What happened at Mount Doom?

[Reg Pither]

I could only vote for number 1 in the poll, as it is the only one that is indisputable. However, as others have pointed out, it's probably a mixture of 1, 2 and 4.

As for the Eru=God idea, it's not something I've ever thought about much, but my take on it is that Eru is less like the benevolent Christian God that we all know and love (!), but slightly more like the chaotic Gods of Greek and Roman legend - specifically Zeus/Jupiter. So, while I know it's probably a bit lazy (and possibly sacrilegious by Mr Marley's exacting standards ), but Eru=God (but not our God) works for me as a general rule.

[ninja91]

In my opinion, he jumped on purpose. I think that he wanted the ring for himself, and if not for himself, he wanted the ring to have no owner. And I think that the Smeagol part of the creature was so thoroughly tormented that he chose to end his pain right there, at the same time possessing the ring. That is how I see it.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

If I have time, I would like to post some extended quotes from Tolkien's Letters that have bearing on this thread, for the benefit of those who either do not possess this valuable resource or do not have it readily at hand. This first excerpt features little perhaps that is directly applicable to the question of this thread, but nonetheless provides necessary background and context.

Originally Posted by Letter #181

The final scene of the Quest was so shaped simply because having regard to the situation, and to the 'characters' of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, those events seemed to me mechanically, morally, and psychologically credible. But, of course, if you wish for more reflection, I should say that within the mode of the story the 'catastrophe' exemplifies (an aspect of) the familiar words: 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'

'Lead us not into temptation &c' is the harder and the less often considered petition. The view, in the terms of my story, is that though every event or situation has (at least) two aspects: the history and development of the individual (it is something out of which he can get good, ultimate good, for himself, or fail to do so), and the history of the world (which depends on his action for its own sake) -- still there are abnormal situations in which one may be placed. 'Sacrificial' situations, I should call them: sc. positions in which the 'good' of the world depends on the behaviour of an individual in circumstances which demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal -- even, it may happen (or seem, humanly speaking), demand a strength of body and mind which he does not possess: he is a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will': that is against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under the duress.

The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostasized' -- and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a traitor, not honoured. Believe me, it was not until I read this that I had myself any idea how 'topical' such a situation might appear. It arose naturally from my 'plot' conceived in main outline in 1936. I did not foresee that before the tale was published we should enter a dark age in which the technique of torture and disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and the Ring and present us with the practical problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.

But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly [/b][footnote: Not quite 'certainly'. The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum over the brink, when about to repent.][/b] betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end -- but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing that any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours -- since it is clear that he & Sam never concealed the precise course of events. Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privatee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly corrupt Smeagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Continuing...

Originally Posted by Letter 191

If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved -- by Mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.

Corinthians I x. 12-13 may not at first sight seem to fit -- unless 'bearing temptation' is taken to mean resisting it while still a free agent in normal command of the will. I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord's Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not 'arrange' the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance of repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge.) In the case of those who now issue from prison 'brainwashed', broken, or insane, praising their torturers, no such immediate deliverance is as a rule to be seen. But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

And the very next Letter:

Originally Posted by Letter 192

By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem even to have observed it. But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event. And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere 'fairy-story' ending in which the hero is indomitable? It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome -- in themselves. In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted. Gandalf certainly foresaw this. See Vol. I p. 68-9. Of course, he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later -- it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life.

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' [note: Actually referred to as 'the One' in App. A III p. 317 1. 20. The Numenoreans (and Elves) were absolute monotheists.] (as one critic has said). See Vol. I p. 65. A third (the only other) commentator on the point some months ago reviled Frodo as a scoundrel (who should have been hung and not honoured), and me too. It seems sad and strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good will are tortured, 'brainwashed', and broken, anyone could be so fiercely simpleminded and selfrighteous.

[The 1,000 Reader]

My belief of what happened at Mount Doom follows like this:

Frodo used all of his spirit and will to make it to Mount Doom.

Eru handles the rest.

