LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 02 - The Shadow of the Past

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

"The Shadow of the Past" is the first of two big expository chapters in the book. Now The Lord of the Rings has a lot of exposition to be dealt with, enough to give some authors nightmares no doubt. Before we can really get on with the story of the Ring we must first understand what the Ring is, the circumstances of its being made, how Sauron came to lose it, how it then came to Gollum, what Sauron means to do about it, how much he knows, etc., etc. In other words, we must learn much of the history of the Second Age and nearly all that of the Third.

Aiwendil, it reminds me of:

The arrival & reign of Scyld Scefing (Bilbo's backstory early in chapter one)

The generous ring-giving, partying, etc, and overlordship of Hrothgar in Heorot (Bilbo's party, generosity and gift-giving, down to a ring, even...)

and

The Grendel Backstory (Gandalf's narrative, ch2.)

Seems reasonable that Tolkien preferred Beowulf-form over more modern ideas.

[The Saucepan Man]

My real question is to what extent this 'dark' side we see is the action of the Ring on him, & how much is innate?

Sorry, davem, but I really don't see any 'dark' side to Frodo in this chapters. Of course, he is (like us) not without flaws, but his reactions here are no more than I would expect in light of what Gandalf is revealing to him. As Orofaniel says, he is scared, and quite justifiably so in my opinion. And, while his comments concerning his fellow inhabitants of the Shire do reflect a frustration with their narrow-mindedness (again, understandable given his broader outlook on life), I detect that he nevertheless has great affection for them. Certainly, to my mind, he is being far from literal when he talks of earthquakes and Dragons. As I see it, he is simply saying that they could do with a good shake-up on occasion. And, going by the attitude displayed by Ted Sandyman in The Green Dragon, and the parochial picture painted in the preceding chapter, I see no reason to disagree with him on this.

Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat.

But there must always remain the possibility that evil will win. Otherwise, why bother to struggle against it? Evil will not necessarily bring about its own defeat. This can only occur as a result of the choices made by those who seek to struggle against it.

It is essential, from the perspective of the reader too, that the possibility remains that evil will prevail. Otherwise, why bother reading the book? Of course, we hope that good will defeat evil, because we want a "happy ending", and so we trust that the characters will make the choices necessary to bring this about ("estel"?).

Davem, to go back to your question concerning the portrayal of Gollum in this chapter, there is, as you point out, a tension between Gandalf's comment that "he [Gollum] had no will left in the matter", and his assertion that there remains a (slight) chance of him "being cured before he dies". But I think that this tension can be resolved by taking the comments as referring to Gollum with the Ring and without it. Gollum with the Ring represents the triumph of evil (the Ring) over the will. He had a choice not to seize it, but he failed to make that choice (murdering his best friend into the bargain). He may even have had a shot at freeing himself of the Ring in the early days, although Frodo's failure to do precisely that in this chapter suggests that he was unlikely to have been able to do so. But, after so many years of possessing it, his will was utterly mastered. He did indeed have no will left in the matter while under its dominion. However, his will, while mastered, was not wholly destroyed, since Gandalf is suggesting that, once "free" of the Ring, he does have another shot at redemption. He may remain "bound by the desire of it", but there nevertheless is hope that he will overcome that desire. And, viewed in this way, this seems to me to be consistent with the approach that it is the characters' moral choices, rather than any external conflict between good and evil, that determine which will ultimately prevail. Gollum's ability to make a moral choice is suspended while he is in possession of the Ring and under its dominion, much as it would be if he were incarcerated by Sauron, but it surfaces again (as a possibility) once he is "set free".

Aiwendil

The conventional wisdom holds that exposition is a necessary evil, to be dealt with as briefly as possible and preferably not until the main action of the plot has gotten underway.

Conventional wisdom be confounded! Personally, I don't hold with the view that there is any "correct" way to structure a story. The trick is in the skill of the story-teller. To my mind, Tolkien is able to "pull off" this expositionary chapter so early in the novel by virtue of the quality of his writing (as reflected in the various points which you have listed). Of course, there are some who find that the early chapters of the book (and the Council of Elrond chapter too) drag, so it does not necessarily appeal to everyone. But I think that the majority of those to whom Tolkien's writing appeals are held enthralled by this chapter simply by virtue of his skill as a story-teller.

