Why save them?

[mormegil]

I've said something similar to this somewhere else, but I cannot remember where it is. However, I feel that most fans of literature, movies, television, etc...are accustomed and rather demand to have the good guys win in the end. Had Sam and Frodo not survived people would generally leave the book feeling a bit empty.

I personally would like to see a bit more realism in killing off the main characters on occasion. Often we see secondary characters dies ie Theoden, Boromir etc... however the author is reluctant to kill the main character because of the public's view. The Silmarillion might be an exception to this for Tolkien but then the question would be raised: Who is the main character? Morgoth? He didn't die. The silmarils? They didn't 'die' though two were lost. Feanor is not the 'main character' per se as the story isn't about him and his deeds rather the quest of the Simlarils, which he happened to create.

I found the previous post here. I'm not sure how applicable it is but I think it is of merit.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I don't know why Tolkien did what he did, but I am glad he did it. I do know that, if Sam and Frodo had died, the book would have left me with a very different feeling. When I turn the last page of Tolkien's final chapter, I am filled with sadness and regret, yet a glimmer of hope remains. I've always felt that these few pages were special in showing the reader both how much had been gained and how much lost. Of all Tolkien's writings, these passages remain the most poignant and magical to me.

Not only would the death of Sam and Frodo been deeply depressing, but it would have removed much of that meaning. The tragedy at the end of the Lord of the Rings was not the death of any one or two individuals, but something much wider than that. It is the fact that an entire world was changing, and changing in such a way that Tolkien's depiction of its passing still brings an ache to my heart. I don't quite know how to say this, but are there others who sometimes wish they lived in a time or place where Elves or Hobbits were more than a figment of our imaginations? I've always had the feeling that there is something out there, something just beyond my fingertips. I catch a tiny glimpse, but then it whisks away.

The tragedy remains that Man lives in a universe where so much of the magic has departed. Like it or not, we are heirs of the Fourth Age. Even on those rare occasions when the magic is there, we simply fail to see it. Maybe the Elves faded not because of any change they went through but because of our own inability to understand and appreciate those things that can't be expressed in strictly physical terms. The ending of the Lord of the Rings makes me grieve for the passing of myth and magic in a way that the simple killing of Sam and Frodo would never have done. The death of these two beloved characters would have been a loss, but a much smaller one than the passing of a whole world, which is the final image that Tolkien chose to leave with his reader.

Finally, death is an important piece of Man's legacy; it is actually part and parcel of the new age. In the period following the destruction of the Ring, despite renewed prosperity and hope, there are to be no more immortal Elves. Man's lifespan will continue to shrink, and hobbits will diminish in size. To have abruptly killed Sam and Frodo off at Mount Doom would have made these two just another part of "Man's World", meeting their end like all those who died on the battlefield. But Frodo especially wasn't part of the new age. As ringbearers, Sam and Frodo were an important piece of the world that was passing and needed to leave like the Elves and the Ents....gently fading rather than being violently wrenched away.

Maybe Tolkien was too soft hearted, maybe he wanted to undo the massive bloodshed and horror of the First World War, and this seemed like a good way to rewrite things and bring his characters to a gentler end. Yet I also can't help but feel that he is telling us something about ourselves, the fact that we live in a world where there will be a few small victories but many great defeats stretching as far as the eye can see...a world where change and sadness and hope are intermingled. No one can escape this cycle, not even the reader sitting comfortably in a chair. This kind of heartwrenching loss and portrayal of change transcends the death of any one character. It brings us into the circle. At the end we are not only grieving for Sam and Frodo, and all the departing Elves. We are also grieving for ourselves.

[Boromir88]

Besides what has been said I also think that Frodo was sacrificed. He just wasn't sacrificed in the sense that he actually physically died. But, I would say he was emotionally scarred and altered so much, that after the ring's destruction that Frodo alread committed the 'ultimate noble sacrifice.'

Once we get to Mount Doom, Frodo is no longer himself. He has lost control and his own 'mind' to the Ring:

”No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.”~Mount Doom

Frodo can remember nothing else, he sees nothing else, he is nothing and all that's there is the Ring...'the wheel of fire.'

Tolkien talks a little bit about memory. With Gollum he was not completely beyond redemption, he was not completely ensnared by the Ring. We are told of this 'small corner of Gollum's mind' where he still has memory of his past life, before even coming across the Ring. And most importantly he still is able to remember his name...Smeagol. Most important, because contrast that with the Mouth of Sauron who we are told was unable to remember his past name. the Mouth was completely enthralled to Sauron's service, he lost all memory of his past life. Where Gollum still had this 'small corner' left.

