“Not all those who wander are lost.”

[Aiwendil]

Some who wander are lost

Edit: Somehow I missed Anguirel's post above, which brings up some of the same points as mine. Just to give credit where it's due.

I don't know how relevant this is to the points under discussion, but when I think of wandering in Middle-earth there are some Silmarillion characters that spring immediately to mind.

First of all, there are Daeron and Maglor. It's interesting that these two, the greatest musicians of Arda, share such similar fates. Daeron leaves Doriath seeking Luthien (after she escaped from her tree house) and wanders "upon strange paths" far into the east and out of the story, making laments for Luthien. Maglor casts his Silmaril into the sea because it burns his hand; thereafter he wanders the shores of Middle-earth lamenting the loss of the Silmaril. Here we have two wanderers who are very much lost; moreover, each wanders precisely because he has lost the thing most precious to him. Actually, one could take the parallel even further - each lost their valued thing through their own actions. In the "Lay of Leithien" it tells that Daeron twice betrays Luthien to Thingol, but the third time, when he learns of her plan to escape, he remains silent. It was, then, within his power to prevent Luthien's (temporary) loss. Similarly, it is through the actions of Maglor and his brothers that he loses the purity required to touch a Silmaril; and of course, it is he himself who casts it away in the literal sense.

These are two very evocative figures in my opinion; their wandering is inextricably tied to loss - both to the loss of things and to becoming lost. They survive into a time that is not their own, seeking things that are gone forever (or at least until the end of the world). It seems to me that they are quintessential representations of the overwhelming sense of nostalgia that pervades the Silmarillion.

Very different from those two, but very different also from the heroic wanderers of LotR, is the post-captivity Hurin. I admit that he comes to mind largely because of the title of the HoMe text "The Wanderings of Hurin" - but it's Tolkien's title, so it may be considered significant. Hurin is a powerful figure here. He is not lost like Maglor and Daeron; on the contrary, his wandering is quite purposeful. He is a great man who has become grim and embittered by his long imprisonment and by the misfortunes of his family; he brings the shadow of Morgoth with him wherever he goes. In a way, he seems to be the negative image of a character like Gandalf; both "wander" quite deliberately, and with a singular, hardened purpose - but of course Gandalf brings aid to those he visits while Hurin brings death and destruction.

The last character from the Silmarillion that comes to mind as a quintessential wanderer is Earendil. Earendil is a fairly unusual character. He is one of only a few unambiguously heroic characters (the others that come to mind are Beren and Tuor). He is also perhaps the only character in the Silmarillion who achieves a real, unambiguous victory. Nonetheless, he is a wanderer in something of a similar sense to Maglor and Daeron. Actually, Earendil's wanderings ought to be divided into two separate cases. First of all, there are his sea-voyages seeking Aman. Like Daeron and Maglor, he is seeking something that was (in a sense) lost to the Elves and Men of Middle-earth. Also, tied up in this quest, is his desire to find his parents again - a desire that bears a striking resemblance to Daeron's search for Luthien. Of course, unlike Maglor and Daeron, Earendil is succesful in his quest (i.e. in his quest to reach Valinor; he does not find Tuor and Idril). But there follows for Earendil a second period of wandering, one that (like Maglor's and Daeron's) is open-ended; he wanders the sky in Vingilot until the end of the world. But (again quite unlike Maglor and Daeron) this is not really presented as an unhappy fate. He is not seeking something that can never be found; he is in fact not even sundered from Elwing, who flies to meet him when he draws near to Arda. Indeed, his celestial wandering is a sign of great hope to those in Middle-earth.

I don't really know what point is to be drawn from these four cases, which present the theme of wandering in three very different ways. But I think that, particularly in a topic such as this, to examine only LotR is to leave aside several major pieces of Tolkien's thought.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Some excellent replies here - I'm glad there's a renewed interest in this topic!

I think the latest posts show that the title is not setting up an absolute, general rule:

Not all those who wander are lost. (my emphasis)

There are lost wanderers, as Anguirel and Aiwendil's posts show - interestingly, these examples are taken from the Sil, which is quite different from LotR in many ways. The element of loss is certainly more pervasive there.

There's no need to apologize for your post, Perky - you bring up a thought that could lead to an interesting debate. Are all who do not wander static? Is Bombadil right to stay within the small realm he has chosen for himself? Is his wandering within those narrow boundaries enough to keep him flexible? Should we list him with Radagast as one who does a little, but too little, for the good cause in Middle-earth? Could he have helped more effectively if he had ventured out of the Old Forest, away from Goldberry - or was he doing the right thing for a married man, and only those who choose to have no family are free to wander?

davem brings up the concept of exile in connection with wandering; should that be counted with the enforced journeying, as even one who voluntarily goes into exile has a reason beyond his own control?