[HerenIstarion]

Selection of recent posts, as far as I can understand them, deals with perception of evil with Tolkien. Is it Manichaean, or Boethian, is the main question, it seems.

(as a side note - hope (in the sense of Estel - Faith) is clearly expression of Boethian view - the belief that whatever Creator does is for the good of his creatures, even when creatures themselves consider things done to them as undesirable(=evil))

First, it would be appropriate to consider the concept of 'shadow'. What is a shadow?

My Merriam-Webster has a load of things to say about it, but I wll draw on enries I find relevant:

1: partial darkness or obscurity within a part of space from which rays from a source of light are cut off by an interposed opaque body
2 : a reflected image
4 a : an imperfect and faint representation b : an imitation of something

All three definitions apply [to Sauron, and his Ring in particular) and both are expressions of Boethian view of Evil, which is absence of Good, and is flatly stated within Tolkien's works as unable to create, only to mock (that is, to reflect, or to imitate imperfectly)

but there is, as well, such an entry in the dictionary for the word 'shadow' as:

10 a : an inseparable companion or follower

Which moves us on to Manichaean view - as Good and Evil interbalanced forces, with equal opportunities.

And now I'm forced to review the poem Sam recites in chapter 11:

Gil-galad was an Elven-king.
Of him the harpers sadly sing:
the last whose realm was fair and free
between the Mountains and the Sea.

His sword was long, his lance was keen,
his shining helm afar was seen;
the countless stars of heaven's field
were mirrored in his silver shield.

But long ago he rode away,
and where he dwelleth none can say;
for into darkness fell his star
in Mordor where the shadows are.

So, shadows, be them absence or not, can be, that is, have an existence. They are in Mordor, at least.

Which, as far as I can see, is Tolkien's effort to combine, conciliate those both views. For, indeed, if LoTR were totally Boethian, than there would be no need for Frodo to go anywhere at all - there would be nothing to confront, as Evil would be nothing - mere absence and would eliminate itself

Now, the Ring is somehow an union of those two concepts of Evil. As indicated by Squatter above, it draws on bearer's inner weakness (Boethian), is a kind of booster for what lack of Goodness it finds inside. That is why it is often described as temptation - Frodo is tempted to put on the Ring, and has a fight with himself. But, it is mentioned several times, the Ring has the will of its own - that is, it is outside force as well (Manichaean). There are moments, contrary to mentioned when there is no temptation for Frodo (at the stairs to Cirith Ungol, per instance) - when there is no inner response, and his hand is moved to take the Ring by sheer outside force

So it seems, that one can not take one or other side and define it clearly as falling into one category. Or, rather, Tolkien is mainly Boethian, but with shadows (in a sense 11 : a small degree or portion : TRACE) of Manichaeanism to him.


PS
Probably it would be of interest to consider, perhaps, the followng thread dealing with the subject (but mainly around Sammath Naur, so maybe it is a bit before its time, but nevertheless):

Frodo or the Ring?


PPS
1. Yes, I do miss Mithadan posting in The Books
2. Views expressed by yours truly back there are somehow modified and changed by now.

[davem]

SpM

But there must always remain the possibility that evil will win. Otherwise, why bother to struggle against it? Evil will not necessarily bring about its own defeat. This can only occur as a result of the choices made by those who seek to struggle against it.

H-I

So it seems, that one can not take one or other side and define it clearly as falling into one category. Or, rather, Tolkien is mainly Boethian, but with shadows (in a sense 11 : a small degree or portion : TRACE) of Manichaeanism to him.

But Evil cannot 'win' in the sense of having an overall victory, because it has no objective or 'real' existence (according to Ainulindale) - it is an option - one can choose to behave in a particular way, which could be classed 'evil', but it has no existance in the sense that Illuvatar has, or even that the things created by Illuvatar have - evil does not possess the Secret Fire which alone guarantees true 'existence'. This is confirmed by its inability to create, only mar what has been created.

