Forever?

[Lalwendë]

If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly

I've yet to see a film based on a work of literature which was done perfectly. I think this has something to do with the conflicting natures of literature and film; alas I was not listening in my critical theory lectures so I don't have the necessary theorems to explain this in that way, but I suspect it could have something to do with intertextuality.

Atempting to explain by way of example, consider that this was only the second attempt to film LoTR. There have been many film versions of other works - e.g. Dracula, Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights - none of which, in my opinion have been perfect. This has not always diminished my enjoyment of those films, though it quickly made me realise that to ever see a perfect version of my favourite book was very likely an impossibility; therefore seeing the films as they were made, I was pleasantly surprised, even if I still can't accept the portrayal of Aragorn.

Hollywood is also quite a lazy beast and there is a tendency to adapt pre-existing works rather than make a 'pure film'; when a film is based on an 'original' concept then it is a very different product. You only have to look at the fan worship surrounding such 'pure films' as Star Wars, Donnie Darko and The Matrix. When Hollywood adapts pre-exisitng works it so often gets it very wrong. A good example of this is comic book adaptations. I am told that many are so completely wrong that it is not worth seeing them - not that I have much knowledge of comic books beyond Beano.

Earlier I mentioned fantasy works which do reflect the disturbing nature of the 'real' world. In between many rounds of stress this afternoon I managed to give this some thought. I mentioned Gormenghast - which is a critique of red tape, hierarchical structures, and the class system. When I was younger I read this as a simple if gothic fantasy - now I am in civil servitude I understand it on a deeply satirical level (especially today... ). Many 'Downers do not seem to like His Dark materials very much, but it provides grown-up comment on the nature of religion and of democracy; and this is one book I shudder to think of being made into a film, as I am convinced it will be wrong.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

the line "I am almost in its power". To me this is not a statement of Will. This is a statement of the ring's CONTROL over him as he neared the Crack of Doom. He did not will evil onto him. The Ring controls people into desiring it.

the problem I have with this is that it implies that evil is powerful enough to overwhelm the individual, so that at some point the individual lolses control & has no will. for me this is contradicted by Frodo's realisation on Amon Hen that he is 'neither the Voice nor the Eye'. He exists at some point between them, able to make a moral choice. To state as (?) did on another thread that if Gandalf had taken the Ring he would have become simply more good than he is & would have imposed that 'goodness' on others is to miss the point. It is saying that 'Evil' is simply misapplied Good - ie, that there is no moral difference between the two & that Good & Evil are simply subjective value judgements based on effects.

For Tolkien (as I read him) the two are mutually exclusive things, between which the individual makes a choice. I think Jackson's position is not quite either of those - simply some people are evil by nature & others are good by nature, but may make mistakes & do evil things in a wrong attempt to do good - hence Boromir & Faramir (till he changes his mind).

Tolkien clearly believes that evil is a(n im)'moral' choice but an choice made by a free being. If Frodo is overwhelmed by a more powerful external force then Tolkien is saying nothing that a thousand other writers haven't also said. But i don't think he is . I think he's saying that the battle is more an internal one than an external one. Frodo consents to what he knows is evil - the Ring & everything it symbolises - & that is his 'failure' - & the fact that we also, in his position, would surrender does not make what he does acceptable. Frodo knows this. And, as I understand it, this is the Christian position, in that Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts. If evil is simply an external force then theoretically we could save ourselves by becoming 'stronger'. On the other hand, if evil is an innate aspect of our essence then our salvation must be out of our hands, & we are dependent on an external source of salvation.

Originally Posted by SpM

If it was an external force, then he could still feel guilty over nor having the strength of will to resist it.

He could - but his his feelings of guilt would not be valid. They would be false, & so invalidate his need to go into exile. He would be going simply to 'get better' - which is the sense I get from the movie. This is why the movie doesn't move me in the way the book does. Frodo's guilt is real, true guilt, because he did surrender to what he knew was Evil. Otherwise he mightas well have been a machine - & the point of the story is that he is not a machine.

[Essex]

Davem,

And, as I understand it, this is the Christian position, in that Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts.

