaic, & finally by the Westron. In the continuum the Black speech is the language which is 'furthest' from the 'Light' or 'wisdom' of the West. Its a kind of 'negative' speech, & the 'reality' it attempts to communicate is the opposite of Elven reality.

The Black Speech is effectively an attempt to change/invert 'reality'. So even to speak it is to distort perceptions & invite in evil. What Gandalf does in Rivendell is not just bad taste its actually incredibly dangerous.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

But Tolkien's position is that moral choices will decide the outcome, not strength of arms. But if Gollum's will can be overthrown against his will this is not the case.

Which is precisely why Tolkien shows us through Gandalf's words that moral choices do make a difference. Because Bilbo comes into possession of the Ring with pity, he suffers much less from his possession than does Sméagol, who obtains it by murdering a friend. Essentially the Ring becomes more difficult to resist the longer one has it and uses it, but initially it offers a temptation such as that which Mephistopheles offers to Dr. Faustus. It makes promises that are related to the innate strength and goodness of its target. With Sméagol it was enough that the Ring was a beautiful item; with Sam it was the opportunity to turn the Plateau of Gorgoroth into a flowering garden; with Gandalf it would be the opportunity to remove the Dark Lord and bring peace and freedom. If the target rejects this and refuses to possess the Ring, they have made their moral choice, but if they decide to own it anyway it will gradually wear away at them until it conquers their will.

There is also the consideration that the Ring was created by Sauron, a fallen angel, and that his ability to dominate and will to power are bound up in its very fabric. Only those with greater strength of will than Sauron himself stand even a chance of resisting the Ring, and the amount of strength required grows the closer it comes to the place of its making. That this object can take over the will of its owners is reason enough to destroy it; but if one makes the moral choice to leave the Ring behind, as does Bilbo (with help from Gandalf), or not to take it up, as does Faramir, then one is spared the battle of wills that Frodo has thrust upon him. His moral choice is to attempt the ultimate rejection of power, to contest with the will of the Ring; that he fails in this is not as important as his intention to try.

[Orofaniel]

I'd say Frodo is selfish - he is quite self centred - he keeps himself apart from the other hobbits, he plays no real part in his community.

Just a comment on Davem's quote:

Selfish? I wouldn't use that word. As for Frodo keeping himself away from the other Hobbits and playing no real part in the community, doesn't mean a he's selfish and self centred.

I think that The Shadow of the Past, the chapter in itself and the dialogues with Gandalf show quite the opposite.

When Gandalf says that Frodo has to take the Ring away from the Shire, Frodo doesn't hide that he's horrified and sacred, no, not at all- but he also says he'd do anything for the Shire.

There is also some talk going on here about Frodo acting cowardly. Here too, I would disagree. The Hobbit lad is scared! Who wouldn't be scared when he realises he’s holding "The One Ring" - The Ring of Evil - in his hand, knowing that Nazgûls are out to get him? I think this chapter shows how Frodo, even though he's horrified, wins over himself in a way that he takes the Ring from Gandalf too keep so that Sauron won't find. Even though Gandalf is away fro several years, he still keeps it safe. A selfish/self centred coward wouldn't do that after my opinion.

Cheers,
Oro

[davem]

Squatter

it will gradually wear away at them until it conquers their will. ...That this object can take over the will of its owners is reason enough to destroy it

But this is the central thing - can the Ring actually overcome the individual's will, or is it always the case that the individual must surrender to the Ring? Is Tolkien's philosophical position Manichaean or Boethian? My own feeling is that it is Boethian, & that the Ring cannot overcome & enslave an individual's will if the individual does not willingly surrender to it. Of course, the longer an individual possesees the Ring the more it will grow on their mind & the greater the temptation will be to surrender, but it must always be an act of surrender, otherwise we are dealing with an objective force of evil, which can overcome the individual & may ultimately overcome Illuvatar Himself - or if Illuvatar wins in the end it will simply be because He is stronger - & that ultimate victory would not be a moral victory. If the Ring has taken over Gollum's will, then he is not responsible for his actions - but then what has he got to repent for - why does he 'deserve death'? 'Smeagol' is innocent, but to all intents & purposes, by the time of LotR, has no real , willed. existence, & 'Gollum' is a body driven by the will of the Ring, & therefore cannot be saved, no matter how much mercy he is shown, & despite any opportunities for repentance which may arise. But I don't think Tolkien is saying that Gollum's will is completely gone - Gandalf still hopes for his cure - there is still the possibility of repentance on Gollum's part - ie there is still the opportunity for him to reject the Ring's dominance. So Tolkien is saying that 'Smeagol's will can still reassert itself over that of the Ring - he's surrendered to it, but he can still change his mind & reject it's control.

Of course, this question becomes really significant at the Sammath Naur, so we shouldn't really pursue it here.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Oh, but we can pursue the question here, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere. As I cited above (but will do so again here)

[Frodo] unfastened [the Ring] and handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.

