Did Frodo REALLY volunteer to Bear the Ring?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

How was his failure addressed, I wonder? By what intervention or on what Terms?

Tolkien writes redressed, not addressed. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redressed for what the word means. Read the following two paragraphs to answer your question.

I'm wondering about a little something else as well. The 'white robes' effect on Orodruin - could equally have a 'line of effect' to Elrond (did Elrond 'imbue' just a wee little Elvish-ness INTO Frodo as a final added deterrent to wraith-isation. Yes, Frodo was getting pretty creepy at times and 'white' can also be either of Spectral White of the Necromantic --OR-- Valinorean kind. Random thought

So, tell us what this means. How does the white robe seen by Sam have any ‘line of effect’ to Elrond’s surgery? Your random thought seems to me not worth considering.

IOne of the reasons I was wary of Frodo, at Elrond's was because Frodo spoke as though it were 'not' him. That was a dissociation of will, I often wondered, an unconscious motivation to keep the Ring.

It may have been an unconscious motivation, or maybe not. Nerwen, in particular, was at you in more than one post to reveal your sources. But you didn’t. I guess because you can’t. You only babbled about the Banning of the Noldor and other tales supposed to have mostly occurred thousands of years before the War of the Ring, and used terms like precedent and juxtaposition which don’t prove anything. By your methods you could equally prove that since Jack the Ripper was a murderer in Victorian London that almost all his contemporaries in London were murderers.

I wonder for this debate, if it's always 'two truths' point to the same ali.gnment, somehow in argument. If one accepts that the Ring creates a 'split' in the Mind's Eye or a Splinter (ergo Star Wars Splinter of the Mind's Eye), then, of course, we are always going to have dual motivational systems at work for any bearer.

If “we are always going to have dual motivational systems at work for any bearer”, then show where Sam is badly affected. Sam, in the book, has only a brief temptation to use the Ring for Power, but quickly shakes it off.

So - the presence of concurrent motivations - to Vanity/Greed/Lust - and to Duty/Valour/Self-Sacrifice/Love and Preservation of Others seems entirely possible.

Yes, of course. But seems entirely possible is a rather weak conclusion. It also seems entirely possible that Frodo, until the end, was mostly faithful to the quest he had undertaken. True, when Frodo offers to give the Ring up to Galadriel he fails his quest, or would have done so, if Galadriel had accepted his offer and Frodo had then been able to carry it out.

[Nerwen]

jallanite, I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down the (seeming) hostility. It's only a discussion thread, in the end. That said, I do share many of your concerns, especially this-

Originally Posted by jallanite

It may have been an unconscious motivation, or maybe not. Nerwen, in particular, was at you in more than one post to reveal your sources. But you didn’t. I guess because you can’t. You only babbled about the Banning of the Noldor and other tales supposed to have mostly occurred thousands of years before the War of the Ring, and used terms like precedent and juxtaposition which don’t prove anything. By your methods you could equally prove that since Jack the Ripper was a murderer in Victorian London that almost all his contemporaries in London were murderers.

Indeed. Look, Ivriniel, this was a very interesting thread, and I certainly don't wish to discourage you from raising discussion topics. It's just that I want to say now that I'm really not terribly keen on the way you went about it this time. If you were falsely claiming to have a "truck load" of evidence you didn't really have, just to get us going or something, well, I honestly think that's a bit much. And if, on the other hand, the talk of "stenches" and "foot-stomping" and word-associations and the "precedent" set by other incidents in the "Legendarium", and so forth *was* your evidence, then we've got a real problem, because- to put it bluntly- as an argument most of that simply fails to make sense on a basic level.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm picking on you. Well, I am, actually, but I'd do it to anyone. It's nothing personal.

[jallanite]

Nerwen, I am indeed hostile to this thread, as defined by Ivriniel, and your post shows, to me, just as much hostility, though I greatly admire the manner in which you post. I wish I had your ability.

No one who has responded agrees with Ivriniel. And all the responses seem to me to be very reasonable. Yes, Frodo, in accepting the quest, could be unconscionably influenced by the Ring. Or he might not.

But where else does Frodo show concurrent motivations, if he does? That ought to be what Ivriniel tries to show, but Ivriniel does not. I had always assumed that Frodo’s almost transparency in Rivendell was a side-effect of the Morgul-knife fragment that Frodo had carried in his body so long, but Ivriniel imagines instead that it is a result of Elrond’s surgery, but does not explain what motivation Ivriniel attributes to Elrond if it was.

