What happened at Mount Doom?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

For one, Eru is not God, but a character Tolkien created, so we can sit in judgement on Him & analyse his behaviour just as freely as we do any other character in the story.

A good point worth remembering. Unless there are any Eruists around here to offend, we can say what in Angband we like about him.

But seriously, to me when it is said that the hand of Eru was involved in the demise of Gollum and the Ring, it is the same as saying it was Fate which made it happen. And to say it was God or Fate or Eru which caused something to happen is a way of expressing that which we cannot explain.

Really, the chance that Gollum tripped up, and the idea that Eru caused it to happen are two sides of the same coin. We can either say "wow, how lucky for Middle-earth that Gollum fell over his own feet" or we can say "whoa, it was Fate" or we can say "Eru caused this to happen". Really, saying that Eru had a hand in it, is just trying to fix a solid point in the chaos of chance; we can either accept chance or attribute it to higher powers.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Interesting voting and comments so far – to be honest I thought that option B would be way out in front, and that option D would attract hardly any attention at all (although I would have bet a month’s salary that Bethberry was going to vote that way – old narratologists die hard… )

My vote, for what it’s worth, is option C, which looks as though I shall once again be in the extreme minority. I know that it may appear mad to say that Gollum jumped in to the fire on purpose, but hear me out.

In “The Black Gate is Closed,” Frodo says to Gollum:

‘You swore a promise by what you call the Precious. Remember that! It will hold you to it; but it will seek a way to twist it to your own undoing. Already you are being twisted. You revealed yourself to me just now, foolishly. Give it back to Smeagol you said. Do not say that again! Do not let that thought grow in you! You will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last need, Smeagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care, Smeagol!’

Frodo shows a high degree of prescience here insofar as he correctly predicts, in a way, what will happen at Mount Doom, for in “the last need” he does indeed put on the Ring and Gollum goes “into the fire.” It’s interesting too that Frodo tells Gollum that if he puts on the Ring “such would be my command” (that Gollum jump from a precipice or into the fire – or maybe both…).

Now, I’m not arguing that when Gollum gets the Ring he remembers this conversation and concludes that Frodo’s order now automatically applies, and so he must throw himself into the fire. That would be too simple (although it is tempting to see the last shred of Gollum that may be Smeagol at work here – that bit of goodness awakened and nurtured by Frodo is so horrified by Gollum’s betrayal, and so terrified of being lost forever, that it sub- or unconsciously makes Gollum step too far…I don’t really buy this, but it’s an interesting idea at the very least).

OK, so what is my argument then… Well, I suppose that I would say that this option (Gollum jumped in on purpose) contains within it all of the other options. First, yes it was an accidental slip insofar as Gollum did not think “I must go into the fire now with the Ring.” But, his fate is also part of The Plan, so Eru was there making sure that good triumphs over evil. But He was not in command of it all – as Gandalf points out time and again, there is no puppet master in the sky; all the events and actions of the story are the result of free will – so Gollum wasn’t pushed, but it wasn’t really just an accident. That's why I quoted that conversation from earlier, since it's prettly clearly laid out there, well in advance of the story's climax, that Frodo putting on the Ring will entail Gollum's destruction. So either this is the wildest coincidence ever (and there's no such thing as coincidence in a fictional tale under the control of an author) or there's some kind of cause and effect relation between Frodo claiming the Ring and Gollum dying.

Finally, option C also includes option D insofar as by having the tale end this way (with Gollum going into the fire accidentally-on-purpose) Tolkien was able to leave the fabric of his story whole, without reducing it with gross over-simplification. As Bethberry has pointed out in the CbC thread, the journey up Mount Doom is a complex and subtle re-enactment of the soul’s journey – to have the conclusion of that quest clearly rendered as the result either of accident or design would be to remove the complexity of that moment and of the whole tale’s exploration of the relation between free will and fate, moral action and choice, guilt and culpability, forgiveness an fault.

If Gollum had clearly jumped on his own, or if an angelic minister had come to throw him in – would this moment be even a bit as interesting and powerful as it is? I daresay that in the end, the whole enchantment of the story hangs upon this moment insofar as we know that Gollum went in “on purpose” but that, in the end, what that purpose may be is hard (if not impossible) for us to really understand.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

(although I would have bet a month’s salary that Bethberry was going to vote that way – old narratologists die hard… )

You know, Fordie, I don't think I've ever voted on any of your other polls, but when I realised you probably set that choice just for me, well, I had to acknowledge your efforts some how and voting for any of the others, well, it just didn't seem to do justice to your efforts.

Originally Posted by SpM

Bêthberry asked me:

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, could you provide us with a brief outline of what you can imagine?

I did give this some thought. One alternative which (I think) would maintain the essence of the story would be to have Gollum trip while triumphantly holding the Ring and lose his grip on it. The Ring then rolls over the edge of the Crack, but Gollum doesn't follow it in. Having had his life preserved well beyond his natural life by the power of the Ring, Gollum then dies of old age with its destruction. Would that fit the bill? Eru could certainly not be labelled a "murderer" in those circumstances as Gollum would have been bound to die with the detruction of the Ring, whatever else happened. There might even be scope for Gollum to renounce his sins, thereby setting up the possibility of his redemption, in his dying words to Frodo.

Any thoughts?

Well, that certainly would satisfy various of the themes of redemption, but then again, that works against that very satisfying--narratologically--scene where Gollem almost repents but is cut off from his chance by a good man who means well but whose efforts at that moment foreclose goodwill--one of those catastrophic moments Tolkien discusses in his letters.

