“Not all those who wander are lost.”

[Boromir88]

The chapter where we first meet Theoden is strangely enough one of the few moments in the book where the Rohirrim keep still!

In contrast, the Gondorians at the time of the War of the Ring seem to have stagnated, or more specifically, the residents of Minas Tirith.~Lalwende

Very good point, something I did not notice before. Even when Theoden was under Saruman's control, the Rohirrim were still wandering (Eomer, Theodred, Erkenbrand...etc). Then their movement becomes increases greatly after Gandalf helps Theoden.

I think there can be two types of wanderers we can talk about here. There's the physical wanderers that travel all over (Gandalf,Elladan? and Elrohir?, Aragorn's been to a wide list of places), and perhaps their final journey is to reach the sea (except Aragorn). Then there are the "mind-wanderers" they may necessarily not travel a lot but their mind wanders.

The best example I can give for this is Faramir. Though Faramir does not travel a lot from what we can tell, he's basically fixed and stuck in Gondor, I would still call him a wanderer, atleast in the mind. Because, he is not afraid of change. He's got an open mind to knowledge, but greatest of all is he doesn't care about change. He doesn't care if he goes against his fathers orders, he doesn't care if Minas Tirith burns to the ground, he doesn't care a King has come back to claim the Throne. He doesn't mind(yes pun intended) the change.

What makes Denether the fixed-mind is as pointed out by Estelyn, he doesn't want change, he doesn't want to lose his throne, he wants to be obeyed and he wants things as they once were. Of course, also Denethor is fixed in the physical sense, we barely see him leave his throne.

It's also interesting how there's mostly been pointing at wanderers being the best and most faithful (Gandalf, Aragorn...etc), but can wanders get lost? For instance, the Noldor. They didn't want to stay fixed, and desired to roam about Middle-earth and run the lands themselves, even after being told no by the higher powers.

Perhaps, there's something with that drigel mentions.

The sea represents the ulitmate journey, or IMO representing the barrier that separates the corporeal from the non-corporeal, the physical from the spiritual.

The Sea is that ultimate journey and those who go to it are the wanderers that are on the right path. But those who want to depart from the sea, and wander away from it (Noldor) are "lost."

Mr. Underhill, I will say "near" redemption isn't the same thing as redemption, but you bring up the great point that Gollum did travel a lot and all over. But I think it's a different case for Gollum. He's wandering because he wants to be fixed. The one time Gollum was fixed in his Misty Mountains for some 500 years was when he had the ring. The reason he wanders is to look for the Ring, possibly similar to what Denethor wanted, wanted life the way as it was. Gollum wanted the Ring back so he could hide in mountains and stay there with it. Just a suggestion, I would love to hear your input.

[Mister Underhill]

Great points about Gollum, B88. It's like the old saying about how almost only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades. In fact, the more I think on it, Gollum's wide wanderings in search of the Ring (selfish gain) didn't teach him much except for geography and a certain brand of wily survivalism. His internal journey doesn't begin until he undertakes (albeit under extreme duress) an external journey for something other than himself. And even though he never made it the whole way, the only thing that even gave him the chance was that journey. If he had remained fixed -- both mentally and physically -- in his hole under the Misty Mountains, he would have never had even the chance of redemption. In the end, it is his lack of real commitment to the service of others that leads to his downfall.

So maybe that's an important component of the wandering -- not wandering aimlessly, nor yet merely with the object of selfish gain, but wandering that leads to the service of others. Gandalf epitomizes this. Bilbo began his journey (also not completely of his own will) ostensibly for gain, but ended up willingly sacrificing his share of the treasure to avert bloodshed.

An interesting topic indeed, Esty.

[alatar]

Didn't Barliman Butterbur's mind tend to wander?

And are we talking about the lack of 'wandering' or control/stasis? The wanderers to me not only accept change, they also accept that there are things that are beyond their care and control. It's that whole serenity prayer thing - one must accept that there are things beyond one's control - you just have to let them go.

Gandalf, the ultimate wanderer, attempts to influence and coerce the inhabitants of ME yet does not seek to control and 'order' the same as does Saruman. Aragorn aids the battle at Helm's Deep yet does not supersede the orders of Theoden - he does not have to 'order' everything. Sauron, stuck as an Eye in a box, wants to reshape all of ME in his image. All things would be in under his dominion.