So, even if the forces which fight for good were defeated, evil's victory would not last, because, being unable to create, only mar, it would turn on itself & so bring about its own destruction. It has no original source from which to draw power, or even existance- even the things which serve evil owe their existence to Illuvatar. If He were to withdraw his will for their existance, they would cease to be.

H-I

Which, as far as I can see, is Tolkien's effort to combine, conciliate those both views. For, indeed, if LoTR were totally Boethian, than there would be no need for Frodo to go anywhere at all - there would be nothing to confront, as Evil would be nothing - mere absence and would eliminate itself.

Not so, because others have chosen to serve evil, so they constitute an external threat which must be confronted. Evil may have no true objective existance, but those who serve it do - if some group of terrorists, who believed that a giant pink elephant who lives on the dark side of the moon had ordered them to plant bombs in shopping malls, started killing people they would have to be stopped, because they would constitute a real threat, but their existence wouldn't prove the existence of the giant pink elephant.

Which moves us on to Manichaean view - as Good and Evil interbalanced forces, with equal opportunities.

I can't find any evidence for this in the 'theology' of Middle Earth. For me, Tolkien is saying the opposite all through the Legendarium. The theological stance is in no way dualistic - I can't see any evidence for dualism in Middle Earth - the only ones who propose the idea are Morgoth & Sauron.

SpM

He (Gollum) may even have had a shot at freeing himself of the Ring in the early days, although Frodo's failure to do precisely that in this chapter suggests that he was unlikely to have been able to do so. But, after so many years of possessing it, his will was utterly mastered. He did indeed have no will left in the matter while under its dominion.

Of course there comes a point where the individual has surrendered themselves to evil for so long that its almost impossible to break free, but its always a case of almost as far as I can see. If the Ring had completely mastered Gollum then when it left him there would have been nothing left of him to do anything. Smeagol still lurks there - in the early drafts of the chapter he even plans to give the Ring away, just to be free of it, & I think there are still echoes of this in the final version - Gandalf says he loves & hates it - as he loves & hates himself - if the Ring had completely mastered him, what would the source of that 'hate' of the ring be? Hatred is an act of will - if he can feel hatred for the Ring, his will has not been completely mastered by it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

After these recent post excursions into the depths of philosophical thought, I'd like to get back to Tolkien's practical philosophy as he expressed it in this chapter. Rereading it made me realize just how many of the book's famous quotes are placed here! We not only have exposition here (the background of the Ring, history of Middle-earth's past ages, etc.), we have wonderful wisdom passed on to us. I'd like to mention just a few of the most important, not quoting them completely, since we all know them well and can reread them ourselves.

His knowledge is deep, but his pride has grown with it.

'I wish it need not have happened in my time...'
...so do all... But that is not for them to decide. All that we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

It was Pity that stayed his hand.

Many that live deserve death...

'Why was I chosen?'
You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess...

These wisdoms have proverbial quality and an innate worth that makes them timeless and applicable to my life. Again, the genius of Tolkien puts them not into the narration, but into Gandalf's words, showing us his deep wisdom - and Tolkien's as well!

There are other practical insights, less lofty, that make me stop to think on them:

Frodo's age (parallel to Bilbo's) at the onset of the adventures, and his restlessness - "the old paths seemed too well-trodden." Mid-life crisis described at a time when no one had yet coined that term?

The observation that immortality can be a curse "until at last every minute is a weariness."

The description of the addictive influence of the Ring on Gollum, as Squatter already mentioned.

The significance of roots - "I shall know that somewhere there is a firm foothold, even if my feet cannot stand there again."

The importance of companions - "I don't think you need go alone."

These thoughts are what make LotR more than just another story for me!

[mark12_30]

Thanks, Esty. I like the practical philosophy quite a bit. I think that's one reason (among many) that I'm so fond of the four war-hobbits; they have lots of gut-level relationship-oriented reactions. Frodo especially manages to express them eloquently; Sam in his simplicity attains an elegance all his own ("...and that's why I choked...")

