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

[Mirkgirl]

That's why I said "most (not all!)"... I know there are some good ones
Well what's left for me after this shameless plug *goes to read*

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Goodness – I get distracted for a few days by an RPG and look what happens in this thread! So much to catch up on *goes back to read and read and read; returns exhausted *

Whew! OK, a lot of work but well worth it. I have my own tuppence worth on a couple point points:

Desire vs pity – Durelin, you were the first to, quite wisely I think, introduce the idea that the more effective way to talk about this chapter (and the Ring?) is in terms of desire versus pity rather than good versus evil. I think that much of what this chapter turns on is the sense that Frodo and Gandalf do not know fully what is going on, what the Ring is about, and what is going to happen (“even the very wise cannot see all ends”). To that end, the chapter (and I think the book) quite carefully steers clear of the thorny and impossible issue of good and evil, choosing instead to tackle the more manageable (mortal? practical?) issues of lived experience/existence (thank you Esty for pointing out the proverbial almost folkloric wisdom of this chapter!).

I think that the conversation between Frodo and Gandalf takes place against the rather certain backdrop that good and evil exist, that they are different things, but that their true nature cannot be grasped or understood by limited beings such as themselves. Gandalf has a better understanding of good and evil, but not an absolute understanding. (Whenever I hear someone claim that they know for a certainty what good is, I shiver and head the other way; ditto for someone who claims to know with absolute certainty the nature of evil.) The Ring is evil, but what that means is entirely secondary to the question of what are they to do with it (the former being unknowable, the latter being a lived-question that needs to be addressed by mortal/human action) – that is, they do not sit around debating what is Right, but attempt to arrive at an idea of what is the right thing to do.

One thing they do decide is that contrary to the desires that the Ring both prompts and responds to is pity, the OED definition of which I provide here to make a point:

A feeling or emotion of tenderness aroused by the suffering, distress, or misfortune of another, and prompting a desire for its relief; compassion, sympathy.

The key thing about pity is that it is a feeling that is prompted by or in response to another person (not the self) that engenders the “desire” to aid the other. The Ring is all about fulfilling self-ish desire; pity is all about directing desire outward from the self and to the other. It’s a lovely idea that once more shows the symmetry of Tolkien’s views.

To go a bit further – if we ‘recover’ the sense of pity (as Professor Tolkien always liked to do) the root of pity is the Latin pietas, from which we now have “piety” and whichmeant, in part, “dutifulness; affectionate loyalty and respect.” In other words, the recovered meaning of pity stressed the obligations of the self to the other, which again is the exact opposite of what is entailed by the Ring (thinking of oneself above all others).

Sam – Mark 12_30, I too have always fallen in love with Sam every time he shouts “Hooray” and then bursts into tears; but your bringing it out here has cast a fuller light on that moment, for something very much like it occurs at least twice more: first, when the bard of Gondor steps forth at the end and sings the Lay of Frodo of the Nine Fingers (Sam cries aloud with joy and then bursts into tears – that moment always gets me misty, and is doing so now); and second in the very last line of the book, when Sam provides the moment in which we as readers both smile and weep (at least I do, “Well, I’m back” – misty again).

We’ve already noted the foreshadowing in the first couple of chapters in relation to Gandalf and Frodo, and the foreshadowing is almost uniformly of bad things (the pain of the journey, the price that Frodo will have to pay for his quest). But with this moment, Sam is foreshadowing the joy that will come with the fall of Sauron – he is expressing for us that joy that cuts so deep that it moves us to tears (dare I say “eucatastrophe”?) This is only fitting and right, as that joy will be most fully felt by Sam and – on his behalf – by the reader, and not Frodo or Gandalf (who will be happy, but who will leave Middle-Earth to the care and love of Sam).

“The Shadow of the Past” – Last point! H-I, way back in post #25 had some wonderful thoughts on the nature of shadows, to which I would like to add just a couple more ideas. The title of this chapter is full of a rich ambiguity. Does it mean the shadow cast by the past on the present (shadow-as-absence)? Or does it mean the return of the Shadow that is from the past (shadow-as-presence)? Or does it, and I prefer this option, mean both at the same time?

[Lhunardawen]

*catches breath* Here I am, late again.

As usual, I haven't the time to read everyone's posts, as much as I desire. But I was able to pick up a little in the discussion.

For some reason I have always loathed Gollum. Maybe it is basically because of how he looks, the way he speaks, to something deeper like his treachery. But reading the chapter again, I have finally felt the pity that Bilbo felt for him, the reason why he stayed his hand and did not kill him.

He could be hated for killing Deagol, but the Ring is the only thing to blame, for its beauty has blinded him to murder. The following line, especially, almost brought me to tears in pity for Gollum:

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.
He wandered in loneliness, weeping a little for the hardness of the world,...

Doubtless he would have done something to prevent this disowning, if only the power of the Ring had not subdued him.

I was also amazed by Frodo's intense love for the Shire and its inhabitants, allowing himself to be exiled to save it.

Finally, mark12_30, I feel the same way as you do about Sam's devotion for Frodo. Although, frankly, at first I laughed out loud, thinking that Sam's initial reason for coming with Frodo is to see the Elves. But even if that is true, it wouldn't hurt, because eventually he has shown what he can do in his loyalty to Frodo.

[HerenIstarion]

Mark, I would be glad to be of service

Here is the quote:

Letter #192 to Amy Ronald, 27 July 1956

Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'

cheers

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

For some reason I have always loathed Gollum. Maybe it is basically because of how he looks, the way he speaks, to something deeper like his treachery. But reading the chapter again, I have finally felt the pity that Bilbo felt for him, the reason why he stayed his hand and did not kill him.

