Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[davem]

But even if he had gone ahead in full agreement, knowing exactly what would happen to him - which personally I don't believe, as his final state is such that he would not have been able to understand it before it happened to him * that still doesn't make it acceptable that he is broken to such a degree. Its still 'wrong', in the same way that even if all the young men of Tolkien's generation who fought on the Somme had volunteered (& most of them did) in order to save their country, & went over the top willingly, the mass slaughter was still 'wrong', because willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering. It may be a 'fact' that that's how things are in the world, but that 'fact' is simply not good enough.


*It would almost be equivalent to saying to someone who had never felt any pain before that you were going to drill into one of their teeth, & that it would hurt - but even if they agreed to you going ahead, having no real conception of what 'hurt' means they couldn't be said to have really agreed.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I am running out the door to work, but just wanted to raise one brief but critical question:

willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering.

I agree but exactly who is it that "inflicts" the suffering on Frodo? Tolkien seems to make it fairly clear in his writings that the suffering came because of Morgoth and Sauron who clung to their own plans for power or control rather than following along with the music that Eru had spelled out: that plus those Elves and Men who elected to follow a similar path for reasons of greed, immortality or whatever .

If Eru (or God) gives us free will to make our own choices, is he 'inflicting' suffering on us, or is he giving us the chance to function as mature beings in a very complex world?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Yet Tolkien, through Frodo, seems to be saying that 'spiritual' growth merely brings sadness, resignation, & a sense of failure, at least within the world, & so, only has any value 'beyond the World' . In other words, only religious belief, faith in something beyond the world can give meaning to our suffering here. So, athiests actually gain nothing through suffering.

I think this is what Tolkien meant by making Frodo a "sacrificial hero." Frodo couldn't gain for himself that which he saved for others. The wounds of Frodo are sufferings that cannot find redress in Middle Earth simply because of the rarification that they have caused in him. He is aware that the Shire has been saved, and he knows that he played a part, but he is discontent that he is not recognized in a traditional manner for it and that he cannot, in good conscience, share in that kind of glory.

I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one must give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.
--Frodo to Sam in "The Grey Havens"

Its still 'wrong', in the same way that even if all the young men of Tolkien's generation who fought on the Somme had volunteered (& most of them did) in order to save their country, & went over the top willingly, the mass slaughter was still 'wrong', because willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering. It may be a 'fact' that that's how things are in the world, but that 'fact' is simply not good enough.

It is, of course, impossible to say that slaughter and evil on any scale is 'right.' I hope I didn't say that it could be, because it cannot. But it is also impossible to deny its existence, because the wrongness does exist, and it must be dealt with as it is, not as it should be. So, Frodo's choice is really:
1) Take the Ring away from the Shire, and on to Mount Doom and have some hope that the Shire will not be devastated.
2) Give up the Ring and entrust the safety of the Shire and all of Middle Earth to someone else who has no more defense against this force you know all too well (through 17 years of possession) and give up your attempt to do good through resignation or assigning the task to another.

The fact that Frodo is the perfect one for the task and the fact that he realizes it is one thing. The fact that Frodo goes the extra step and takes on the responsibility is another. I think certainly, if he had known at the outset the depth of the suffering he would endure, he would have (at least in theory) thrown the thing away and bolted. But then, he would have a greater guilt to deal with, knowing that anyone, good or evil, benevolent or inimical, could pick it up and do what he would with it.

So, the "wrongs" I believe are perpetrated on the part of the evil forces, as Child mentions, Morgoth and Sauron and all they corrupted. The sufferings of Frodo are inflicted as a direct result of this evil. The fact that he takes them on himself, rather than allowing another or many others to suffer in his place simply points to Frodo's strength and clear sight.