Whoops. I'll let my priest know on Sunday that I'm not bothering to go to Church as there's no point then!!!!

Frodo's guilt is real, true guilt, because he did surrender to what he knew was Evil.

Can someone point out to me the part of the book after the Ring is destroyed where we see Frodo feeling guilty...........

but his his feelings of guilt would not be valid. They would be false, & so invalidate his need to go into exile.

Go into exile? He was given 'the grace of the Valar' and he's going to the West / Undying Lands / Paradise / Nirvana / Valhalla / Heaven - whatever you want to call it. He is going to a BETTER PLACE. Yes, he's leaving behind the people he loves (but also following Bilbo, the person I believe he loves the most), but you say he's going to the West just because he feels guilty?

Methinks not.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by Davem:
Tolkien clearly believes that evil is a(n im)'moral' choice but an choice made by a free being. If Frodo is overwhelmed by a more powerful external force then Tolkien is saying nothing that a thousand other writers haven't also said. But i don't think he is . I think he's saying that the battle is more an internal one than an external one.

I would have to say it's more of an internal battle within oneself as well. Take violent video games for example. Now, I stand that if a kid can handle the sort of things that are in let's say the game Grand Theft Auto, if he can maturely handle that game, then he can play it without becoming "attached" to it. Unfortunately not all kids are like that, some will take the game too far, and even play it for hours and hours and hours at a time, they are indeed addicted to it, and therefore are corrupted by the game. Let's look at the situation with the Ring.

The Ring isn't all powerful, there are those who can resist it, Bombadil, Galadriel, Faramir, Sam, and Bilbo. Then there are those who can't Frodo, Boromir, and Gollum. Out of the one's who resisted, the person who had it the longest was Bilbo, and he gave it up freely (with a little nudge to help him of course), but he gave it up rather easily. As we get a quote from Faramir here in A Window on the West:

"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!" he said. "How have you increased my sorrow, you two strange wonderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow and be held by them.

Here Faramir makes it seem as if it's internal struggle, that there is a choice in the matter. He said "It was too sore a trial," and Boromir did face the trial, and it was too sore for him to handle. Faramir later says, "Even if I were such a man as to DESIRE this ring." Note, desire which makes it seem as if you have to "want" what the ring offers to you, and Faramir doesn't "want" any of that. You have to "desire" what the Ring offers to you, and that would make it a choice, an internal struggle between taking it or not.

In Frodo's situation I think we can connect it to my anecdote about "Grand Theft Auto." He had the Ring for so long, he was obviously weighed down, wounded, spiritually demoralized because of it, and he in return became attached to it. But who wouldn't have? If somebody was stuck in Frodo's spot who wouldn't have done what he did? Of course besides Bombadil, but he would have lost it even before he got to Mount Doom.

The way I view this is Frodo didnt FAIL the quest, he FAILED the personal test (I rhymed). The quest was to destroy the ring, by any means, and the Ring got destroyed. The ultimate job of the quest was to get the Ring into the fire, and the Ring got there. The personal test Frodo did fail. He had a choice, throw it in, or not, and he decided to keep it, so he failed that internal test within himself, but he completed the quest.

One has a choice, there is always a choice within somebody, the Ring can't control how somebody reacts, to it's power. All it can do is lure a person to it, and some people are lured by it, others don't fall for it. As I stated before if there are those who can resist the Ring's lure, then I think that goes to prove that it's more of an internal struggle, more then the external Ring's force of controlling people. One has a choice in the matter of doing it or not doing it. Just like the game situation, it's not like Grand Theft Auto "forces" kids to go around rape and shoot people, there are those with the strong enough "will" to resist it, and there are those who can't. Making it the internal conflict within each person.

[HerenIstarion]

And, as I understand it, this is the Christian position, in that Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts.

So and not so. True and not entirely true. The argument, sorry davem, is lopsided. If it were entirely true (i.e. logic as follows - our acts can not bring our salvation = no need to act), there would be no point for Frodo to go anywhere at all, all acts being useless unless salvation came from outside (or inside - i.e. externally strenghtening his inner self, or will).