Hmmmm, I'm finding more questions than answers... But then, maybe questions are the wandering of the mind!

[Kath]

I haven't read through this properly yet and so this will be short as it is just to pick up on something I noticed.

Esty originally said:

Those who change from fixed to wanderers: Théoden, Treebeard, …

I have to say that I disagree that Éowyn went from being fixed to being a wanderer. If anything to me it is the other way around. She wasn't fixed to begin with, at least in spirit if not physical movement. She was always looking outside her borders and limitations, trying to be equal to Éomer and do the things he could. Physically I would sincerely doubt that she sat inside Meduseld day after day learning how to make tapestries or whatever. We know that she knew how to fight and ride. With a horse she would have had the freedom to ride over Rohan, though possibly with various guards in tow. She can't have been a static spirit, she was too wild. Then comes the War and Aragorn, and she is able to wander further afield.

But then she is injured and she meets Faramir and her whole outlook on life seems to change, and only then does she 'settle down' and accept that you can stay still in life without it being a bad thing and become a fixed person. 'Not all those who wander are lost' is the title but it seems that whilst Éowyn she is lost, and only once she becomes fixed does she 'find herself'.

That's just my take on it, sorry if it's been said before.

[Angry Hill Troll]

Good thread topic, Esty!

I was about to start a thread on isolationism--namely, the tendency of civilizations in Tolkien's books to want to shut themselves off from the outside world and its problems. But then I realized that the topic is rather closely related to this one. Well, maybe not exactly, since it's the difference between an individual being a homebody, and an entire society wanting to isolate itself.

Examples:
Valinor (after Melkor and the Noldor leave) In HoME X, Tolkien says that

The lifting up of the range of the Pélori to a great height. It is possible to view this as, if not an actually bad action, at least as a mistaken one.

Nargothrond -- eventually gets overrun

Gondolin -- eventually gets overrun

Doriath -- eventually gets destroyed

Moria (isolated after the fall of Eregion) --eventually gets destroyed

The Shire -- gets saved, but suffers some very bad times at the hands of Saruman

Lórien -- survives Sauron's attack, but cannot continue in suspended animation once the Three Rings have lost their power.

Imladris -- similar to Lórien

(and various other examples)

Tolkien's view seems to be that all attempts to create a haven safe from the outside world's troubles are at best temporary, and often lead to very bad ends. What he seems to be saying (IMO) is that it is better to engage the outside world and all its problems, however bad they may seem.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Angry Hill Troll

I was about to start a thread on isolationism--namely, the tendency of civilizations in Tolkien's books to want to shut themselves off from the outside world and its problems. But then I realized that the topic is rather closely related to this one. Well, maybe not exactly, since it's the difference between an individual being a homebody, and an entire society wanting to isolate itself.

I think this is relevant, as it is individuals who make up a society after all. It may be a collective wish to be isolated or it may be the wish of their leaders; either way, there are many isolationist societies in Middle-earth. Why are they this way though? Is it through fear that they shut themselves off? Or is it to protect their power?

Looking at that list of different societies which are either shut off to, or not cooperative with, the outside world, it's interesting how many of these are places held by and for the side of 'good'. Where is Mordor? Well, it is a society which is not isolated; it is indeed closed off to its enemies, but it works closely with those other cultures which it has subsumed such as Harad and Umbar. Mordor counts amongst its hosts many soldiers and warriors of many different nations; these are well travelled minions, not restricted by staying at home. They wander more than most. I wonder what that means?

[Angry Hill Troll]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Where is Mordor? Well, it is a society which is not isolated; it is indeed closed off to its enemies, but it works closely with those other cultures which it has subsumed such as Harad and Umbar. Mordor counts amongst its hosts many soldiers and warriors of many different nations; these are well travelled minions, not restricted by staying at home. They wander more than most. I wonder what that means?

Well, one perhaps trivial explanation is that since Sauron (and for that matter Morgoth and Saruman) was bent on world domination, he couldn't achieve his ends by self-imposed isolation, so he had to be engaged with the outside world enough to be able to take it over.

One the other hand the bad guys who aren't really working for a Dark Lord (for example: Smaug, the Moria Balrog, Shelob) seem quite content to just lurk in their lairs.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Looking at that list of different societies which are either shut off to, or not cooperative with, the outside world, it's interesting how many of these are places held by and for the side of 'good'. Where is Mordor? Well, it is a society which is not isolated; it is indeed closed off to its enemies, but it works closely with those other cultures which it has subsumed such as Harad and Umbar. Mordor counts amongst its hosts many soldiers and warriors of many different nations; these are well travelled minions, not restricted by staying at home. They wander more than most. I wonder what that means?