Anyway, where this all started was in thinking about the Sea. What place contains more chaos, and therefore less order? Even Ulmo doesn't seem to be in control of the Sea all of the time, and even then it seems that he just 'manages' it. The earth can be formed and shaped, but the Sea? Ever changing, formed but ever formless. And never a friend of a being like Sauron.

Didn't Melkor create cold and/or ice in an attempt to control the Sea? Note to Melkor: next time, make ice heavier than water, and then you stand a better chance of freezing the whole deal.

Do our wanderers, having accepted change throughout their lives, go onto the next step, the Sea, the ultimate source of change?

Sorry for the muddled rambling - must be too much water on the brain - but there's a thought in there somewhere.

[Boromir88]

So maybe that's an important component of the wandering -- not wandering aimlessly, nor yet merely with the object of selfish gain, but wandering that leads to the service of others.~Mr. Underhill

I agree and I think the Bilbo-Gollum comparison shows this perfectly.

And are we talking about the lack of 'wandering' or control/stasis? The wanderers to me not only accept change, they also accept that there are things that are beyond their care and control.

Alatar, I think your post makes perfect sense, nothing muddled about it. I think Gandalf's speech to Frodo on "Do not be so eager to pass out death and judgement," when Frodo said Bilbo should have killed Gollum is a good example of this.

And the big theme of Pity in Tolkien's books can tie in with all this. Gandalf has faith that Gollum could still change, and the pity of Bilbo and Frodo given to Gollum was a belief that he could change. Bilbo and Frodo have accepted things are out of their control, and all they can do is show pity to those lost in hopes that they will change.

I mean pity was shown to Saruman and Grima, hoping a change would occur. I definitely agree that the acceptance that things aren't in your control is a big factor in this. Saruman did not understand this.

Aragorn aids the battle at Helm's Deep yet does not supersede the orders of Theoden - he does not have to 'order' everything.

And actually there was a brief moment when Aragorn did not understand this. In King of the Golden Hall when Hama asks for his sword Aragorn tries to assert his power as being Elendil's heir that he is more powerful than Theoden and can overrule his orders. Also, to mention that he isn't even the King yet. But, with some help from Gandalf Aragorn learns from this instance. Aragorn learned to show humility to Theoden, recognizing that it wasn't he who could take control and order over Theoden.

So could we discuss the big factors that involve in what makes the wanderers...well wanderers.
I think Mr. Underhill and alatar have given some of them...
1. You don't wander aimlessly or for the purpose of self-gain, but to help and aid those in need.

2. Accepting you aren't in control, and you can't control everything.

Could we also add humility to this? As Aragorn and Faramir both show this.

Yes, it has been a great discussion Estelyn.

[Child of the 7th Age]

This is a fascinating topic, Esty .

There are two things that come to my mind that suggest somewhat of a "flip side" or at least a slight addendum for this equation of "wandering=good." I'm not quite sure how to put these things in words, but I think there are other layers of meaning in this equation.

First, Tolkien makes a point of saying that the place where you start from is almost as important as the wandering you do. And there is also the question of exactly why you are wandering and whether you started out "voluntarily" or not. I'll deal with the voluntary aspect first and then go on to the other.

Here I'm referring specifically to the journey of Frodo and Sam to Mordor and how Gollum fits into this equation. In the case of Frodo and Sam, the going out on the road is not an unequivocal good. Frodo is motivated by the fact that there is a job that must be done. Whether or not he wants to do the job (i.e., to go out on the road) is not the central point. The fact is that there are clear moral choices in life, and sometimes that moral choice points someone towards the outside world. Turning down that choice can mean you have taken the lesser moral path that may eventually lead to something even worse. (Others have noted that the contrast between Saruman and Gandalf can also be seen this way.)