Frodo is almost to this point of being completely enthralled to the Ring. He remembers nothing except the Ring. It is him, the ring and 'darkness.' By the time Frodo gets to Sammath Naur the Ring has complete and total control over him:

The suddenly as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.

"Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."~Mount Doom

The Ring now has complete control over Frodo. Frodo was now untouchable by Pity, the very quality we know that Frodo had...his pity and mercy for Gollum. Now Sam sees Frodo and sees him as 'untouchable by pity.' Then we go back to the wheel of fire, and it is the Ring that makes Frodo utter those words. Which seems strange...why would the Ring make Frodo say these words of 'begone and trouble me no more and cast yourself into the Ring of Doom.' It makes it seem like the Ring wants to be destroyed, so what purpose would the Ring have in making Frodo utter these words?

I think it was necessary for the Ring to get complete and total control over Frodo, and achieve it's goal, which was to get back to Sauron. We are told in this one moment that the Ring was at it's maximum point of influence, beyond anyone's will to resist:

I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist,...~Letter 246

So, in order for the Ring to achieve it goal, it needs to get Frodo into the Sammath Naur. But prior to this Frodo did not seem to have the strength to do it, and suddenly he conjures up enough strength (perhaps the Ring has some part to play in that again?) And in order to get total control over Frodo, where he would claim the Ring and the Nazgul would come to bring him back to Sauron, the Ring needs to get Frodo into the Sammath Naur, where it would be at it's 'maximum point of influence.' But, the Ring did not intend for providence and Eru to step in.

Anyway, what I'm intending to show with all this, is that Frodo had already been sacrificed...he did not need to 'die' in the sense of committing and ultimate sacrificed, because besides literally being dead, Frodo actually was dead in a sense. Letter 246 from the quote above goes on to say...

certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely...

Frodo was physically and mentally drained. He had absolutely nothing left, to get the Ring to where providence could take over, it took everything out of him.

So, besides his life, Frodo had already sacrificed everything. He had sacrificed his comfortable life style in the shire, he had sacrificed every bit of mental and physical strength to get the Ring to where it needed to get to. And we see Frodo completely changed and scarred because of the Ring, so in many ways he was already dead and did sacrifice everything.

[Thinlómien]

I very much agree with Child; the tragedy of Frodo's and Sam's death would have taken importance from the fading of the Elves and the magic -tragedy. If there are too many big tragedies in a book, they have no impact on the reader anymore.

Kath, you mention bittersweetness. I have always considered it one of the most bittersweet - or bitter - things in LotR that though Frodo is the one who saves the world - and the Shire, he can't stay there, in the land he loves. This tragedy wouldn't exist, if Frodo and Sam died in Mt. Doom.

One aspect is that in old tales (and in Christian faith) good is rewarded and evil punished. How could such a good and loyal person as Sam face his end in a hope-forsaken, bitter place for co-saving the world, though he craves to see his home and sweetheart and old father again?
Now one might ask that wasn't Théoden a good man too, who shouldn't have died in case good is rewarded and evil punished. The matter is different with Théoden. He was an old man who was ready to die and saw his end, but still rode to it. He was a brave man, and he rests in peace.

Or maybe Tolkien simply loved happy endings...

[The Saucepan Man]

Did anyone, like I did when I first read LotR, find themselves fearing that there was no way out for Frodo and Sam when Orodruin started to erupt following the destruction of the Ring and hoping against hope that they would somehow be saved? The sense of relief and joy when Gandalf arrives with the Eagles is immense (and it's probably the reason why I always seem to get very emotional when the Eagles turn up in the films).

To me, the death of Frodo and Sam following the destruction of the Ring would have been unacceptably dire. But the fear that they might lose their lives combined with the joy when they are saved makes for an intensely moving experience (some might even call it Eucatastrophic ). I am sure that I am not alone in feeling that way.

It is surely no surprise that Tolkien, as a natural and masterful story-teller, should have written it the way that he did.

[Folwren]

Not happy endings, Lommy, the LotR doesn't have a happy ending.

I don't think Tolkien was terribly softhearted, either. . .I would say, he probably didn't end their lives there because it wans't a good ending to his wonderful story. It would have been a let down, a disapointment. The reader would have been left in dismay and emptiness. It would have been like in the movie when everyone's cheering because the Ring has been destroyed but then the mountain blows up and they realize that Frodo and Sam are probably dead. . .horrible thought!