I'll risk to tell you a joke to illustrate (even if clumsily) what I mean:

There was a man drowning, and he prayed to God to help him, and having trust in Him, he laid back and stopped making attempts to swim. Naturally, he drowned. When in Paradise, he asked his Lord - why haven't you saved me when I humbly prayed for deliverance? Because I've already given you means to it by giving you hands and legs to swim, wich you could have used to swim ashore - was the answer

in LoTR, Frodo is the illustration of both necessities - i.e. acts do count, for not to act would be deriliction of duty, but acts as acts, without external (external and at the same time, internal, rather) help, will bring no salvation - hence Gollum falling down by Chance.

In a sense, and in a way, Frodo's story is illustration of Lord's Prayer, specially 'lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil' part.

In that sense, PJ version errs as it depicts mainly acts. But utterly symbolical movie, stressing on inner battle, on Frodo giving in to temptation or, on the contrary, winning out by trust and submission to external force working from the inside, which is not clearly seen at all, but only hinted at in the book, as Duty, would be equally erroneous.

Is Boethian and Manichaean opposition solvable, than? Despite the number of disputes we have had or will have about the issue, we haven't reached final conclusion. It may be said that truth lies, if not entirely in the exact middle, at least nearer to Boethian side of the swing, but not utterly there. It would follow, than, that absolute evil is impossible - i.e. when its very existence derived from Good, to exist, it must retain some good at least.

But I'm drifting off.

Originally Posted by davem

choice made by a free being

A-ha!

Originally Posted by davem

He could - but his his feelings of guilt would not be valid. They would be false, & so invalidate his need to go into exile

Um, difficult issue, this. He in fact, goes to 'get better' - to be healed. Towards the end, Frodo seems like more than mere human - having failed at Sammath Naur, and being there delivered by Miracle, he seems to cease to fail at all - he seems redeemed. So, he must be free from supposed 'feeling of guilt'. His repentance is over as the Ring is forcibly taken from him. The rest of his life would be joy, unless he were not maimed (both bodily and spiritually). You seem to make it sound as if guild here = shame. Frodo has nothing to be ashamed for in that respect. He does not feel guilt - he's in pain (it's gone, Sam, it's gone.. etc)

EDIT

While I tinkered, Essex and Boromir88 cross-poster under my very nose

Well, should accommodate your posts too

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The way I view this is Frodo didnt FAIL the quest, he FAILED the personal test

In a sense. Indeed, I myself has written immediately above that he have failed. But, come to think of it, he failed (in a sense) neither. It could not have been otherwise - work 'deliberately' Christian 'in the revision' could not have allowed for Frodo to drop the Ring down in a nonchalant way - when even Perfect Human crucified cried out "my God, why have you forsaken me' - i.e.even being the best of humans allows for moments of waivering. Frodo failed the quest, but did not fail it at the same time, in a sense it was impossible not to fail it. What he did not fail was his obligation. He carried his duty to its end, and than the game was took over by the higher Authority. Thence there should have been no guilt after the event (whatever amount of it could have been felt by him prior to it) - Frodo did all he could do (really all, not what his fancy told him was "all he could"), Logically, he should have died than - for his life is accomplished at that moment. Only book would have lost without kind of rehearsal of the Joy we read in the Cormallen Fields (I use to sob over the chapter)

And, as we are in the movies forum, let me add a movie flavour to it - that what PJ version utterly failed to transfer.

Originally Posted by Essex

West / Undying Lands / Paradise / Nirvana / Valhalla / Heaven - whatever you want to call it. He is going to a BETTER PLACE.

In a sense, yes. And again, moments ago, I myself wrote something similar, but not entirely similar. Frodo goes to the place of Repose, not final place of Abide. (Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth - humans being guests, technically are exiles everywhere but at their Final Home - Arda Remade, in the reality plane of ME)

END OF EDIT

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

Can someone point out to me the part of the book after the Ring is destroyed where we see Frodo feeling guilty...........

'There is no real going back, though I may come to the Shire it will not be the same, for I am not the same'

Isn't that passing sentence on the guilty? He has denied himself his home. He has proclaimed himself an exile.

Whoops. I'll let my priest know on Sunday that I'm not bothering to go to Church as there's no point then!!!!

