The Road and The Ring

[Firefoot]

Boromir, I do not think Frodo lost his love for the Shire. Rather, I think he 'grew out of it'. He grew too much from his journey to still be able to enjoy the Shire, but enjoying and loving are two different things. That is part of the reason that he went on the Quest in the first place: his love for the Shire and his desire to save it.

Now back to what all this has to do with 'the Road and the Ring." Both parts are essential to understanding the characters, especially Frodo. Frodo's road was long and hard, made all the more difficult by having to bear the Ring. Both changed him; the Ring in obvious ways - it was an awful burden, pure evil - but also the Road. How would Frodo's Road have been different if it had been shorter? Longer? If it had been longer perhaps he would not have lasted. So is the Road good or evil? Certainly many of the things that happened to him were evil (carrying the Ring, being stabbed by the Morgul blade, Shelob) and the Road itself is Ring-shaped. Does this make the Road evil? However, Frodo was also changed, and grew into something better, so does that mean the Road was good for him? If the Road is evil, it is mostly because of the Ring. If it had not been for the Ring, the Road would not have been necessary, and Frodo would not have taken it, thus avoiding himself much suffering. If it hadn't been for the Road, the Ring would not have been destroyed. This puts the Road in a different light. The Road becomes a means to the destruction of the Ring, however in being that it also becomes the means to Frodo's brokenness. It gave him the need to go to the Undying Lands. The necessity of going was evil, but the Road to Valinor (and the healing I believe he received there) was good. So in Frodo's case I will say that the circle part of his Road was evil, but the straight part (to Valinor) was good (And so you come back to the lasso). The point I mean to make with this is that understanding the nature of the Ring and the Road is essential to understanding Frodo's character.

But what about a character like Aragorn? Certainly his Road was good. He went from being a Ranger to the King of all Gondor and Arnor. His road was not circular in that it did not begin and end at the same location. It was more linear in this sense, unlike Frodo's road. How does the Road and the Ring then help us to understand Aragorn's character? His continued resistence to the Ring shows us his nobility and strength of character (though I have heard others say it makes him too perfect). Much of the same is shown in his Road (for example at The Paths of the Dead and his choice to look into the Palantir). We see his kingliness and such as shown by the roads he takes and his choices.

One final and third character: Boromir. His Road comes almost full circle, and with the exception of the beginning and end, I would say that much of his Road was evil: his desire for the Ring and ultimately his attempt to take it. The Ring brings out some qualities in Boromir: his want for the Ring shows his pride for Gondor and Minas Tirith in that he wants it as weapon to save it. His death speech to Aragorn shows his strength of character and honor, and again his pride for Gondor. Interesting how his journey (the part we see) is all but a circle where he is greatly desiring the Ring but when he repents and saves Merry and Pippin and he drifts down Anduin on a Road that is straight. Maybe there is something in "circular journeys=bad, straight journeys=good (obviously some exceptions - the other hobbits did not go on "evil" journeys). Understanding the nature of the Ring and his relationship with it is essential to understanding Boromir's character.

Edit: Cross-posting with Lhundulinwen. I didn't take your comments into account when I wrote this.

[Lush]

Fordim,

This thread reminds me of the old difference between the epic and the novel, the epic traditionally representing a cycle, whilst the novel, in its conception, is a straight line of progress (at least it was around the time of Goethe, I believe).

Though the evolution of literature since then might have led, in some cases, to a certain congruence of these two elements, no?

Something to think about, perhaps?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Greetings Lush – seen your posts all over this place, but our paths have never really crossed until now.

You raise a really good point, and one that I think I agree with. I think, though, that I would tweak what you’re suggesting just a bit. Rather than a model of narrative like epic=circular/Ring, and novel=linear/road (and I know that you are not really being this simplistic) I think that what’s at work is two different narrative forms that have developed in response to different kinds of hero.

The epic hero (Aragorn, Achilles, James Bond) moves very much in a straight line as he fulfills or brings about his identity. He is who he is at the beginning of the narrative, and the purpose of the story is to see that he brings recognition of that identity to others (Aragorn is Aragorn all along, it’s just that other people recognise him as Aragorn/Elessar/King/hero). The circularity of this narrative is a rather closed one, I think, insofar as we end where we begin (with Aragon as Aragorn). The fairy-tale hero (Frodo, Odysseus, Luke Skywalker) moves in a circle as he goes out of his safe place, changes/learns/grows and then returns to his safe place in order to transform it/change it/save in turn. In the modern world we don’t have much use for fairy-tale heroes so our modern narratives tend to celebrate the epic hero and the Road that he must take; but Tolkien presents us with both kinds of heroes and does so in a manner that shows us how they are completely interdependent: Aragorn’s Road to Minas Tirith cannot be successfully traversed without the commensurate success of Frodo’s circular journey to and from Mount Doom to destroy the Ring. Minas Tirith is saved by Aragorn’s epic journey to it; the Shire is saved by Frodo’s fairy-tale return to it.