But, beyond that, if Frodo and Sam had died at Mount Doom, would Tolkien have been able to have written such a perfect ending? The Grey Havens is the best ending I have ever read in any book, and I don't think that that could have been written if those two characters had already left Middle-Earth.

So, I think he did it for the reader's sake, and for the ending's sake.

-- Folwren

[Mithalwen]

Interesting stuff.

A few extra points, it is a while since I read the History of the Lord of the Rings volumes but I am fairly sure that Tolkien never intended to kill Frodo and Sam because I am sure CT quoted a note that JRRT had made saying if one of the hobbits died it should be the 'cowardly Pippin' ( I think this was before Faramir arrived in the story giving Pippin scope to redeem himself).

While it does seem on the surface that a disproportionate number of major characters die (and stay dead) I think it would be hard to pinpoint any major characters whose death would have made the story 'stronger'. I seem to remember that Eowyn was originally doomed (Faramir saving the day again ). I was about 11 when I first read the book and I am sure that I would have found that unbearable.

The fact that it started as a children's book may have been a factor. Although I wouldn't say that Tolkien is particularly soft hearted on the youngstock - I think it likely that The Hobbit was the first book I read where major characters died and though I find the Hobbit's style annoying often, the death of Thorin and the summary dispatch of Fili and Kili, I still find as moving as I did when I was nine - possibly more so since at nine I was probably more upset by the goblins eating the ponies . I wonder if it is significant that apart form the Nazgul's steeds, only poor old Snowmane bites the dust in LOTR .....

For me the fate of the characters is a reflection of the major themes of the book, renewal, the triumph of hope over despair, and fellowship over self aggrandisement. The only major characters who I feel could have been killed off without compromising these to a greater or lesser extent are Legolas and Gimli (though I am fond of them both) but since they function as little more than witnesses for their declining peoples once Aragorn has taken up his military role in Rohan, I don't see that slaying them would have any useful purpose.

The healing and symbolic rebirth of Eowyn and Faramir have significance in that Faramir the steward, knows and recognises the true king, ensuring the restoration of the correct order of things (and following the model set by his kinsman, Prince Imrahil, who personally does not hesitate in acknowledging Aragorn, and who is the heir of a house who surely would have had enough of the bllod royal to make a claim to the throne but instead remained loyal to the possible return of the king).

Tolkien is also clever about making you care about minor character with a great economy of words. I know fromanother thread that I was not alone in grieving for Halbarad though he has only a couple of lines. The funeral laments are also effective.

Although, I know it is possible to read and love the book without knowing or noticing, or indeed caring, knowing about Tolkien's Catholicism, (though I know there are much better theologians than me around, I think it is fair to say that this is a more specifically Catholic concept), I do suspect that he was keen to allow his characters to make a 'good death' . Boromir and Theoden get their chance to make their peace, Boromir's final speech with Aragorn could be read as confession and absolution - although as an echo rather than an absolute representation - I don't see the LOTR as that directly allegorical (but that discussion goes on elsewhere!). Denethor rejects the chance to make a good death leading his people on the battlefield and his suicide is seen as heathen - a direct contrast to Aragorn giving up his life, surely only a few yards from the site of Denethor's pyre, which is seen as a righteous act - not fighting 'the gift of the one to men'. Although Boromir quotes Tolkien saying that Frodo's claiming of the ring was not a moral failure, and personally I think that Frodo died at Weathertop in the sense that he lost any possibility of returning to a normal life and had 'crossed to the other side' - think of Gandalf's impression of him in Many Meetings (cf CBC ), to kill Frodo at Mount Doom would have robbed him the chance of making a truly 'good death', reconciled to his life and death. Sam has to survive in order to be and do all the things that Frodo has sacrificed.

Good does triumph over evil but it pays the price. Maybe not in blood but in change Not even the remote Shire survives unchanged - although I rather like the fact that after the restitution of the monarchy in Gondor , meritocracy asserts itself in the four farthings and the gardener's son rises to equal the hereditary powers. Change is not always progress but neither is it always decay.


Another factor to bear in mind is that I think it may be a realtively modern phenomenon to perceive not killing off your heroes as a weakness. Louis de Bernieres was criticised for his ending to Captain Corelli's Mandolin - personally I am glad he found a third way between an 'unrealistic' happy ending and an unutterably bleak and hopeless one and I think Tolkien does the same. I don't think that The Grey Havens could be more effective and affecting if someone physically died. As with Aragorn giving up his life it is the fact that there is a choice, superficially tempting but wrong, that adds piquancy.