This question of "why does Eru/God allow suffering in the world" has been a theme question in the world for many ages itself. If He were to simply quash Morgoth and Sauron and all their abominations and deeds, the world itself would be laid to waste and he would have to start again. Instead, the good creations fight "The Long Defeat" and thereby prove their goodness. Why fight "The Long Defeat?" Why get up in the morning when so much evil surrounds us? ...Why not? The alternative is rotting in idleness and bitterness, cursing reality for being, cursing evil for existing when one cannot simply wipe it out by asking God to use the cosmic eraser on it. "Start again!" The director might say, but, alas, the same flaws and darknesses would flow again; the universe would exist in an endless stutter of sameness, a haunted fugue with no development or resolution, waiting for the solution that can never come unless the Long Defeat be allowed to proceed to the Last Battle and the remaking of Arda. I think the inevitable outcome of the temptation to shake one's fist at God or any "higher being" is to fall into the trap of bitterness and follow the fallen into the Void, where there can be no beauty or goodness.

As a last musing, I'll review an argument that my husband, aka, "The Witch King," as I call him, differs with me about. The fact that Gandalf leaves the hobbits to fight their own battle upon the return to the Shire after the War of the Ring. Gandalf could have gone and righted all through his terrifying "Gandalf the White" presence, couldn't he? He could have saved Merry and Pippin a whole lot of trouble and kept them all from experiencing the direct threats they did experience by confronting the corruption in the Shire head-on. Mr. Witch-King believes that Gandalf should have helped them, but I disagreed and thought that Gandalf was wise to let them fight this battle on their own. In microcosm, this could be seen as a higher power allowing the lesser ones to fight a battle that must be fought. By doing so, Gandalf allows the flowering of the strength of the hobbits he knows is there. Merry and Pippin come into their own and are hailed as saviors of the Shire. They are ready for any challenge and can handle their realm without the need for intervention. This, too, is spiritual growth, albeit in a visible, physical way. It is the flowering of the sleeping Shire of the Third Age into the awake and capable Shire of the Fourth Age. It is evolution, maturation, what have you. The growth of Sam, Merry and Pippin is not the same as that of Frodo, but the growth is there and is practical.

I sure hope I haven't rambled on too long and put you all to sleep! I hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have been enjoying this topic myself!

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. I couldn't help but address this part of davem's post above:

And if they can get there without experiencing the degree of suffering & purification Frodo does, then that implies that Frodo's suffering is not necessary to pass beyond the circles of the world - which means his suffering cannot be justified as the only way to gain Paradise. Which strengthens the sense of 'wrongness' about it, even if it is 'like things are in the world'

It is interesting to note that the instances of Frodo's woundings along the path come mainly when he loses his focus and gives in to temptations or urges that are presented by the evil he is fighting against. He gives in to the temptation to put on the Ring at Weathertop, thus opening himself to the Witch King's Morgul blade wound; Shelob gets him after he lets go his caution and runs whooping loudly along the pass, leaving Sam and all good sense behind him, and finally, his major fall to temptation at the Cracks of Doom results in his loss of the Ring and the finger on which it resides. I can't say this is a one to one causal relationship, and I do admit that Frodo is a special case, a "study of a hobbit broken down completely," so that I would not take his example as the norm for Everyman but rather a mythical example that can inspire and make one think. (I'm not sure this answers anything, but I thought it good to mention...)
Now, I'm really going...

[Essex]

Lyta, very interesting. The only thing I strongly disagree with in your post is the point that you, and many before you, have made regarding Frodo's 'disontentment' as you call it. i.e.:

He is aware that the Shire has been saved, and he knows that he played a part, but he is discontent that he is not recognized in a traditional manner for it and that he cannot, in good conscience, share in that kind of glory.

I have never seen ANY proof in the texts that Frodo is discontent that he is not recognised as a hero. This is totally against his nature.

Now if you can find something that proves this, be it the text or a letter from Tolkien then I will stand corrected, but I've asked this point on different threads on and on different sites before and nothing has swayed my belief.

Frodo does not need to be seen as a hero to his people. If he really wanted praise (which he didn't), then the King of Gondor kneeling before him I reckon is good enough.

Davem, re:

Its still 'wrong', in the same way that even if all the young men of Tolkien's generation who fought on the Somme had volunteered (& most of them did) in order to save their country, & went over the top willingly, the mass slaughter was still 'wrong', because willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering. It may be a 'fact' that that's how things are in the world, but that 'fact' is simply not good enough.