[Lush]

I think that what’s at work is two different narrative forms that have developed in response to different kinds of hero.

Hi there, fellow Barrowdowner and resident of beyond cloud nine.

How do you fit The Lord of the Rings into the above idea?

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts before I post mine.

Also, the epic did precede the novel, and the novel's conception was due partly to the fact that society was beginning to evolve in a different direction. Um, in case you didn't realize that...Who am I kidding? Of course you do. But perhaps the history of both should be taken into account when addressing the LotR?

Also, is a novel necessarily a fairy-tale and a fairy-tale necessarily a novel? And are you sure about the fact that in our modern world we tend to celebrate the epic hero more? I would agree with that if we were talking about the realm of cinema, but literature? I am not entirely sure.

Also, are you positive that Odysseus is a fairy-tale hero?

Per your suggestion that Tolkien's work has different types of heroes living under one roof, I agree wholeheartedly. Hence my original post.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

How do you fit The Lord of the Rings into the above idea?

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts before I post mine.

Also, the epic did precede the novel, and the novel's conception was due partly to the fact that society was beginning to evolve in a different direction. Um, in case you didn't realize that...Who am I kidding? Of course you do. But perhaps the history of both should be taken into account when addressing the LotR?

Also, is a novel necessarily a fairy-tale and a fairy-tale necessarily a novel? And are you sure about the fact that in our modern world we tend to celebrate the epic hero more? I would agree with that if we were talking about the realm of cinema, but literature? I am not entirely sure.

Also, are you positive that Odysseus is a fairy-tale hero?

Gracious! That’s a lot of questions – and all of them really really good questions too…hmm – I shall attempt inasmuch as possible to give them the attention they deserve!

I fit LotR into the idea of different heroes/different narratives in the sense that there are, very broadly speaking, two stories going on at once in the book, and that each is centered on a different hero: there’s the circular story of Frodo going about his fairy-tale transformation from Nobody to Somebody (Bag Eng – Mordor – Bag Eng); and the linear story of Aragorn coming into his own by becoming the Somebody he was always meant to be (Bree – Minas Tirith). To this extent, it makes perfect sense that the Fellowship is broken at the end of Book Two: for a time, the paths of the fairy-tale Frodo and the epic Aragorn lay parallel, but only for a time. The remarkable thing about the book, though, is the fact that the fairy-tale hero is given precedence in a very real way over the epic hero. This does not happen often. This is why I would agree that the history of the epic, the fairy-tale and the novel should all be very much part of our approach to LotR.

Next, I don’t think that the fairy-tale narrative is synonymous with the novel, but I would argue that there is congruence between the two, inasmuch as contemporary novels are almost uniformly concerned with the “growth” or “development” or “triumph” or whatever of the “ordinary person” (generalizations, generalizations, generalizations! Bear with me). I think that the split you point to between ‘good novels’ and ‘popular culture’ is also relevant – in movies and pulp fiction the relatively flat epic hero is always more celebrated than the limited fairy-tale hero. Unfortunately, the moral fiber of the epic hero, the sense of moral (divine) purpose is all too often left out and all we have left is the militaristic shell of violence and physical ability.

And finally (whew) I take it back about Odysseus as a fairy-tale hero. He’s very much a reluctant hero (like Sam), though, bringing the heroic types to three. Actually, I would peg the heroic types of the book at four with Gollum coming in as the Modern hero (or the anti-hero). Interestingly, for each type of hero I’ve identified there is a different narrative pattern isn’t there… Frodo and Sam on a circular journey (Ring) with Frodo arriving back changed and Sam not; Aragorn and Gollum on a linear journey (Road) with Aragorn finding success and fulfillment…I was going to say that Gollum does not, but he does succeed and have a ‘happy’ ending doesn’t he! Just as Aragorn gets his precious Arwen, so too does Gollum get his Precious and die happily – not just happily for him, but for the whole of Middle-Earth.

Hmm…I sense a whole new thread topic coming on…

[Lush]

Hmm…I sense a whole new thread topic coming on…

Indeed.

Though perhaps we let this one go, I have always felt that Frodo's quest is more epic, perhaps, than meets the eye. Maybe this more has to do with Tolkien's style than what actually happens to Frodo in the book, particularly the way in which his interactions with Sam are described.

Anyway, I have got a migraine, and should be able to post more decisively after my brain has stopped feeling as if someone super-glued it to the inside of my skull and is now tearing it off slowly.