[Child of the 7th Age]

A few extra points, it is a while since I read the History of the Lord of the Rings volumes but I am fairly sure that Tolkien never intended to kill Frodo and Sam because I am sure CT quoted a note that JRRT had made saying if one of the hobbits died it should be the 'cowardly Pippin' ( I think this was before Faramir arrived in the story giving Pippin scope to redeem himself).

Mithalwen -

You're right. Frodo's fate was decided very early. I remember reading in HoMe that even as far back as "Bingo" Tolkien had notes in his papers that the chief character would return from the quest, live in a small dwelling on the outskirts of Hobbiton, and eventually decide to sail west across the sea.

The decision not to kill Frodo and Sam was integral to the plot and themes of the book. It wasn't something that he decided to do at the last moment because of feelings of regret.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I don't quite know how to say this, but are there others who sometimes wish they lived in a time or place where Elves or Hobbits were more than a figment of our imaginations? I've always had the feeling that there is something out there, something just beyond my fingertips. I catch a tiny glimpse, but then it whisks away.

I'm with you on that, I feel the same way.

[Kath]

Mithalwen I certainly don't think that keeping them alive was a weakness, I just wondered at the reasons.

Had Sam and Frodo not survived people would generally leave the book feeling a bit empty.

This makes some sense morm, but I think that people could have coped with Frodo dying. Not Sam perhaps, but Frodo yes. As Mith said, Frodo was pretty much 'dead' after the incident on Weathertop. He also becomes irrelevant in a way, as the rest of the book is more dedicated to the exploits of the other Hobbits, specifically Merry and Pippin. Frodo is part of the old world that is fading away, and while I agree that the Grey Havens is one of the most moving bits of writing I have ever read (i.e. I bawled my eyes out reading it) I'm not sure that the same effect couldn't have been accomplished by having Sam mourn for Frodo after he dies at Mount Doom, and then seeing the Elves and Gandalf leave.

As ringbearers, Sam and Frodo were an important piece of the world that was passing and needed to leave like the Elves and the Ents....gently fading rather than being violently wrenched away.

But Frodo has been gently fading since Weathertop. His left arm became almost transparent, and from then on he suffered hurt after hurt, all the while being affected by the Ring as well. As Boromir's quotations showed, Frodo was not even himself by the time he reached Mount Doom, there was nothing of the old Frodo left. He'd faded so much through the journey that if he died doing the task he had put heart, soul and life into doing it might have been fitting.

To me, the death of Frodo and Sam following the destruction of the Ring would have been unacceptably dire. But the fear that they might lose their lives combined with the joy when they are saved makes for an intensely moving experience.

It's almost too much of a happy ending though. Two Hobbits manage to get the whole way through Mordor, one carrying a weight only a Maia can bear, and then the land explodes around them and yet they both survive. Bittersweet moments were mentioned, here is the opportunity for a perfect one. Gandalf goes in to rescue them, but only finds one alive. There is joy in that one is saved, but sadness that one could not be. If you want a truly noble sacrifice, how about one life to save the world.

For me the fate of the characters is a reflection of the major themes of the book, renewal, the triumph of hope over despair, and fellowship over self aggrandisement.

And sacrifice for the betterment of others. The charge of the Rohirrim for example, they didn't expect to be able to defeat Sauron's army, but they intended to save as many lives as they could. Or the march against the Black Gate, which was pretty much a suicide mission, done solely to allow Frodo and Sam to reach Mount Doom. With the former of these examples we see personal sacrifice with Theoden dying, and in the latter we see the despair of those not allowed to lay their lives on the line to try and save that of others (Merry and Eowyn).

I don't quite know how to say this, but are there others who sometimes wish they lived in a time or place where Elves or Hobbits were more than a figment of our imaginations?

I absolutely agree, Child. Our relentless pushing forward means we don't see the magic behind things, always seeking to explain it. To live in such a world as Tolkien created would be amazing.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I definitely belong to those who thinks it was absolutely essential to have Frodo survive the destroyal of the Ring. There is a message in there, and I think it is (as was mentioned) due to Tolkien's wartime experiences.

How many men in our world have survived war physically, but not spiritually, psychologically, mentally? They come back to their normal lives and find that they no longer fit in, that their experiences have changed them too much for life to ever be normal again. Often, it also happens to men who have been prisoners of war, for example, that they come back and expect things to be as they were before, but life has moved on without them for too long, and they are no longer needed.