But how can you save yourself? If salvation comes from God through Christ's sacrifice then that's impossible. You can only through your acts make yourself worthy of salvation (though many Christians would argue that there is nothing you as an individual fallen being can do to raise yourself up. I think the belief that you can is Arianism.

Originally Posted by H-I

The argument, sorry davem, is lopsided. If it were entirely true (i.e. logic as follows - our acts can not bring our salvation = no need to act), there would be no point for Frodo to go anywhere at all, all acts being useless unless salvation came from outside (or inside - i.e. externally strenghtening his inner self, or will).

The point for Frodo to go is that it was willed by Eru that he go. A servant does what his master tells him because that's his job. If his master chooses to reward him that's his choice. The servant cannot make his master reward him, or the servant would be the 'master'. A good person will do good not because he desires a reward, but because as a good person its his nature to do good. Thoughts of rewards should not come into it. Frodo does what he does not in order to get the reward of passing onto the West.

And why shouldn't Frodo feel guilt over his choice? A free person is resonsible. Frodo's choice must be a free one, hence he is responsible for it, & so he is guilty. If he did not make his choice to surrender freely then the events at the Sammath Naur are meaningless. If he did make a free choice then he is guilty.

[HerenIstarion]

The point for Frodo to go is that it was willed by Eru that he go. A servant does what his master tells him because that's his job. If his master chooses to reward him that's his choice

Touché.

Very true. But, allegedly, Frodo does not know about Eru? He does not know about Master/Servant relationship? Or, maybe, he knows but in a role of Master (Servant being Sam)

In case you imply Eru worked through him directly, the freedom is eliminated - that is not Frodo who willed to go, but Eru through Frodo willed him to go. Rather I'd say, Eru worked through insight in Gandalf, who helped Frodo to will to go - and that shows Frodo's strengh and his humility - he trusted (in estel sense) in Gandalf, he held a belief that what Gandalf advised was a right thing to do. Ultimately, Frodo does his duty in allegience to what he thinks is Right, without expectation of reward (I never intended it to sound as if I believed Frodo did what he did to get a ticket to Sanatorium-in-the-West)

but because as a good person its his nature to do good

But as a free person he has the ability no to do it. Why should he not feel guilt is the fact that repentance frees one from guilt, and redemption frees one entirely. Guilt, so to say, is a means to an end, not end in itself - if it leads to repentance and redemption, it is good, but guilt in itself is not good.

I argued elsewhere that (improbably) Frodo-Gollum-Ring make a composite creature towards the end. With the death of latter two, what is left - Frodo, is person free from sin, i.e. already redeemed. And redeemed do not feel guilt - their guilt is over as their sins are cleansed. In a sense, Frodo is dead too - that's why Shire is not for him - living lands are not for the dead. (That last paragraph being diggin too deep into the thing, I suppose)

[HerenIstarion]

I have already said in another post that I recognise in Frodo's sufferings an echo of the sufferings of Post Traumatic Stress (PTSD). There is indeed a very real internal battle which Frodo is fighting; his agonies are a very real internal evil. He is battling an urge simply to give up. This urge to give up is in itself an 'evil'; what could be more wasteful than giving up your own life?

Probably you're right, and I am wrong. But I'm not persuaded - I'm inclined to view the case of Frodo as an exeption - his utterances during his crises are not of self-blame, but of thirst, desire - he misses the Ring. It's more like to what drug addict goes through - I mean drug addict who, mentally, is resolute to quit, has, in fact, quitted, but his body is still in the habit of having the drug and is in pain for it. Without drug nothing seems joyful to the body. That's what is supposedly to be healed in the West, not his guilt. If he were feeling guilty, his behavior on Cormallen must have been a hypocrisy.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I have to say that I think that this is one aspect of the book (among many) that PJ nailed absolutely dead to rights. The markers of a continuing sadness/melancholy that will surpass the bounds of the movie are so many that I hardly need to enumerate them here (besides, they've been mentioned already).