If for a moment I can sidestep Angry Hill Troll's comments, which point to an interesting distinction but which were posted while I thought about Lal's post, let me offer some ideas about place.

I think place can provide an opportunity for two things, simultaneously. On the one hand, a well enclosed place can be a means of containing fear of borderlessness and trespass, obviously. This creates an immediate value system of difference, wherebye that which is outside or external is that which is feared, possibly even a projection or denial of fearful elements internal to the community. In this case, what is left is the pettiness of, say, hobbits in their complacency and parochial habbits and values. We could even ring some ideas off the similarity of hobbit/habbit here. Insecurity breeds the need for borders.

On the other hand, well confined or defined spaces provide a means for releasing and exploring those pent up feelings of longing for limitless empty frontiers, freedom, independence. The boundary creates the desire for wandering. The call of the sea is a call of release for those pent up within the incredibly constructed layers of control which is Minas Tirith.

I have no idea where I am going with this.

[Boromir88]

I wanted to respond to something earlier mentioned by Perky.

According to Esty's post, change is (and BTW, i'm sure i'm analyzing this wrong) a beneficial and essential thing to a good character, and that he who changes sees more than others.

I'd say that's it, and it's something that can be seen in other works of literature. In T.S. Elliot'sHollowmen, we see there are many people who are like scarecrows.

Scarecrows meaning they do nothing. They're hollow, they're a shape without a form. They're there, but they're not really. They simply just stand there and do nothing. Now according to T.S. Elliot, (himself included) more people are "hollowmen" then the ones who change and choose their path.

The path for good reasons leading to heaven, making bad decisions go to hell, and all these "Hollowmen" since they make no decisions for themselves and simply do nothing but take up space are waiting for the boat to lead them to the "other ending dream" (Hell).

Some of the most famous lines from the poem...

This is the way the world will end...
This is the way the world will end...
This is the way the world will end...
not with a bang but with a wimper.

The world is simply going to slowly and queitly die out, that's how it will end. Not with a bang and Glorious battles, because there are more "hollowmen" then there are not.

I think in LOTR we see something totally different then from the poem. We have a group of people who step up and decide not to be "hollowmen." Not to sit around and just let things happen. Frodo was faced with this decision, go home and let others deal with it, or act on his dream and do something about it.

I think the clearest examples of "Hollowmen" are Tom Bombadil and Treebeard. Both have passed out of knowledge.

Bombadil does not care what happens outside, and he sort of fades out of all knowledge.

Treebeard was like this until he and the Ents decided to act. They sat and did nothing, they were scarecrows, and for many years the Ents faded away and were only remembered as vague creatures of the past, until they decided to put their ideas and thoughts into action.

[Márcolië Lamen]

The odd thing is that Tolkien himself was someone who hardly travelled at all - well hardly at all physically.

Pointing this out really makes me think about the focus of wandering not be the physical, but to be more of the idea of a journey, and learning from that. There are those who physically wander, but not all those learn from what happens. There are also those though like Tom Bombadil who don't physically wander but don't show the same set in his ways and unapprocable in relation to change that others do. For me I feel characters such as him are more of mental wanderers, those who explore only one area, but are open to that area, and learn from that one. The idea of learning and growing itself through "wandering" either by letting your mind get away from you or going off not knowing what will happen, is stronger to me.

I notice how Tolkien takes care that each character who takes a literal journey also takes an internal journey of discovery, and those who do not take a journey do not change in this way. This would include even good characters, such as Galadriel or Elrond - but then they do take a journey at the end of the book. This perhaps means that they have only one more thing to learn, to relinquish power in Middle-earth and the trip to the Grey Havens teaches them to do this.

I agree with this statement in general but I would like to point out that those who took the literal journey didn't necessarily need to take it to take an internal journey.
For example Bilbo, in the beginning of The Hobbit even would say

Sorry! But I don't want any adventures, thank you. Not today

yet was still strange for a hobbit. He might have been more normal in that he liked the security but was a wander even before he set off. His ability to even think about the idea of going even though he would say to himself

Bilbo, you were a fool; you walked right in and put your foot in it.

really showed this.

I think the journeys and wandering was as much as it was focusing on the physical a metaphor, and looking at their ability to have gone through the internal journey even if they hadn't gone on the physical one is important. However, the physical journey acted as a catalyst. Those who accepted change and abnormality were more often those who would help in the battle against the evil, but they were not the only ones, because even before they traveled they were wandering in themselves.


And I appologise for the poor wording of this post. I was more getting thoughts out than writing it well.