Remember how Lt. Dan wished he had not survived in "Forrest Gump"? He thought he should have died a noble, heroic death. Well, sometimes death is a convenient way out of coping with life. Frodo is the character who shows us all of this, with an ending more bittersweet than his death could have been.

[Mithalwen]

Very true Esty, when people have accepted their death as inevitable, coping with life can seem very hard, and that in itself can be alienating since everyone expects them to be jsut happy to be alive.

Kath, I didn't mean you personally regarding seeing the survival of major characters as a weakness ... it is a muchmore general phenomenon - but I would revise the comment that it is a modern one - I think it is more cyclical. I think current literary/ media critics are often very much of the gritty realism school and like their endings bleak. At the other point in the cycle you have such travesties as Nahum Tate rewriting the end of Lear so that Cordelia doesn't die because it was so contrary to the worldview of the time.

I also realise I forget to state why Eowyn's rebirth is important - simply because she chooses life and with it to be a healer, gardener and mother. All are important functions for the health of her new homeland. One of the reasons Gondor fell into decline was that its ruler became more concerned with their ancestors than their progeny. Minas Tirith is a stone city in the Stoningland, it needs gardens and life. Given that Denethor, for all his fine qualities, ultimately failed and in his own despair tried to kill Faramir which would have guaranteed the end of his line - which in the light of the importance that Tolkien puts on bloodlines is a final denial of hope - I think it is important that Faramir marries and although Eowyn wears his mother's mantle, unlike poor Finduilas she has not been crushed by the shadow. It is as much a reaffirmation of hope as the finding of the white tree.

So while I think these characters survive for a reason, and to get back closer to the topic, I think that the whole end of the story would have had to be changed if Frodo and Sam had died - imagine the return to the Shire without them . And like others, I think that the ending as it stands is much more poignant - for Frodo to be saved from certain death to be returned to a home he so loves but can no longer live in would be too cruel were it not for the opprotunity for a kind of healing in West. However that boon is not itself without its cost. Tolkien gives few straightforward happy endings ....

[davem]

I can't help feeling that Tolkien wished to explore the effect of war on a survivor, someone who goes through the worst trauma imaginable & survives it. Sam, for all his suffering, does not go through the worst experience - Frodo does. Frodo is broken by what he goes through, but survives. The final chapter would not have been as powerful if Sam alone had survived. Frodo had to be taken to the lowest point a human could reach & still go on. Tolkien stated that Frodo expected to die in achieving the Quest. The fact that he didn't, but survived, broken & without hope, is the point.

My feeling is that Frodo had to survive - Tolkien owed a debt to those who survived the war he had fought in, not to those who died. The ones who died had found peace & could be allowed to rest. Those who survived were the ones who mattered, because they were the forgotten ones (as Esty points out). Having Frodo survive forces the reader to deal with what survivors of horror have to live with. Its too easy for us to mourn the dead, wear our poppies in November, lay a wreath & think of them as stories that have come to an end & move on. Through Frodo Tolkien forces us to confront the reality of the survivors of horror who have to live on with their experiences. They are living instances of the fact that wars don't end when the ceasefire is announced & the peace treaties signed. Wars go on as long as the survivors live. Frodo was still fighting the War of the Ring till he left Middle-earth, still trudging through Mordor, still struggling up the Mountain, still claiming the Ring. Over & over & over. His wounds never healed, he never was able to find rest.

The fact is, all the others were able to move on & find a new life - which most of the survivors of WWI did. Some weren't - & Frodo personifies them - the ones who needed to find peace but could not.

Now, this is not to treat LotR as an allegory in any way. Frodo is a broken survivor of the War of the Ring, but there are always broken survivors of Wars - in the Primary (& occasionally in Secondary) world(s); & not just broken survivors of wars, but of violence, rape, abuse - those who have to continue on without hope. The ignored & forgotten ones who we wish would go away because their very existence denies us the chance to pretend that we can all live happily ever after, whatever happens to us.

It would have been so much easier for us if Frodo had died on the Mountain, because then we wouldn't have been stuck with him moping around & making us miserable. Or if he didn't have the decency to die then at least he could have snapped out of it for our sakes so we could enjoy Aragorn's & Sam's weddings & had the 'And they all lived happily ever after.' that we deserved after our long journey through Middle-earth. But no, that bloody Frodo has to hang around, getting under our feet, making us feel guiilty, when all we really wanted was to enjoy Sam's healing of the Shire & a quiet pint in the Green Dragon.

There's always one who has to spoil the fun...