I would just say, however, that PJ translates to the filmic medium something that Tolkien did brilliantly in the novel. The end of LotR is supremely non-novelistic, what with the hero 'disappearing' into an ambivalent, even ambiguous exile the nature of which is not adequately explained in the narrative. Sam's own ending, the ending of the whole story, is also an extraordinary rewriting of the novelistic convention. The utter domestication of the hero in that final paragraph, his being taken 'back in' by the home and hearth is something that just does not happen in novels. In the 19th C, that scene would have been played out only in epilogue form and been presented as the achievement of the hero's journey, not the conclusion of his retreat from his journey. In the 20th C that scene would not be presented at all, except as a problematic and ambiguous 'real life' moment to counter the supposedly 'happy ever after' conclusion it appears to be.

What I mean to say is that Tolkien, in writing his book, gives us a conclusion that goes against novelistic convention. The drawn out series of endings (incl the Scouring) leads to a rather anti-climactic moment. . .but only from a narrative/strucutral point of view, not an emotional one at all.

PJ does precisely the same thing but in filmic terms. Each of the "closing shots" that he gives in the serialised endings (Mount Doom, the marriage of Aragorn and Arwen, the return to the Shire, Frodo's departure) is large, gorgeous, rounded out with large soundtracks -- they are typical Hollywood closing shots. The fact that they keep happening, I think, hammers home the idea that there is no one way for this film to really 'end'; that the story the film is telling defies the easy conventionalities and sententious simplicity of Hollywood narrative. That it is all rounded off with a shot of the closed door of 3 Bagshot Row undercuts the drive to conclusion and understanding -- the final shot of the movies is not a narrative one in which things are explained in a final way (Aragorn and Arwen are married, good is triumphant; Frodo is gone, good is rewareded) but a shot in which the ongoing story of Sam and Rosie is hidden from us -- they go inside to live their lives, the door closes, and we are left with the image of not being able to see what is going on.

I realise that this is not entirely on point with the original point of the thread, or with the current direction, but I wanted to put that up anyway. It does seem to me, however, that this careful drive to constitute the narrative as not finished, as escaping any final conclusion, works against the prologue's assertion that evil can be destroyed "forever". The vision of "forever" that we have at the end is one of continuing life and ongoing existence/change: no-one is so niave, I think, as to think that life is perfect. So while Sauron may be gone, we are still very much in a world like the one we live in: imperfect, ongoing, and in which bad things happen (Frodo does leave Sam, this is sad and an 'evil' necessity to him).

It also occurs to me that the insistence on ambiguity that PJ works toward is a good way of capturing the ambiguity that surrounds Frodo's sense of failure/judgement and his desire to leave. The film is not, I think, as certain of why Frodo has to leave as it would appear. With his departure Bag End is empty and dead -- unlike the book, in which Frodo's departure is a healing of the Shire and what opens the way for Sam's fulfillment, in the movie Frodo's going leaves a gaping wound in his world, and while he may finally be happy, nobody else is.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am having real difficulty here seeing any significant difference between Frodo succumbing to the Ring (an external evil) because he did not have the strength of will to resist it and Frodo succumbing to the evil within himself (an internal evil). To my mind, it is in the very act of succumbing to the external evil (and surely the Ring has to play a part here) that Frodo succumbs to his own internal evil.

As to the nature of Frodo's inner turmoil following the destruction of the Ring, I shall content myself with waiting until I read these chapters together once again (probably as part of the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion) before drawing any firm conclusions. But I do think that guilt (if that is what he feels) is a justifiable reaction to a failure of will.

But, to get back on topic (*hint *), doesn't the very nature of the discussion going on here illustrate exactly how the perfect film of the book could never be made, at least for those who have already read the book?

One person's perfection would always be another's failure.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Hollywood is also quite a lazy beast and there is a tendency to adapt pre-existing works rather than make a 'pure film'; when a film is based on an 'original' concept then it is a very different product. You only have to look at the fan worship surrounding such 'pure films' as Star Wars, Donnie Darko and The Matrix. When Hollywood adapts pre-exisitng works it so often gets it very wrong.

