Failure and Punishment

[littlemanpoet]

from the last section of The Council of Elrond

No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but the were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.

'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What a strange phrasing that bolded part is! Who or what is it in LotR that is said to use a dominating will?

As we read this passage, for just the slightest time, there is the possibility that the Ring has called to Frodo and prompted his offer. However much we come to understand that Frodo voluntarily took up the task that is appointed for [him]--as Elrond sententiously describes it--there is this frission of fear that the Ring has already begun to work its will upon Frodo.

To dismiss this potential guess and flat out say, no question, this is Eru here is to miss this subtle suggestion of the Ring's sway. It is no more than a passing possibility, but nonetheless it is a possibilty that increases the tension of the text.

One of the ways in which Evil is made so powerful and dominant in the story is by means such as this, where we do not always know at the time which way the moral balance falls.

Hmm.... Hmmmm....! Well now.... Hroom hoom, even...! It's just that the Ring is not in the habit of 'pronouncing some doom long foreseen'. It's not just a "dominating will", but one that rules; for it is a ruler that pronounces dooms, not a lord of rings. And sententious or not, Elrond is one of Tolkien's "truth speakers" in LotR. So there is a real appointing going on, and not by any Elves, not even by Gandalf.

The passage has the character of a hard task appointed being reluctantly accepted. In fact, Frodo wishes with all his might to stay at Rivendell, the implication being that someone else can take the Ring to Mount Doom. So no, I don't dismiss your potential reading, Bêthberry; rather, considering the way the context of the passage reads, I just don't buy it. The passage shows that this is not the Ring at all, which, if it could speak, would most likely be trying to get Frodo to flee with the Ring from all these VIPs. The only possibility is that the Ring is, perhaps, trying to get the weak Frodo to go in the general direction of where the Lord is. But that's at the most. And even if one allows for that, there's still the greater will that is pronouncing a doom, appointing a ringbearer, and Frodo is both bound by destiny and free to accept that destiny, and does so. So in my opinion it doesn't so much increase the tension of the text as flout the context. Sorry.

[Raynor]

I agree with lmp's interpretation. In the Shadow of the Past, Gandalf says that:

I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_to find the Ring, and _not_ by its maker. In which case you also were _meant_to have it.

So someone else was at work, meaning for Bilbo to find the ring and Frodo to have it; I think it is only natural to presume that this someone (who is not the ring maker, directly or indirectly I might add) also wanted Frodo to carry the ring to Mount Doom. If so many people were strangely summoned to the Council, how come no other stood up to carry the ring? It seems to me that all of them where searching inside, but none found the calling - save Frodo. Not even Boromir, who was probably the most susceptible to the ring's corruption, is not enticed, for better or for worse, to take it at that moment.

[Lush]

In Middle-earth, good and evil are pretty well-defined. In almost every situation which Tolkien portrays, the good guys are opposed to the evil guys, and there is generally little difficulty in identifying which side any particular individual falls on. Anything that is done to further the cause of the good guys may be categorised as good, and therefore virtuous. Anything done to further the cause of the evil guys is evil, a transgression of good and so a sin. For the reader, at least, it is generally fairly easy to tell which is which.

But this is why I like Gollum; because his character challenges and complicates this structure. In my opinion, he does this more so than Bilbo and Eowyn. Of course, he's never really as "good" as either of the two, but there are moments that disclose his capacity for being good. And whether or not he is punished when he dies in the end is also something worth pondering...

[Aiwendil]

Lush wrote:

But this is why I like Gollum; because his character challenges and complicates this structure. In my opinion, he does this more so than Bilbo and Eowyn. Of course, he's never really as "good" as either of the two, but there are moments that disclose his capacity for being good. And whether or not he is punished when he dies in the end is also something worth pondering...

This is true; I also like Gollum for this reason. And another example of a morally ambiguous Tolkien character is my personal favourite - Turin.

But, to utter my catch phrase, there's a distinction we ought to make. To say that Tolkien's characters are often morally ambiguous is a very different thing from saying that Tolkien's world is morally ambiguous. Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct. There is never any question of what ends should, morally speaking, be sought, though there is often some question concerning, first, how best to go about achieving those ends, and, second, whether a particular character will in the event seek that end or not.

[Raynor]

Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct.

If I may be so bold to say, they are mixed in all people:

Originally Posted by Letter #212

The Fall or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. Trees may 'go bad' as in the Old Forest; Elves may turn into Orcs, and if this required the special perversive malice of Morgoth, still Elves themselves could do evil deeds. Even the 'good' Valar as inhabiting the World could at least err

Originally Posted by Letter #183

I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.

[Thinlómien]

Morally ambiguous? What about one of my favourites, Maedhros? When you think of it, there are actually more of these characters than you first think there are.

Originally Posted by Raynor

My english version reads "it's a shame to wake you"

So maybe the Finnish translator is trying to promote Christian agenda?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

To say that Tolkien's characters are often morally ambiguous is a very different thing from saying that Tolkien's world is morally ambiguous. Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct. There is never any question of what ends should, morally speaking, be sought, though there is often some question concerning, first, how best to go about achieving those ends, and, second, whether a particular character will in the event seek that end or not.

This is a very good point, and it elaborates on what I was trying to say in my previous post. While there are morally ambiguous characters in Tolkien’s world, the world itself is not morally ambiguous. It is generally fairly straightforward to tell when a character is acting in the cause of good and when he or she is acting in the cause of evil. Boromir, for example, acts in the cause of good by joining the Fellowship and contributing towards its goal, yet acts in the cause of evil (assisted by the seductive wiles of the Ring) when he assaults Frodo. Subsequently, he redeems himself by acting again in the cause of good, when he gives his life attempting to protect Merry and Pippin and makes his deathbed confession to Aragorn.

Gollum is an interesting case in point, since his motives are mixed at one and the same time. He acts both in the cause of good (by guiding Frodo and Sam towards Mordor) and in the cause of evil (by luring them to Shelob’s lair). His intentions are both good (he willingly serves Frodo) and evil (he wants the Ring for himself). He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions? It was, of course, his final act which brought about the destruction of the Ring, albeit unwittingly so.

In my earlier post, however, I was particularly interested in the actions of those characters who are not generally considered to be morally ambiguous. Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good. Where do these acts fit within the moral framework of Tolkien’s world?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I think that the quote I gave previously on post #6 applies in these cases; a deed is not a sin, depending on the intention of the doer.

Originally Posted by Raynor quoting 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.

I am not sure that Bilbo was consciously serving Eru when he stole the Arkenstone, nor that Eowyn was doing so when she disobeyed Theoden. Might it not better be said that acts are not sinful when committed with good intentions? Given that Eru is the source of good, it has much the same meaning, but admits scope for good acts by those who are broadly unaware of the existence of Eru.

However, there is a problem. If wrongful acts may be committed, provided that they are committed with the intention of furthering the cause of good, does this not open up the scope for a philosophy whereby the end may be seen as justifying the means? And is that not how Saruman started off down his wrongful path? He genuinely considered what he was doing was for the greater good and that that end was justified by the means that he used. It might even be said that he did his best as he saw it with the conscious intent of fulfilling his mission to defeat Sauron and thereby serving Eru. Yet, he was misguided.