Is Ivriniel merely a poor arguer, or is Ivriniel a troll? It doesn’t matter to me as I am going to cease to feed Ivriniel.

[Mithadan]

Can we all please dial back on the negativity here, please?

The goal here is to encourage participation and discussion. Any aspersions cast upon a member, rather than discussion of the topic. is simply inappropriate.

Thank you.

[Nerwen]

Sure, Mithadan.. I just thought it needed saying. I'm not going to keep on about it.

Originally Posted by Pitch

Hm, I've got to confess I've never been never been too enthusiastic about the assumption that the finger of Eru pushed Gollum over the brink. It's just not necessary IMO - I mean, given all we know of Gollum's character it's natural he'd be so enraptured about regaining the Precious he wouldn't mind his steps and stumble.

Yes- I can't recall anything in that scene that would imply a sudden, direct intervention. Now, in "The Shadow of the Past" Gandalf talks about Frodo being "meant" to have the Ring and theorises that Gollum has "a part to play before the end" (or words to that effect- don't have the book to quote from), which I take to be hints of an underlying divine purpose to it all- but surely of the subtle "moving in mysterious ways" sort, as opposed to the "literally tripping people up" sort. I'm not sure how or why the idea has arisen, actually.

[Pervinca Took]

On the 'meant' thing, I remember Frodo saying in Unfinished Tales:

'But still, you could not make us. You were not even allowed to try.'

Or something very similar.

All the same, Frodo's position is a bit like Frederick's with the Pirate King and Ruth appealing to his 'sense of duty.' Albeit in a much more serious sense.

P.S. Come back, Ivriniel! Your devil's advocacy stirred my sluggish posting fingers. (It helps that talking about Frodo is one of my absolute favourite things to do).

[Firefoot]

Ivriniel, the word you use repeatedly that really stands out to me is "creepy." Frankly, I'm just not following this one. I hope this isn't terribly offensive to suggest, but how much of your early readings of LotR do you think was influenced by the movies? Because I could see how one might get "creepy" from Elijah Wood's Frodo, always falling down with his eyes rolling back in his head. (Honestly, this is one thing I have always thought the movies got terribly wrong, in making Frodo get far too weak and corrupted far too quickly - he's not terribly admirable even in the beginning of the movies, while I think book-Frodo is far more noble and courageous.)

If I'm totally off base here, let me know - are there other particular scenes than with Bilbo in Rivendell that you got the creepy vibe from early on?

THEY ALL KNEW--Frodo was creepi-fying.

I mean, of course the Ring is going to have gotten some hold on Frodo by now - he's had it for 17 years already, plus gone up against the Black Riders. On the whole, though, he's really still doing a pretty excellent job of resisting the Ring's hold on him. I'd say it doesn't truly get bad until he reaches Mordor. I think the real question is, who would have been better to send? I think it's pretty well established that Hobbits exhibit a remarkable resilience to evil/the Ring. The obvious counterpoint to Frodo is Boromir, who doesn't even bear the Ring but becomes corrupted by desire for it in a matter of months.

Seeing as Frodo literally does as well as it was possible to do and gets as far as anyone can get, I hardly think that you can say covetousness for the Ring is his motivation.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

The goal here is to encourage participation and discussion. Any aspersions cast upon a member, rather than discussion of the topic. is simply inappropriate.

My intent was not to cast aspersions on anyone, though I and others have purposely, and I think justly, cast aspersions on Ivrinel’s reasoning, or possibly lack thereof.

My intent was to withdraw from the discussion, not to indicate that Ivriniel was a troll or wasn’t. I think your statement, “Any aspersions cast upon a member, rather than discussion of the topic. is simply inappropriate.” If this was your understanding of my statement, “Is Ivriniel merely a poor arguer, or is Ivriniel a troll?”, then I apologize for posting something that could be so easily misunderstood without giving me the benefit of the doubt. Assume incompetence on my part, not malice.

Note that my final statement was, “It doesn’t matter to me as I am going to cease to feed Ivriniel.” The implied reference to the common internet advice, “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!” was intentional but, with hindsight, unfortunate.

Perhaps I should have posted instead, “It doesn’t matter to me because enough has been posted by others than myself all of which I agree with that I do not regret leaving.”

So, unexpectedly, I find myself back here again, I think, for the last time.