[Maédhros]

The thing that to me amazes me most about this chapter is the Ring of course and the thinking of both Gandalf and Frodo.
As Gandalf and Frodo now know, the ring must be destroy, yet is seems to me that neither of them can do it.
As it has been quoted previously, Gandalf cannot be the guardian of the Ring, so therefore the keeper of the Ring must be Frodo, for the time being at least.

‘But why not destroy it, as you say should have been done long ago?’ cried Frodo again. If you had warned me, or even sent me a message, I would have done away with it.’
‘Would you? How would you do that? Have you ever tried?’
‘No. But I suppose one could hammer it or melt it.’
‘Try!’ said Gandalf. Try now!’
Frodo drew the Ring out of his pocket again and looked at it. It now appeared plain and smooth, without mark or device that he could see. The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its colour, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious. When he took it out he had intended to fling it from him into the very hottest part of the fire. But he found now that he could not do so, not without a great struggle. He weighed the Ring in his hand, hesitating, and forcing himself to remember all that Gandalf had told him; and then with an effort of will he made a movement, as if to cast it away - but he found that he had put it back in his pocket.

Does Frodo has the will to destroy the Ring? This begins a whole series of actions that will put the quest of the destruction of the ring with Frodo but to me he was doomed to failed from the start, for how could he destroy the Ring, if he couldn't even throw it in his own fire in Bag End?

Concerning Gandalf and the Ring
The following quotation has always interested me:
From the Letters of JRRT: 246

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']

How do one makes good seem evil?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat.

I have to disagree. In the Athrabeth "estel" seems to be hope without assurance, as opposed to "amdir", optimism based on rational evaluation of evidence. What you say suggests that estel is, rather, hope based on ultimate, complete assurance of final victory, which would seem to be rather the opposite.

Mark12_30 wrote:

Seems reasonable that Tolkien preferred Beowulf-form over more modern ideas.

Very true! Thanks for those parallels; I'd never noticed them before.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Sorry, davem, but I really don't see any 'dark' side to Frodo in this chapters. Of course, he is (like us) not without flaws, but his reactions here are no more than I would expect in light of what Gandalf is revealing to him. As Orofaniel says, he is scared, and quite justifiably so in my opinion. And, while his comments concerning his fellow inhabitants of the Shire do reflect a frustration with their narrow-mindedness (again, understandable given his broader outlook on life), I detect that he nevertheless has great affection for them. Certainly, to my mind, he is being far from literal when he talks of earthquakes and Dragons. As I see it, he is simply saying that they could do with a good shake-up on occasion. And, going by the attitude displayed by Ted Sandyman in The Green Dragon, and the parochial picture painted in the preceding chapter, I see no reason to disagree with him on this.

I have to say that I agree. Frodo is certainly no epic hero in the early chapters, but I don't see any darkness - if by darkness we mean some minor form of evil. The only possible point at which I can see any such evil inclination at all is when he wishes that Bilbo had killed Gollum. But this wish is certainly very natural, and it seems to me that Frodo is saying it primarily in response to Gandalf's news of the mischief Gollum has done recently - revealing the names "Shire" and "Baggins" to Sauron. I don't think that the Ring has anything to do with it at all - particularly because much later on, when the Ring has far more control over Frodo, he changes his mind on this point and pities Gollum, and does not slay him.

Conventional wisdom be confounded! Personally, I don't hold with the view that there is any "correct" way to structure a story. The trick is in the skill of the story-teller.

Well, I agree and disagree. There certainly are poor ways of telling a story, for there are poor novels. There is a real danger in starting with too much exposition. But I think that often the conventional wisdom is short sighted or incomplete. That's why I find it so interesting to take cases like LotR, where the conventional wisdom is violated with good results, and to try to determine what causes their success.

HerenIstarion wrote:

Now, the Ring is somehow an union of those two concepts of Evil.

This is certainly my view. It is also the one that Tom Shippey argues for in Author of the Century.

I think, incidentally, that "Manichean" is not the best name for the one sort of evil, for "Manichean" suggests not only the external existence of that evil but also a kind of dualism, in which good and evil are cosmologically equal.

