Failure and Punishment

[mark12_30]

A wild set of assumptions, presumptions, and blind leaps:

If you asked Tokien whether Frodo was guilty of those things-- folly, overconfidence and weakness-- I doubt he would disagree. Gandalf used some of the same words in various places and I think Tolkien also used them in his letters. Consequences happen, and consequences for folly, overconfidence and weakness happen.

However, I also doubt that TOlkien would have attatched any emotional, judgemental, or condemnatory importance to them. For Tolkien, Frodo's virtuies so outshone his weaknesses that Frodo's weaknesses are negligible. Consider the phrasing in Tolkien's letter (191) regarding Mount Doom, in which he implies, "judge not":

No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistable by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

[Macalaure]

I don't buy it either.
Why was it folly that led to Frodo being stabbed on Weathertop? I doubt he could have escaped the Witch-King even if he hadn't used the ring. On the other hand, his behaviour in the Prancing Pony was folly and all the punishments he received for that were some harsh words by Strider.
The sting was clearly Frodo's fault, though I'm not sure if overconfidence is the right term.
And, as has been stated before, on Orodruin he did all he could, but failed in the end.

What I don't understand is how one makes sins out of these. Folly sure isn't a good thing, but a sin? I think that takes it to far. And failing a task that goes beyond one's abilities while giving every effort is a sin? How do you get such an idea?

Also, there are faults and misjudgements in LotR that are not punished. (Pippin in Moria f.ex.)

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Besides, does the word 'sinner' really belong in LotR?

I agree. I don't recall having read the words 'sin' or 'sinner' in both LotR and Silmarillion. They always seems alien to me when they are used in the context of Tolkien's works.

[Raynor]

There is only one referrence in Tolkien's works on sins, that I know of, and even that favors Frodo:

Originally Posted by Footnote to Melkor / Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

[Mister Underhill]

Very interesting thread, doug*p. What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.

[Raynor]

I don't think that Frodo experienced guilt for his errors; any suffering he had after the quest is derrived, in my opinion, from wounds, or the impregnation of the ring. At the entrance of Sammath Naur, Frodo already finds peace after the ring's destruction, and I don't think he fell from that state.

[Boromir88]

I don't know about the Weathertop stab and Shelob's sting...I'll have to go back and look. I certainly don't agree that Frodo was punished for not destroying the Ring. Something we are told that was impossible for anyone's will, and of the time, possibly only Frodo had the strength to get it to Mount Doom.

"Frodo indeed ‘failed’ as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say ‘simple minds’ with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable....
'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, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.'~Letter 246

Do you think Frodo had 'failed'. Tolkien leaves the interpretation up to the reader. Since Frodo gave in and didn't destroy the Ring does this make him a failure? Maybe, but let's consider all the circumstances, trials, and most of all unattainable goal of destroying the Ring. Aye, Frodo's quest was a set failure from the start, or at least Frodo himself would not be able to destroy the Ring. What's important that I would like to note here (and why I don't think Frodo is punished for not destroying the Ring) is at the end...his failure was redressed. Frodo did fail to destroying the Ring himself, however two important qualities in Frodo (Pity and Mercy) won him his own salvation and his failure was redressed:

'But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'savation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would ceratinly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical beleif in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end- but by a 'grace' that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil, deed was the most beneficial thing any one could have done for Frodo! By a situation , created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and releived of his burden.'~Letter 181

Frodo's act of pity and forgiveness to Gollum wins him his own salvation. And it is Eru who rewards him by relieving him of the burden of the Ring and destroying it. In this case of Frodo's failure to destroy the Ring, I don't think he was punished in anyway...I actually think he was rewarded!

There is one failure that comes to the top of my head that is punishable...and that is a failure to fulfill an oath. Oaths have a strong power in Middle-earth. If you make an oath you better be prepared to live up to it or face the consequences. Just ask the Men of Dunharrow or Feanor. A good exchange between Elrond and Gimli happens which I think highlights the good and the bad of oaths. Of course, Gimli sees the positive side of oaths, and Elrond (being the pessimist he is ) sees the negative:

...'You may tarry, or come back, or turn aside into other paths, as chance allows. The further you go, the less easy will it be to withdraw; yet no oath or bond is laid on you to go further than you will. For you do not yet know the strength of your hearts, and you cannot foresee what each may meet upon the road.'
'Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,' said Gimli.
'Maybe,' said Elrond, `but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.'
'Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,' said Gimli.
'Or break it,' said Elrond. `Look not too far ahead! But go now with good hearts! Farewell, and may the blessing of Elves and Men and all Free Folk go with you. May the stars shine upon your faces!'~The Ring goes South

If you fail to fulfill an oath there's no doubt you will be punished. But I don't think Frodo was punished in the sense that Lin Carter argues.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Very interesting thread, doug*p. What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.

This is an interesting way to view d*p's quotation from Carter--not in absolute or omniscient terms but from the character's point of view.

Does Frodo feel a sense of failure? Why? What causes him to put such a high judgement upon himself? Would that cause be related to what motivated him to accept bearing the Ring? Is there a special psychology to being this kind of Ring bearer? Does Frodo begin with a burden of confidence?