I suspect also that, narratologically, having Gollem simply die of old age once the Ring is destroyed would lack some of the climactic energy and shock which his fall into the Crack of Doom has. It might also fail to give an emotional satisfaction to those who like to see villians get their comeuppance. Of course, here the narratological imperative runs counter to the moral impulse.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

That's why I quoted that conversation from earlier, since it's prettly clearly laid out there, well in advance of the story's climax, that Frodo putting on the Ring will entail Gollum's destruction.

But wouldn't that make Frodo the murderer? He tells Gollum 'If I put on the Ring you will be cast into the Fire, & he then puts on the Ring?

I think that leaves Frodo even more in need of forgiveness.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I can't vote, because options 1, 2 and 4 all apply. Option 1 - obvious. He slipped. Duh.

Option 2 - Well, of course, it was Eru's will that he slip. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring -- by who? Eru obviously. And, the Gandalf quote about Gollum having some part to play before the end has already been cited.

Option 4 - This is THE only way the Ring could have been destroyed, and is also the only way the climax can wrap up perfectly; both of those are IMHO. Tolkien says that Gollum COULD have, in another situation, voluntarily cast himself and the Ring into the Crack. I disagree (the author IS after all sometimes wrong in his Letters), putting forth the premise that the will of the Ring prevails over all others, especially at Mount Doom.

And it is perfectly fitting that, after all that Frodo and Sam and Gandalf and Aragorn and all the rest do, in the end the destruction of the Ring is beyond their power. One slip from the one least likely (in theory) to destroy it -- and Middle-earth is saved.

Finally, though I realize it is not the topic, I would like to say that I see no difference between Eru and God, any more than I see a difference between Aslan and Jesus. Sure, He's in a different world, with different situations to deal with, but where's the real difference? We can infer from The Silmarillion that Eru is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. We know from the Athrabeth that Tolkien was apparently so concerned with the connection between M-E and our own world (at one point) that he detailed Eru's Incarnation. Eru is God. There is no doubt in my mind that Tolkien would agree. His God (and mine) transcends worlds, and reaches even into the ones that we humans create. "God is the Lord, of angels, and of men -- and of elves."

Sorry, I know that's off-topic, but it is related to the topic, since Eru's authority has been called into question. And it still can be, since you may not (and some obviously do not) agree with me. Perhaps a separate thread should be begun on this topic???

[davem]

Originally Posted by Elladan & Elrohir

Finally, though I realize it is not the topic, I would like to say that I see no difference between Eru and God, any more than I see a difference between Aslan and Jesus. Sure, He's in a different world, with different situations to deal with, but where's the real difference?

The difference is that, at best, Eru is Tolkien's take on God. Eru can't be the same as God, because he has no power to act beyond Tolkien's intention. Tolkien could have Eru do whatever he wanted Him to. To say that God=Eru is mistaking the map for the territory.

Also, is that the only one to one correspondence you see in the book? Do you see Frodo, or Aragorn as Christ? I think Eru=God is at the most extreme end of allegorical interpretation of the Legendarium. Tolkien's mind (anymore than any created being's) could not encompass the fullness & complexity of God - he would have to be greater than God in order to do that. He could only possibly know as much of God as God chose to reveal to him & 'you can't get a quart into a pint pot', as my old gaffer used to say

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

The difference is that, at best, Eru is Tolkien's take on God. Eru can't be the same as God, because he has no power to act beyond Tolkien's intention. Tolkien could have Eru do whatever he wanted Him to. To say that God=Eru is mistaking the map for the territory.

Also, is that the only one to one correspondence you see in the book? Do you see Frodo, or Aragorn as Christ? I think Eru=God is at the most extreme end of allegorical interpretation of the Legendarium. Tolkien's mind (anymore than any created being's) could not encompass the fullness & complexity of God - he would have to be greater than God in order to do that. He could only possibly know as much of God as God chose to reveal to him & 'you can't get a quart into a pint pot', as my old gaffer used to say

Okay, let's imagine this differently, then. Supposing that I was an artist, and I wanted to draw a picture of God caring for a repentant sinner. The sinner is not an allegory of any person or experience I personally know, or even that I don't know, just a sinner. His features might be based off of people I know, and his expression might be borrowed from somewhere. Same thing with the image of God.

Once I am done, I have a picture of God caring for a repentant sinner. It is not an allegory, nor is it a true story or a representation of one. It is, for all intents and purposes, a story.

So, I ask you then, is the God in my picture different than the God in Heaven? Yes, I agree that he is insofar as he is a painted object in my painting and the creator of all things in Heaven. However, within the confines of the painting, within the image, is there any reason to say that it is NOT as much God to the painted man as God Himself is to me?

What you seem to be saying, Master Davem, is that it is not possible for Man to write about God. I would put forward that this is a false premise. Man has been writing about God for thousands of years. He's the main character in the Bible.

And if God can be written about in a non-fiction work, even though none of the writers or the others characters can really, or did really, understand Him, then why is it so impossible for him to be written into a fictional work as well?

You base your premise that one CANNOT say that Eru is God because no one can know God completely. Well, as far as that goes, you can't know me completely. You can't know Mister Underhill completely. You can't even know Lalwende completely. It is a fact of human nature that we can NEVER know someone completely, entirely, totally.

Does that stop us from writing about them? No. Look at the abundance of biographies and, more pertinent to the discussion, historical novels, many of which were written by people who weren't even born at the time they occured. But they include real people, and they are, within the book, intended to be everything to the other characters (real or fictional) what they were to the people of their own time and period.

If it is possible then to write a fictional novel about fictional characters that incorporates real people into a story, with those real people being everything to the fictional characters that they were to their own contemporaries, then why is it so impossible to wriate a fictional epic about fictional characters that incorporates God into a story, with God being everything to that fictional world that he is to ours?