Unfortunatley you are talking about a Perfect world. I think Tolkien's work is showing, that even in his Fantasy, Middle-earth is not perfect. Even the Elves themselves, his 'higher echelon', maybe comparible to Christian Angels, were not perfect. In fact they were quite a nasty bunch at times........ So, yes you can say it is 'wrong', but then not everything is black and white in this world. There are shades of grey.

PS Lyta, re the Scouring. Gandalf's work was done. I agree with your point that it helps the hobbits grow, but really his hands were tied anyway, as his job was already finished and he was in retirement! He needed to pop down to the Old Forest anyway to see Tom (his Boss) to pick up his P45!!!! Oops, opened up a can of worms there...............

[Child of the 7th Age]

Essex,

You raise this point:

I have never seen ANY proof in the texts that Frodo is discontent that he is not recognised as a hero. This is totally against his nature.

Now if you can find something that proves this, be it the text or a letter from Tolkien then I will stand corrected, but I've asked this point on different threads on and on different sites before and nothing has swayed my belief.

What about this quote from a draft letter written in September 1963? It clearly states that part of Frodo did crave recognition as a hero. The italics are my own....

.....it was not only nightmares of past horrors that afflicted him, but also unreasoning self-reproach: he saw himself and all that he done as a broken failure. 'Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same, for I shall not be the same.' That was actually a temptation out of the Dark, a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned as a 'hero', not content with being a mere instrument of good.

Child

[davem]

Lyta, I can see what you're saying, & part of me agrees with it - except the idea that his wounds could be considered his own fault for 'slipping' at certain points - it seems a bit harsh, but maybe I'm taking a too negative view of your point.

But Frodo is hardly allowed to make a free choice & is told by both Gandalf & Elrond that he is meant to have the Ring, & that the task is appointed for him & if he doesn't find a way, no-one will (shall we translate: 'if you don't succeed in detroying this Ring we'll all be killed or enslaved, & it will be all your fault'.?)

He is given a task he cannot suceed in achieving, told it will be his fault if he doesn't achieve it, & in the end is left with nothing, except the overwhelming sense of failure & only the option of exile to relieve his suffering. And, rationalise it as we will, it is wrong, & cruel, whether Illuvatar, or fate, or the Music, or Morgoth, or Sauron, or simply 'the way things are in the world' is responsible.

We, looking on from a distance, may be able to see that he's 'grown' into a more spiritual' person, but i don't get any sense that he feels that. So, what is the value to him, as opposed to all those 'charming, absurd Hobbits', & the 'great' in their palaces? What does he actually get out of it all? Not too much. So, while it might be 'fair' & good, & admirable from the perspective of others that he's done all that for them, given so much for them, while we might be able to look at him & say 'My, how he's grown!', he is broken & lost, & we have no idea what form his healing will take, how 'healed' he will feel at the end of his 'treatment'. But the rest of the world will be OK, so that's alright?

Except its not alright, really, is it? Not for him, & that's the point. What he suffers is wrong, when all's said & done. Its not really enough to say these big, cosmic battles have to be fought (which is true), because those who fight them (as with Tolkien's generation) suffer horribly so the rest of us can carry on.

Frodo doesn't actually do what's right - he really does what's 'wrong'. because as Sam says 'Its all wrong', & that's in a way what's both truly tragic, & truly admirable about him. He's placed by Eru, or fate, or the way things are in the world, without being asked, in a world that's all wrong, & is told 'Its your job to help put it right, now, get on with it - people are depending on you!' What becomes of him seems almost secondary - but its 'alright', because when he's been wrecked & broken they (the ones who put him in the position where he got broken, will come along & put him back together again, & say, 'There you are, young Hobbit, that's alright then, all better now, off you go to your destiny beyond the Circles of the World'.

It feels 'wrong', & I can't shake that feeling.