He could be hated for killing Deagol, but the Ring is the only thing to blame, for its beauty has blinded him to murder. The following line, especially, almost brought me to tears in pity for Gollum

I think the strangest change Tolkien makes in the drafts of this chapter is how he makes Gollum more & more of a monster. In the first drafts he's not a murderer- there's only Digol, who finds the Ring, makes a nuisance of himself, & gets exiled for it. By the end he's the murderer of his best friend & a canibal (eating babies! ).

Is it a case of as Frodo becomes more 'saintly' his 'shadow', Gollum, must become darker - another 'shadow' there. Or perhaps Tolkien felt that Gollum must be made as monstrous as possible in order to emphasise the necessity for, & value of, pity, by requiring us to pity a true 'monster'. We are presented with someone for whom there is absolutely no reason to feel pity. But Tolkien seems to be saying that we should feel pity. So, it doesn't matter what an individual does, its somehow 'obligatory', according to the 'Wise' to feel pity for them, & to show mercy. Why? Simply because that is the opposite of what the Enemy would do? We establish our allegiance to the 'Good' by such things - not by fighting the 'bad' guys, using force of arms to defeat them - but by our moral choices - pity, compassion, mercy, forgiveness - even if those things are not deserved?

(Oh, finally, as no-one's mentioned him :'Mad Baggins' -

The second disappearance of Mr. Bilbo Baggins was discussed in Hobbiton, and indeed all over the Shire, for a year and a day, and was remembered much longer than that. It became a fireside-story for young hobbits; and eventually Mad Baggins, who used to vanish with a bang and a flash and reappear with bags of jewels and gold, became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after the true events were forgotten.

I just find it fascinating how Tolkien is depicting the way folklore is created. And its totally believable. It also makes you wonder how other 'legends' arose, & how much basis they have in fact. I'm also struck by the statement that Mad Baggins 'became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after the true events were forgotten'. Strange to think that for ordinary Hobbits their only memory of the events of the end of the Third Age was this strange character & his adventures. As a side issue, I also find myself wondering about the characters in poems like the Stone Troll, & the others in the Red Book (well, the ones in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil ). Is it possible that some of these characters & events have a similar origin to the character of 'Mad Baggins'?

[Fingolfin II]

Davem wrote-

Or perhaps Tolkien felt that Gollum must be made as monstrous as possible in order to emphasise the necessity for, & value of, pity, by requiring us to pity a true 'monster'. We are presented with someone for whom there is absolutely no reason to feel pity. But Tolkien seems to be saying that we should feel pity. So, it doesn't matter what an individual does, its somehow 'obligatory', according to the 'Wise' to feel pity for them, & to show mercy.

I don't feel 'obliged' to feel pity for Gollum- I just do. This is because Gandalf shows us that there is a chance for redemption, and more than anything, that Gollum's 'darker side' (i.e. murdering his friend, eating babies, etc.) is because of the Ring's effect on him and in doing this Tolkien wants to highlight the marked impact the Ring has on it's bearers.

'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.'

Gandalf says this to Frodo to show him that he should feel some empathy for Gollum, who is- to my mind- a tragic villain. I think that it is also foreshadowing of what Frodo himself is to become under the influence of the Ring, as no one in Middl-Earth can overcome it's temptation (apart from Sauron and Tom Bombadil). Gandalf says that even though Gollum is someone to be despised for his heinous crimes, he is also someone to be pitied for what has driven him to commit these crimes and his distressed mental state.

On a side track, I think that HerenIstarion's note on the chapter structure and content of the first three chapters of Books I and II (Post #2) is very astute and no doubt intentional, in order to create a consistency and common structure if you like, for the reader to follow-

Not only names are somehow interrelated, but the context is neatly up to match what happens in each book. So to say, in the first chapter of each book all is relatively peacefull, but inner tension builds up, in relative second chapters nothing much happens (not a feat often seen in modern writing!), just people talk(in retrospective), the third relative chapters deal with conclusions following retrospective conversation in second chapters and the rest of each book is the quest itself.

Davem, your comments about 'Mad Baggins' are very true and I think that you are right when you say-

I just find it fascinating how Tolkien is depicting the way folklore is created. And its totally believable.

Tolkien has a way of bringing characters to life and making them seem so much like people we know that it is quite amazing. I never thought I would identify so well with a character called 'Bilbo' or 'Frodo' for that matter!

[Guinevere]

Very good point about the importance of pity, Fordim !

'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.'

"No message" in LotR , huh ? Well, for me this is certainly a message!


I also agree very muchwith Davem's remarks about "Mad Baggins"!

There seems nothing left for me to say, except that I'm a bit puzzled by a small detail at the end of the chapter:
Sam says "Lor bless you, Mr Gandalf, sir!" and "Lor bless me, sir" . How does that expression fit into Middle-earth ? Just another anachronism like clocks, postoffices etc.? Otherwise Hobbits don't seem to have any religion at all!

[Evisse the Blue]

Sam says "Lor bless you, Mr Gandalf, sir!" and "Lor bless me, sir" . How does that expression fit into Middle-earth ?

Aha! Yes, I wondered about that too. I came to the conclusion that it's either a slip of Tolkien's, or a 'translation' of a particular hobbit interjection. In the same way that the hobbit names were 'translated' in English, to make them more familiar, a specific hobbit interjection (which may or may not have included a mention of divinity) was rendered as that.

The discussion on pity brought to mind an older thread I started where I was trying to argue that feeling pity for the villains made one more vulnerable to their vile deeds. I still believe that, to an extent, but I agree that in Tolkien's world it all turns out for the common good and pity is redeeming.