In this quote, I think we have both possibilities that you suggest davem put side by side and held in some kind of difficult and tense balance -- perhaps suspended is a better way of putting it. The text is uncertain about what's going on here: is the Ring reluctant (and thus 'in charge,' plunging us into a Manichean world of Good vs Evil, in which the individual will is merely the battleground upon which these large forces confront one another), or is Frodo reluctant (and thus still possessing his will, moving us into a world of good or evil choices)?

This ambiguity perhaps explains the ambiguity of this strangly split Frodo -- is a flawed person showing those flaws but able to overcome them, or is he a Good person being taken over by Evil? I think that these questions are introduced here, raised to a fever pitch as the novel progresses, but then never fully answered (which is a smart move on Tolkien's part, I would suggest. . .)

[Aiwendil]

Forgive me for another bit of structural/functional rambling . . .

"The Shadow of the Past" is the first of two big expository chapters in the book. Now The Lord of the Rings has a lot of exposition to be dealt with, enough to give some authors nightmares no doubt. Before we can really get on with the story of the Ring we must first understand what the Ring is, the circumstances of its being made, how Sauron came to lose it, how it then came to Gollum, what Sauron means to do about it, how much he knows, etc., etc. In other words, we must learn much of the history of the Second Age and nearly all that of the Third.

Tolkien faced quite a task in presenting all this to the reader. The conventional wisdom holds that exposition is a necessary evil, to be dealt with as briefly as possible and preferably not until the main action of the plot has gotten underway. As Tolkien has certainly not gotten the main plot underway in chapter one, it would appear almost ludicrous for him to put the burden of about half the exposition on chapter two.

Yet it comes off splendidly. Why?

I don't think I have a complete answer to that, and I would certainly appreciate anyone else's thoughts on the matter. But as far as I can see there are three things that make the exposition engaging rather than boring:

1. Tolkien uses the simple but effective trick of presenting the exposition in the form of a dialogue between a character with the information and a character that needs the information. Imagine how much more dry the chapter would be if all this backstory were presented in the narrator's voice rather than Gandalf's. The dialogue allows the reader to idenitify with Frodo, to sympathize with Frodo's curiosity and thus to be satisfied when Gandalf presents the information.

2. The whole chapter is, like the second expository chapter of the novel in book II, framed in terms of a big question: what is to be done about the Ring? The various pieces of information thus have a direct relevance and an immediate significance that they would not have if they were presented merely as a story. We want to hear the exposition because we want to understand the Ring so that we can weigh the various courses of action that Frodo might take.

3. For Tolkien, exposition was not just a necessary evil; it was a valuable thing in itself. Tolkien was, after all, quite used to writing this sort of history; he had been working on the Silmarillion material since about 1918. He did not consider the story of the making of the rings, and the Last Alliance, and the slaying of Isildur just necessary backstory to the tale at hand. He thought they were interesting in themselves, and so he made them interesting in themselves. And no doubt he realized that a large part of what was going to make The Lord of the Rings (or any similar novel) work was the depth and "reality" or inner consistency of the world in which it takes place. So the exposition has triple value - it sets up the primary story, it's interesting as a story in itself, and it provides a sense of depth to Middle-earth.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

"The Shadow of the Past" is the first of two big expository chapters in the book. Now The Lord of the Rings has a lot of exposition to be dealt with, enough to give some authors nightmares no doubt. Before we can really get on with the story of the Ring we must first understand what the Ring is, the circumstances of its being made, how Sauron came to lose it, how it then came to Gollum, what Sauron means to do about it, how much he knows, etc., etc. In other words, we must learn much of the history of the Second Age and nearly all that of the Third.

Aiwendil, it reminds me of:

The arrival & reign of Scyld Scefing (Bilbo's backstory early in chapter one)

The generous ring-giving, partying, etc, and overlordship of Hrothgar in Heorot (Bilbo's party, generosity and gift-giving, down to a ring, even...)

and

The Grendel Backstory (Gandalf's narrative, ch2.)

Seems reasonable that Tolkien preferred Beowulf-form over more modern ideas.

[The Saucepan Man]

My real question is to what extent this 'dark' side we see is the action of the Ring on him, & how much is innate?

Sorry, davem, but I really don't see any 'dark' side to Frodo in this chapters. Of course, he is (like us) not without flaws, but his reactions here are no more than I would expect in light of what Gandalf is revealing to him. As Orofaniel says, he is scared, and quite justifiably so in my opinion. And, while his comments concerning his fellow inhabitants of the Shire do reflect a frustration with their narrow-mindedness (again, understandable given his broader outlook on life), I detect that he nevertheless has great affection for them. Certainly, to my mind, he is being far from literal when he talks of earthquakes and Dragons. As I see it, he is simply saying that they could do with a good shake-up on occasion. And, going by the attitude displayed by Ted Sandyman in The Green Dragon, and the parochial picture painted in the preceding chapter, I see no reason to disagree with him on this.

Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat.

But there must always remain the possibility that evil will win. Otherwise, why bother to struggle against it? Evil will not necessarily bring about its own defeat. This can only occur as a result of the choices made by those who seek to struggle against it.

It is essential, from the perspective of the reader too, that the possibility remains that evil will prevail. Otherwise, why bother reading the book? Of course, we hope that good will defeat evil, because we want a "happy ending", and so we trust that the characters will make the choices necessary to bring this about ("estel"?).