There is no question that, in Tolkien's universe, good is cosmologically dominant over evil. I think the more relevant question with regard to the Ring is simply whether the evil of the Ring is external - in the Ring itself - or internal - in the owner or desirer of the Ring. And I think that there is sufficient evidence in favor or each of these apparently contradictory claims that we must conclude that somehow both are simultaneously true.

I don't think that broad cosmological/theological arguments have all that much point with regard to this ambiguity, either. For regardless of the ultimate nature of evil, it cannot be denied that Sauron is an external power. And there is no theological reason that he cannot have placed a part of that power in the Ring (as is indeed said), so that there is in fact an external evil will within the Ring.

To try to simplify the picture and force all the evidence to fit either a Boethian or a Manichean view, or to force the smaller scale situation to match exactly with the cosmological, is to miss much of the subtlety of Tolkien's world.

[davem]

Aiwendil

Davem wrote:Quote:
Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat.

I have to disagree. In the Athrabeth "estel" seems to be hope without assurance, as opposed to "amdir", optimism based on rational evaluation of evidence. What you say suggests that estel is, rather, hope based on ultimate, complete assurance of final victory, which would seem to be rather the opposite.

You're right to pick me up - I was oversimplifying the two terms. I would say, however, that I understand estel to be more along the lines of 'hope without evidence', as opposed to 'hope without assurance' - ie Tolkien is comparing it to religious faith. But I accept I could have explained the terms better.

Now, I know I'm risking Esty's wrath, As I've been asked to avoid 'falling into deep waters', but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your points, so, a short response only:

I think the more relevant question with regard to the Ring is simply whether the evil of the Ring is external - in the Ring itself - or internal - in the owner or desirer of the Ring.

Obviously, for the Ring to have any influence/effect on its bearer it must strike a chord - it 'cannot burn snow' - but it cannot overwhelm the bearer's will unless they agree to that. If the manichaean position was correct, it could - but it never does - not once- in fact there's no example I can think of where any of the Rings - or any of the magical objects - Palantiri, swords, Silmarils, anything, corrupt a good person against their will.

And now, having stated my position on that subject I'll not stray there again (at least as regards this chapter!).

[Bêthberry]

Obviously, for the Ring to have any influence/effect on its bearer it must strike a chord - it 'cannot burn snow' - but it cannot overwhelm the bearer's will unless they agree to that. If the manichaean position was correct, it could - but it never does - not once- in fact there's no example I can think of where any of the Rings - or any of the magical objects - Palantiri, swords, Silmarils, anything, corrupt a good person against their will.

davem, and Aiwendil too,

Perhaps the point lies in your statement about striking a chord? Think of Gandalf's comment about how Gollum was drawn in:

The ring had given him power according to his stature.

Rather than overwhelming a person's will, the ring in fact works through a person's temperament. The ring reaches Bilbo through his delight in pranksmanship and so Bilbo is less prone to cruelty, whereas the Ring gains power over Smeagol through inciting his avarice and tendency to violence. Gandalf would in fact be made to use his pity and mercy to dominate others. Perhaps a better way to think of the Ring's influence is not that it dominates the wearer's will but that it perverts the will to achieve Sauron's intent?

[Bêthberry]

Fascinating points and insights discussed here, and hard to find a way to introduce my thoughts into the discussion! I particularly liked Guinevere and Orofaniel's observations about the importance of younger friends to Bilbo and Frodo, and the suggestion (Fordim's or SpM's?) that the Ring is given characteristics of a character, acting as it does to influence events. I think davem's perception of certain negative qualities in Frodo touches a nerve with many because Tolkien's characterisation is so sharp: he does not idealise his hero or glorify the terrible task Frodo faces.

Yet it is Estelyn's post which I think allows us to understand another reason why this chapter resonates so much with many readers. It is not simply Tolkien's control over exposition, his sure judgement as a story-teller, but the style Tolkien chooses to express Gandalf's perspective. Gandalf speaks in the short, almost pithy form of ancient wisdom literature which uses proverbs exclusively. The structure of proverbs gives Gandalf's lines power.

