Failure and Punishment

[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.

[Raynor]

He acted as if he was eaten up with guilt, feelings that Tolkien confirmed in one of his letters.

I don't think that the guilts of which the professor speaks (desire to return as a hero and regret for the ring) are genuine ones - they are called in letter #246 as a flicker of the dark, one blacker than the other. Seeing that Tolkien wanted Frodo to end up "highminded, ennobled and rarefied", coupled with his chosen solitude & dark thoughts, I would say that the hobbits were perceptive and respectful enough to give him the air that he needed, sort of speaking.

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.

Well, technically, there weren't any numenoreans before the fall of Melkor.

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).

Indeed; also, in the letters, Beren is seen as a precursor to the hobbits, sort of speaking:

Originally Posted by Letter #131

The chief of the stories of the Silmarillion, and the one most fully treated is the Story of Beren and Luthien the Elfmaiden. Here we meet, among other things, the first example of the motive (to become dominant in Hobbits) that the great policies of world history, 'the wheels of the world', are often turned not by the Lords and Governors, even gods, but by the seemingly unknown and weak – owing to the secret life in creation, and the pan unknowable to all wisdom but One, that resides in the intrusions of the Children of God into the Drama. It is Beren the outlawed monal who succeeds (with the help of Luthien, a mere maiden even if an elf of royalty) where all the armies and warriors have failed: he penetrates the stronghold of the Enemy and wrests one of the Silmarilli from the Iron Crown. Thus he wins the hand of Luthien and the first marriage of mortal and immortal is achieved.

which puts an interesting, clearer, light on Elrond's words at the council:

But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you. But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right; and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together your seat should be among them.

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by D*P

What do you think of Carter's assertion that Frodo's wounds were inflicted as a sort of punishment for his failures?

punishment:A penalty imposed for wrongdoing
consequence:an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
Many people confuse consequence and punishment, I believe Carter is one of them.

Originally Posted by D*P

I had never before considered that some at least of his misfortunes were, in part at least, his own fault.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

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. The sting was clearly Frodo's fault, though I'm not sure if overconfidence is the right term.

To some extent, if Frodo was found totally faultless in everything then that implies to me that he was a puppet with no thought or opinion or choice of his own.
Interesting, Macalaure, I think opposite. I agree that Frodo would not have escaped the wraiths on weathertop but perhaps they could've held them off long enough for Strider to come. Certainly, if Frodo hadn't put on the ring, they would not have zeroed in on him.
Why do you find Frodo to be at fault with Shelob? Please explain because I still haven't found my books and I only recall that he was delirious and therefore was semi-conscious of his surroundings.

Originally Posted by D*P

Is this contrast the reason why Frodo is not held in higher esteem among the hobbits on his return to the Shire? Rather than being wounded in victorious combat, he is struck down as a result of "folly, overconfidence and weakness" (to use Carter's words).

Other than a few close friends, Cottons and Gaffer, the others probably didn't even really listen to Frodo's part of the quest. It doesn't sound like he was ever in the mood to talk to people about it and only Sam was there the entire time. As was said in the story, they held in esteem the bravery they witnessed themselves.

Originally Posted by Mr.U

What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.

Originally Posted by Bb

Does Frodo feel a sense of failure? Why? What causes him to put such a high judgement upon himself?

That awful thing "hindsight is 20/20". It's nature to look back and even if we know we did the best at that time there is the critical eye that points out where we went wrong or could've done better. Even Gandalf told Bilbo to keep notes so he could point out his mistakes (the Hobbit) .

Originally Posted by Bb

Would that cause (high judgement) 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?

I don't think Frodo was burdened with confidence-I also don't think he belittled himself either, he was confident in Gandalf's confidence. As for taking on the ring, I think whether he felt fit or not he knew in his heart at the time of councel it would be him.

[doug*platypus]

Interesting discussion so far, everyone! Thanks to all for your contributions. From the wording in the quote given in Post #1 Carter seemed to have taken it as a given that Frodo did commit wrongs, and was punished as a result. I'm sure he would be interested to see that the majority of posters here disagree with him, and that we are all ready to spring to Frodo's defence!

Frodo was, and still remains, my favourite character in the book, and I personally think that if he did do wrong, it was minor and forgiveable. After all, the quest was fulfilled because of his strong will and remarkable resistance to the Ring, with the help of Samwise, and as a direct result (as has been mentioned earlier) of the pity and mercy with which he treated Sméagol. I had never conceived of Frodo as guilty of any real mistakes until reading the Carter quotation.

Bêthberry, the "mistake of fact" which most readily springs to mind is that Carter referred to Éowyn as Théoden's daughter. I can't recall any others, but they were all minor errors in reading that seemed to give the overall impression that Carter may have only read the book once or twice, and not completely soaked in all the details yet.

Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision? I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir).

What do people think of the other folk that I mentioned: Boromir, Fëanor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Thingol. Did Tolkien dish out "just desserts" to these characters as a consequence (thanks, Holbytlass!) of their ignoble actions?

[Bêthberry]

Great post, Child. You have a knack for recovering history!

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

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.

Very true, I think. I've often wondered how much Frodo had what might be called the guilt of the survivor. What does a child feel whose parents die tragically and young, leaving him orphaned? How much of his loss and bereavement went into his character and into his decision to bear the Ring to Mount Doom?

Originally Posted by Child

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.

This is an interesting idea. Does that suggest a lack of coherent artistic vision in LotR, that a true understanding of the Ring's power or of the story itself isn't given there, but must be found in another text? Rather than look for clues in primary texts or the real world, does LotR force us to look to other subcreated works? This would mean that LotR, as a story, cannot stand on its own, but for a full appreciation must be read in context of all Tolkien's works.

Originally Posted by Child

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.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know where those readers came from? Were they mainly American? (just as an example) Would it be possible to discern some kind of cultural or social divide which could explain how this interpretation differed so greatly from Tolkien's? What kind of perspective or philosophical outlook gives way to the impression that Frodo should be berated?

As always, Child, you bring up fascinating ideas. And I'm in a rush, so I've written not very entishly...