As an aside, what specifically are the errors of fact which Carter makes, d*p? Does he list texts which are unrelated or is his conception of "paving the way" for LotR in err? Errors in one area can oftentimes forewarn of errors elsewhere.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Very interesting thread, doug*p. What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.

You made a good point, Mister Underhill. But on second thought however, it might be just the other way around: when I thought about it deeper, it is possible that it was actually Frodo who might have considered himself as if he made a fault (I'm not going for the word "sinner" in this environment, either), although from the "global" point of view he did just his best. In some places in the story, we can see some glimpses of this thinking of Frodo. So actually, it can be also the way that Frodo blamed himself just from the things that Carter names and even might consider his wounds as adequate punishment (which is silly, in my opinion, but never mind that), even though we - as audience - or the world around see that there was nothing better he could do. Or do we? I think there is not much to add to the previous posts, but maybe just one thing: instead throwing in of hundreds of arguments, imagine yourselves arriving at Rivendell. You are a common man or woman, as you are in this world, maybe you are a young elf or even hobbit or a dwarf who has come here because of business. Chances happen that you are invited by your friend to the secret meeting of Elrond's Council. The debate starts, you hear about things you never heard before, just maybe some whispers via rumour about the growing Shadow and terrible things in the lands far from your home. And then, after some time, the question "What shall we do with the Ring now" comes up. A tall man, who seems strong not even physically but also in mind, perhaps a renowned warrior who does not flee from lost battle, coming from the most civilized area of the world, and speaking well and logical, promotes an idea of bringing the Ring to Minas Tirith and using it as weapon along with all the force of its brave soldiers against the Enemy. On the other hand, a weak, weary little hobbit, supported by weary old man speak about going only with a few others, and not even the most powerful of all the elf lords around here, right into the land of the enemy between thousands of Orcs and into the heart of the dark land to destroy the Ring. Who would you believe?
What I wanted to illustrate is that we probably are not even fit to judge Frodo, because most of us wouldn't even know he might have saved us if we lived in Middle-Earth. Most of us wouldn't believe in him - but as we all know as readers, he made it. So I don't care where he failed, but do imagine where he succeeded: what all things he had to do (at first - to choose to go down that path although he had the most luxury house, money and a ring that might have made him invisible, for a start - and to point out that he didn't use this ring almost never!) to come to Weathertop, to Cirith Ungol, to Mount Doom. There can't be any punishment for what he showed here. And if it were, then - what about the rewards for everything else?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Great topic!

First, I agree with Mr. Underhill that Frodo would probably have concurred that his personal misfortunes were the result of his own shortcomings: that he somehow deserved the indifference of the Shire and his own physical and mental pain. I've always had the impression that Frodo never confided in anyone, not even Sam, once he came home to the Shire. He acted as if he was eaten up with guilt, feelings that Tolkien confirmed in one of his letters. There are certainly indications in the story that Frodo expected to die at the end of his journey. When that did not occur, he had a hard time dealing with it. Whether part of him actually felt he deserved to die, it's impossible to say with certainty, but I don't think we can rule that out.

The larger question in terms of Frodo is whether he ever got over that overwhelming guilt. Did the shores of the Blessed Lands eventually restore his sense of perspective? Was he able to accept the fact that he was a small, imperfect creature with flaws who had done the best that he could? Indeed he had done more than any other being in Arda could have done in bringing the Ring to the summit of Mount Doom where it could be destroyed. Certainly, that is the way Tolkien saw it. And I think his stated views merit more consideration than those of Mr. Carter!

However, there is another way of looking at Lin Carter's quote. The first printing of Carter's book was in March 1969. We can sit here and wisely quote the Letters and HoMe because we have access to those things. Like all who first read the book in the 1950's and 1960's, Carter was probably in the dark about a lot of things. It was really, really different then. There was no internet or archival collections. All Carter had were meetings of the Tolkien Society of America, occasional snippets that filtered into the very earliest fanzine publications like the Tolkien Journal, or reports from lucky people who actually managed to speak with the author or get an answer to a letter. Carter's friend de Sprague did this, but I don't think Carter ever met Tolkien.

There were no standard biographies, no published letters or HoMe, and perhaps most importantly no Silmarillion. Until you read the Silm and place LotR against the backdrop of that history, you don't have a full sense of how blazing hard it was to pull off the destruction of the Ring. With only a few exceptions, Silm recounts story after story of great and powerful Elves and mighty Numenoreans who fell flat on their faces when they tried to combat the power of the Dark Lord. It took the intervention of the Valar to get rid of Morgoth. Yet somehow in the Third Age, a time when men were "debased" and Elves "fading" from their lofty beginnings, you manage to get the destruction of the Ring and the demise of Sauron, and the only help the Fellowship had was an istar who was instructed not to utilize his full might (two if you count the scatterbrained Radagast). When the situation is seen in that perspective it's downright amazing that Frodo, with the help of Sam, managed to do as well as he did, despite all his very real personal shortdcomings (and there were many).

Tolkien was surprised to receive many letters where readers berated Frodo for failing since the author's own perspective was so different. I feel it's in this context that Carter's comments can best be understood.