Yet one of the things that strickes me in LotR is how much Frodo does not want to leave the Shire. He dillies and dallies as long as he can to delay the inevitable departure. (We have had threads on this before.) As Bilbo says to Gandalf early in the story, Frodo is not ready to leave, although he might have come to Rivendell if his uncle had asked him. Overall, though, and in contrast to Bilbo, Frodo is someone who would rather have stayed home and enjoyed the benefits of Bag-end. Strange, but I don't get this same sense of reluctance from any of the other hobbits who set out from the Shire. Sam is excited about seeing Elves, and Merry and Pippin seem bound up in the whole idea of being with friends and going on an adventure. Of course, none of them realizes the seriousness of their path to the same extent that Frodo does.

In a sense Frodo is more like Gollum. Both Gollum and Frodo were "forced" to leave home. It was not a totally free choice on their part. The reaction of Gollum's neighbors to his increasingly nasty behavior impels him to flee the community. Frodo was also forced to leave home by external developments that he could not control. Is there any significance in the fact that both of these characters do not leave wholly of their own volition? Both grow on the trip, although obviously Frodo grows more than Gollum, and both are eventually "defeated" by their journey. Gollum dies, and Frodo is forced to wander even further from the place where he wants to be. The reader feels pity for Frodo and even to some extent for Gollum, despite all the latter's misdeeds.

But there's another definite contrast between Frodo and Gollum: the place they are coming from. Of course, I am speaking spiritually as well as physically. Several times in his Letters, JRRT makes the point that what makes the trip bearable to Sam and Frodo is that they can remember where they've come from. They know why they are on the road, even if they don't much like what is happening to them. One of the chief examples of this is that Sam sits and thinks about Rosie and going to the swimming hole as a young lad. The same is true for Frodo. As long as the Ringbearer can hang on to his identity and community (i.e., the Shire), he is alright. When he loses this, he is in serious trouble. Indeed, one of the most poignant moments in the tale for me is when Frodo confides to Sam that he can no longer remember the Shire.

Gollum, by contrast, has lost his identity and community right from the start. He has nothing to remember. It is only when he comes into contact with Frodo (someone who is also trying to hang on to his hobbit identity) that he begins to get snatches of these things back again. In the end, however, it is not enough to save him.

So where does this contrast leave us. It seems that you must throw into the equation of "good=road" a number of other things. Are you leaving of your own volition, and are you able to hang onto your identity and community inside your head? If not, change may overwhelm you, and the road can become a potential agent for destruction as well as for good. I can't help but personalize this. I have come a long, long way from where I grew up as a kid. I am physically distant, and my choices in life have taken me on some different paths than those my family took. Yet, as much as I believe I made the right choices, I fight fiercely to retain that part of me that still has one foot in my childhood. I also wonder how Frodo fared once he got to Tol Eressea? Surely, a big part of his healing was the need to regain his original self and somehow integrate that with what he had now become.

************

Davem -

I also have some thoughts about the question of wandering in terms of the "Sea". When Elves wander over the Sea, they reach a place where, to tbe best of my knowledge, nothing ever changes. Ironically, it seems like the place to end all wandering: to negate the orginal equation. From my perspective, the Blessed West looks too "static". Presumably things would be peaceful without any conflict, so how would you have any real change at all? Isn't it Galadriel's dream realized: mummifying the present?

I guess what I am asking is this. Is the end result of wandering to reach a place where you no longer wander, or is it to reach a place from which you can wander even further? Of couse, the West only pertains to Elves and misplaced hobbits like Frodo. The hard thing is that we don't know what happens to man when he goes beyond the circles of the world. Any thoughts here?

[davem]

Child Difficult one. I suppose Elves & mortals have a different relationship to the world - Elves belong in it & men don't - 'restlessness' is part & parcel of the 'gift' of Eru. So whatever Men achieve they soon become dissatisfied & begin immediately seeking something else. For Elves the Sea is the road home to the West, for Men it seems to have a more 'metaphorical' role. It doesn't lead them to a place of rest.

Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else;

Men are wanderers in M-e & perhaps the Sea to them is the way to mysteries, to the unknown, rather than to a specific place. Elves seek the Sea as a road to a specific place, to Men it is a road to the unknown. It may even be that the fact that they cannot come to Valinor gives a greater symbolic significance to it as far as they are concerned - it may not lead to Valinor, but it could lead anywhere. Men would become restless even in Valinor. For Men (within the circles of the World at least) are driven to seek what they are doomed never to find.