An interesting point. But say, for example that Star Wars was based upon a much cherished book which concerned itself in much more detail with the themes explored in the film (because, as a book, it was able to). Wouldn't the same criticisms be being made of it? Much as I love the original Star Wars film, I do think that the LotR films suffer unfairly in comparison with it. Yes, I know that it is an original work, rather than being adapted from a book. But, then again, it is very much based on the Hero Myth, and so is not entirely original.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Many 'Downers do not seem to like His Dark materials very much, but it provides grown-up comment on the nature of religion and of democracy; and this is one book I shudder to think of being made into a film, as I am convinced it will be wrong.

I very much enjoyed Pullman's trilogy, but I did feel that, ultimately, he failed credibly to portray the massive (parallel) universe-wide war that he sought to depict. And it is there that I think that his trilogy suffers in comparison with LotR, rather than on any theological issue. It will be interesting to see how the films work out, given that Pullman himself is very much involved with them. I am going to see the plays next month, which I have been told are rather good.

[drigel]

Boro
Faramirs quote is a good reference to point to. Here is B's brother showing the compexities of the mortals. We see him saying "I would do this. .. I would do that.." yet, would that be different if he were the one who made the trip to Rivendell instead of B?

This thread is (again) way transcending the single subject we are on. I find the guilt therom intriguing. I say this landscape is to stark - too black and white. The internal struggle is not a "one time shot", if that makes sense, unless, it seems, the ring involved.... or is it? Could Boromir have, after successfully getting the ring from Frodo, feel guilt? Could he give the ring back? Could Faramir?

Could Frodo change his mind, once he made the decision to not destroy the ring? No one, its seems, gives up the ring willingly. But, is there a difference between bearing and wielding? In other words, once you realize the abitlity and potential of what you could achieve with the ring - is it all over?

[Lalwendë]

Christianity teaches that we cannot achieve salvation through our own acts

I am a rather clumsy theologian - my qualifications are an O Level in the subject and many years of 'pondering' - but I understand that this is true only of certain types of Christianity. I had two ex-Catholic grandmothers, one of whom had not in her heart really converted to CofE on her marriage, and she would certainly have agreed with that view of salvation. However, as a child I went to an ordinary CofE church where we were weekly instilled with the need to do 'good deeds' in order to go to Heaven. So, I have assumed that there are two diverging Christian viewpoints, and being no Martin Luther or Thomas A Kempe, I may have expressed this clumsily, but no offence is intended (I fundamentally believe that all religions are equal, I am something of a philosophical Unitarian if not a spiritual one).

Tolkien clearly believes that evil is a(n im)'moral' choice but an choice made by a free being. If Frodo is overwhelmed by a more powerful external force then Tolkien is saying nothing that a thousand other writers haven't also said. But i don't think he is . I think he's saying that the battle is more an internal one than an external one. Frodo consents to what he knows is evil - the Ring & everything it symbolises - & that is his 'failure'

I have already said in another post that I recognise in Frodo's sufferings an echo of the sufferings of Post Traumatic Stress (PTSD). There is indeed a very real internal battle which Frodo is fighting; his agonies are a very real internal evil. He is battling an urge simply to give up. This urge to give up is in itself an 'evil'; what could be more wasteful than giving up your own life? This is something that often inevitably follows a great trauma, and having been there myself, at the very cracks of my own metaphorical Mount Doom, ready to succumb to some evil within, I thoroughly understand his internal struggle.

After being at the bottom of such despair, I know what inevitably follows and that, indeed, is a whole lot of guilt. The concept of sadness at Frodo's being forced to go into exile is also correct - he was going into exile. You do feel deeply ashamed at having in some way almost 'given up' - I know that for months I would scuttle around in the shadows afraid everyone was talking about my "failure to cope"!

Sorry for the little bit of soul-baring, but it is a good example to use, and, as I've said before, for the past three years I've grown to deeply understand the sufferings of Frodo (and Gollum and Bilbo for that matter). I used to think it was 'just' the power of the ring - but now I see there was more to it. And it is not something Tolkien would have been unfamiliar with either, following his experiences in the trenches he will have seen many men with PTSD, if he did not have this to some extent himself.

In terms of the films, it would have been good (or would it have felt too 'raw' to me?) to have seen this understanding of Frodo represented, but, from bitter experience, I often find that if you haven't walked in those shadows, you're not necessarily going to know how it feels, or even to acknowledge that they exist.