Davem, to go back to your question concerning the portrayal of Gollum in this chapter, there is, as you point out, a tension between Gandalf's comment that "he [Gollum] had no will left in the matter", and his assertion that there remains a (slight) chance of him "being cured before he dies". But I think that this tension can be resolved by taking the comments as referring to Gollum with the Ring and without it. Gollum with the Ring represents the triumph of evil (the Ring) over the will. He had a choice not to seize it, but he failed to make that choice (murdering his best friend into the bargain). He may even have had a shot at freeing himself of the Ring in the early days, although Frodo's failure to do precisely that in this chapter suggests that he was unlikely to have been able to do so. But, after so many years of possessing it, his will was utterly mastered. He did indeed have no will left in the matter while under its dominion. However, his will, while mastered, was not wholly destroyed, since Gandalf is suggesting that, once "free" of the Ring, he does have another shot at redemption. He may remain "bound by the desire of it", but there nevertheless is hope that he will overcome that desire. And, viewed in this way, this seems to me to be consistent with the approach that it is the characters' moral choices, rather than any external conflict between good and evil, that determine which will ultimately prevail. Gollum's ability to make a moral choice is suspended while he is in possession of the Ring and under its dominion, much as it would be if he were incarcerated by Sauron, but it surfaces again (as a possibility) once he is "set free".

Aiwendil

The conventional wisdom holds that exposition is a necessary evil, to be dealt with as briefly as possible and preferably not until the main action of the plot has gotten underway.

Conventional wisdom be confounded! Personally, I don't hold with the view that there is any "correct" way to structure a story. The trick is in the skill of the story-teller. To my mind, Tolkien is able to "pull off" this expositionary chapter so early in the novel by virtue of the quality of his writing (as reflected in the various points which you have listed). Of course, there are some who find that the early chapters of the book (and the Council of Elrond chapter too) drag, so it does not necessarily appeal to everyone. But I think that the majority of those to whom Tolkien's writing appeals are held enthralled by this chapter simply by virtue of his skill as a story-teller.

[HerenIstarion]

Selection of recent posts, as far as I can understand them, deals with perception of evil with Tolkien. Is it Manichaean, or Boethian, is the main question, it seems.

(as a side note - hope (in the sense of Estel - Faith) is clearly expression of Boethian view - the belief that whatever Creator does is for the good of his creatures, even when creatures themselves consider things done to them as undesirable(=evil))

First, it would be appropriate to consider the concept of 'shadow'. What is a shadow?

My Merriam-Webster has a load of things to say about it, but I wll draw on enries I find relevant:

1: partial darkness or obscurity within a part of space from which rays from a source of light are cut off by an interposed opaque body
2 : a reflected image
4 a : an imperfect and faint representation b : an imitation of something

All three definitions apply [to Sauron, and his Ring in particular) and both are expressions of Boethian view of Evil, which is absence of Good, and is flatly stated within Tolkien's works as unable to create, only to mock (that is, to reflect, or to imitate imperfectly)

but there is, as well, such an entry in the dictionary for the word 'shadow' as:

10 a : an inseparable companion or follower

Which moves us on to Manichaean view - as Good and Evil interbalanced forces, with equal opportunities.

And now I'm forced to review the poem Sam recites in chapter 11:

Gil-galad was an Elven-king.
Of him the harpers sadly sing:
the last whose realm was fair and free
between the Mountains and the Sea.

His sword was long, his lance was keen,
his shining helm afar was seen;
the countless stars of heaven's field
were mirrored in his silver shield.

But long ago he rode away,
and where he dwelleth none can say;
for into darkness fell his star
in Mordor where the shadows are.

So, shadows, be them absence or not, can be, that is, have an existence. They are in Mordor, at least.

Which, as far as I can see, is Tolkien's effort to combine, conciliate those both views. For, indeed, if LoTR were totally Boethian, than there would be no need for Frodo to go anywhere at all - there would be nothing to confront, as Evil would be nothing - mere absence and would eliminate itself

Now, the Ring is somehow an union of those two concepts of Evil. As indicated by Squatter above, it draws on bearer's inner weakness (Boethian), is a kind of booster for what lack of Goodness it finds inside. That is why it is often described as temptation - Frodo is tempted to put on the Ring, and has a fight with himself. But, it is mentioned several times, the Ring has the will of its own - that is, it is outside force as well (Manichaean). There are moments, contrary to mentioned when there is no temptation for Frodo (at the stairs to Cirith Ungol, per instance) - when there is no inner response, and his hand is moved to take the Ring by sheer outside force

So it seems, that one can not take one or other side and define it clearly as falling into one category. Or, rather, Tolkien is mainly Boethian, but with shadows (in a sense 11 : a small degree or portion : TRACE) of Manichaeanism to him.


PS
Probably it would be of interest to consider, perhaps, the followng thread dealing with the subject (but mainly around Sammath Naur, so maybe it is a bit before its time, but nevertheless):

Frodo or the Ring?


PPS
1. Yes, I do miss Mithadan posting in The Books
2. Views expressed by yours truly back there are somehow modified and changed by now.