[mark12_30]

davem,

I disagree that the ones who assigned the task to Frodo leave him hanging. The very three who assured Frodo that carrying the Ring was his task-- Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel-- are with him, on the very ship on which he sails away. They each are Ringbearers. They know (more than anyone else could) what Frodo went through. They alone (of any living creatures save the Nazgul) could empathize with him. Yes, they knew the task was impossible; they understand his final failure; they accept him nevertheless, and continue their commitment to help him.

In a sense, they are his kinsmen now.

[Imladris]

But Frodo is hardly allowed to make a free choice & is told by both Gandalf & Elrond that he is meant to have the Ring, & that the task is appointed for him & if he doesn't find a way, no-one will (shall we translate: 'if you don't succeed in detroying this Ring we'll all be killed or enslaved, & it will be all your fault'.?)

I wouldn't say that. What I think Galadriel is that the only person who had a chance of doing it was Frodo. Everybody else was either too foolish (eg, Merry and Pippin) or had too much power that could easily be enslaved to the ring (eg, Gandalf). I believe I read in another thread once was that they knew he would fail...how could he not? They knew he was "human" and had his faults. They knew there was not much hope. Why would they blame him for that?

Of course he suffered wrong. But this is an imperfect world. No one would have suffered at all if Melkor hadn't gotten on his high horse and corrupted Middle-earth. As hard as it is to accept, this is the way that Middle-earth and our world works. It's unfortunate, but it's the hard truth. There is suffering in this world, and none of it is fair. But what can be more beautiful than a few soldiers giving up their life, their happiness, for the good of the human race? It's called self-sacrifice. Would you rather have Middle-Earth suffer under Sauron because what would happen to Frodo would be wrong? Would you rather have Sauron king of Middle-earth because what would happen to Frodo would be unfair?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Except its not alright, really, is it? Not for him, & that's the point. What he suffers is wrong, when all's said & done. Its not really enough to say these big, cosmic battles have to be fought (which is true), because those who fight them (as with Tolkien's generation) suffer horribly so the rest of us can carry on.

It feels 'wrong', & I can't shake that feeling.

I, too, have this 'wrong' feeling at times, but there is also a warring feeling that I get that my view of this 'wrong' is a human conceit, a desire for things to be handed to me, for the truths and beauties of the vast universe to be handed to me on a platter. Thus, I cannot condemn inevitable suffering, nor place blame on a higher power. Ultimately, I am responsible for my own enlightenment, and to seek personal fulfillment to the exclusion of all other realities seems, to me, too egocentric a berth to proceed from. The closest label I can put on it is "spiritual envy," and that does not cover it completely, I am sure.

I cannot remember exactly when I came to the realization not only that life really wasn't fair, but that it was a dangerous conceit to wish it to be so. I found that, the more I railed against the injustices that could not be controlled, foreseen, nor avoided, the more depressed I became. I still become depressed, but I maintain these warring views and a firm conviction that, as Eru maintains in the Ainulindalë, there is no part of the Music, not even the discord of Melkor, that does not have its source in Him. The danger is to ascribe to Eru a willful malice, a desire to harm or toy with the creation. The danger is to believe that we know better than the Creator, but we would not be human if we did not question the creation, and, yes, rail against it as well. Of course there is the view of absence, that there IS no will controlling the progress of the universe, and, if I were to subscribe to this view, then I might as well stick my head in physics books and never emerge, because I'd STILL have to try to explain it somehow. I am only human after all, even if I am a hobbit!

Lyta, I can see what you're saying, & part of me agrees with it - except the idea that his wounds could be considered his own fault for 'slipping' at certain points - it seems a bit harsh, but maybe I'm taking a too negative view of your point.

I don't, in fact, blame Frodo for losing focus. Most who would try to carry such a burden would fall much more quickly and easily. It is inevitable that Frodo will have some failings, but my point was that his failings resulted in immediate and definite consequences, thus bringing home the narrowness of focus required to see this quest through. The wounds of Frodo Baggins are not his fault; they are the result of evil or chaotic forces acting upon him. The relationship with his loss of focus or will seems to me to point out the gravity of the quest and just how difficult it is to carry it through. I do not cast blame upon Frodo himself, for, under the circumstances, I think he did as well or better than any other being could have done.

Cheers!
Lyta