I can attest to Estelyn's idea about the force of the practical philosophy in these proverbial lines:

Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Once several years ago I saw these lines generate a very long and heated debate about capital punishment. Talk about applicability!

It is Gandalf's telling of Gollum's story that I think is so suggestive, for we 'see' Gandalf applying his own value of pity towards the most wretched creature; we understand how he applies what he has learnt. And it is this initial perspective of sympathy which I think makes Gollum's "almost conversion" so much more heart-breaking and poignant later, when Sam's good intentions in fact thwart Gollum. For me, the heart of LotR lies in Gandalf's point of view here.

That said, I am intrigued by a couple of perhaps lesser points in this chapter. One is the offhand way that Tolkien incorporates vampires, creatures of dark mythology, into the story, with this brief comment:

The Woodmen said that there was some new terror abroad, a ghost that drank blood.

One other is the depiction of Gollum's home community as a matriarchy.

There was among them a family of high repute, for it was large and wealthier than most, and it was ruled by a grandmother of the folk, stern and wise in old lore, such as they had. ... It is not to be wondered at that he [Gollum] became very unpopular and was shunned (when visible) by all his relations. They kicked him, and he bit their feet. He took to thieving, and going about muttering to himself, and gurgling in his throat. So they called him Gollum, and cursed him, and told him to go far away, and his grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole.

Here is the 'downside' of the Hobbits' lack of vision and sympathy, perhaps, but what I wonder about is why Tolkien decided to devote this context to what is essentially a matriarchal form of society. We have here the cruelty of a society which practices 'shunning' (as many very insecure, strongly ideological cultures do) but why does it have to be a grandmother in charge? Is this Tolkien thinking of ancient records of pre-patriarchal cultures here, to depict a society that lacks any form of ruth (using the old, now disputed meaning of that word)? Certainly this is one of the saddest parts of Gollum's story, that he then wanders in extreme loneliness, so much so that he comes to flee from the light, the sun in this context being female.

The last point I wonder about is Gandalf's comment to Frodo concerning how he wrung "the true story out of" Gollum.

in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him...

Is this a foreshadowing of Gandalf the White, he who no longer is under any requirement to limit his power? Or is this simply the story-teller being ironic about the fate of Gollum, even before readers know it? Or is this one of those oblique "consciously so" references to hellfire and damnation?


Edit: cross posting with everyone after Esty's post!

[Orofaniel]

Aiwendil wrote:

I have to say that I agree. Frodo is certainly no epic hero in the early chapters, but I don't see any darkness - if by darkness we mean some minor form of evil. The only possible point at which I can see any such evil inclination at all is when he wishes that Bilbo had killed Gollum. But this wish is certainly very natural, and it seems to me that Frodo is saying it primarily in response to Gandalf's news of the mischief Gollum has done recently - revealing the names "Shire" and "Baggins" to Sauron.

About Frodo's wish (Bilbo should have killed him):

Don't you guys think this was a rush reaction to what Gandalf had told him? I doubt that if Frodo had thought it "though", as gotten more time, he wouldn’t have said the same thing. Later in the book, we must remember that it was actually Frodo who prevented Sam from killing Gollum. Yet, I'm not sure that Sam really would have killed him, but that is another discussion. I may add, when I'm at it; that I do believe saying something or thinking something as "major" as this is very different from actually "doing it". When I read this chapter, hearing Frodo's frustration (yes, because I would call it that), I can understand it. After my opinion he hadn't gotten enough time to think everything through and digest the horrible tale that Gandalf brought with him.

And about the "epic hero"; I would say that in a certain way he is. I don't know however what Tolkien's intension was. I would say that Frodo is indeed a small hero when he takes Ring. No one would have expected it; because he's only a small Hobbit who doesn't care for the outside world- (Like many if not all, Hobbits). Heroism can be a simple thing after my opinion - although the result of it may not be as comprehensive all the time.

People can of course, interpret this exact quote in different ways, and therefore many conclusions and opinions regarding Frodo will occur.

Cheers,
Orofaniel