However, I believe that when Eru took matters into his own hands, he was preventing further tragedy. Though it would have broken his heart to do so, Sam may have gained hold of Frodo and tossed him in. They could also both fall into the fires. I believe that Eru's intervention finished the quest in a way which would cause no more terrible harm: the twisted Gollum would take the ring and, to spare Frodo from knocking Gollum in, whether through struggle or will, and to spare Sam from killing the one his master had faith in, Eru simply made Gollum fall off. No additional pain for the hobbits, and Gollum died in the most merciful way he could.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

However, I believe that when Eru took matters into his own hands, he was preventing further tragedy. Though it would have broken his heart to do so, Sam may have gained hold of Frodo and tossed him in. They could also both fall into the fires. I believe that Eru's intervention finished the quest in a way which would cause no more terrible harm

A sound hypothesis. One can imagine Sam torn, appalled
at Mr. Frodo and his virtual insanity, and also thinking of
Rosie, the Gaffer, etc. But would he have just dispatched
Frodo or fallen in (deliberately) as part of his desperate
effort to get rid of the Ring?
Hmm.

[Rikae]

I voted for option 3, and as for my reasons, Fordim already explained them quite well.

As far as why, or how consciously, I find it interesting to speculate about - was it the oath he had made on "the precious" and broken? Was it (as I'm inclined to believe) the hatred of the ring that coexisted with his love for it: the "Smeagol" side of him hating what it had done to him? Or was it as another poster suggested on the "hero of the third age" thread, love for Frodo?

[Boromir88]

I could see it being Option C, had Gollum actually, truly and fully repented. In Letter #94, 96, and 246, Tolkien stresses that Gollum nearly repented...and he would have fully repented had it not been for Sam's harsh words at the crucial moment (when Sam mistakes Gollum's 'pawing' at Frodo). Had this happened, and Gollum truly repented from the Ring, here's what Tolkien felt like Gollum would have done on Mount Doom:

"But possession satisfied I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo’s sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss"~Letter 246

However, in the story that we are given, Gollum didn't truly repent, so I don't think Option C...he jumped in voluntarily, was what really happened....as it is set up as a 'what if scenario' by Tolkien.

Somebody remarked that Option A seems to coincidental and I think that's a good way of putting it. I mean here's this long journey reached by Frodo and Sam, and Gollum just happened to slip in...story over. What's the lesson here, what's the importance of this moment during the Ring's destruction? (If you think there is one). I just don't think it's Tolkien's style to simply have the Ring's end, along with Sauron's, based on something as accidental as a slip. But, I'm often somebody that tries to look deeply into everything...as if there's some coded message.

I did vote for Option B, but I think it can also go hand and hand with Option D. I chose B instead because I think it goes better with two key morals of the story that are set up from the very beginning over the book...and that is Pity and Mercy. These two are stressed from the very beginning of the book with Gandalf's warning about don't be too eager to pass out death and judgement...also stressing the importance of Bilbo's Pity towards Gollum when he gets the Ring. It continues with Aragorn, Theoden, and others offering to spare Grima's life, despite the horrible treacheries he has done. Then our heroes go on to offer Saruman his own redemption. Therefor I think Pity and Mercy are themes that would continue throughout the story...and I think they certainly do.

Frodo spares Gollum's life and this is the important fact that Tolkien stresses. Elladan has quoted these in full above, but I'll just take a few brief exerpts to illustrate my point. If we look at this Letter (#192) by itself, it certainly looks like Eru destroyed the Ring (along with Gollum) simply because he felt like doing it, and because he COULD do it:

Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power and will, 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' (as one critic has said)

Taking this quote by itself it looks like Eru just got involved because he could do it and he wanted to, but I think this is taken out of context without some other Letters to go with it (181 and 246):

'But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'savation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would ceratinly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical beleif in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end- but by a 'grace' that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil, deed was the most beneficial thing any one could have done for Frodo! By a situation , created by his 'forgiveness',he was saved himself and releived of his burden.'

''Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest hounour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.''~Letter 246

It wasn't such a simply matter as Eru felt like destroying the Ring so it was done. He decided to step in because Frodo had failed in his attempt...however Eru felt like Frodo deserved to have that failure redressed, to have it absolved and relieve Frodo of the Ring, because of Frodo's Pity towards Gollum.

Now, the conflict comes that all these quotes are from Letters Tolkien wrote about after writing the books and reflecting upon how he felt about them. So, whether somebody reads the story and feels the same way is up to them. I do think that Pity and Mercy are consistant re-occuring themes throughout the entire books, therefor because of Frodo's Pity it was Eru who decided to step in and cause Gollum's fall...destroying the Ring.

Also, if we think about Option B, it wouldn't be all that unusual, or something that would strike me as 'out of the ordinary.' Considering this wouldn't have been the first time Eru would have stuck his hands into the fate of Middle-earth...As he was the one who took up the Valar's mission of sending the Istari and sent Gandalf back with a power boost to deal with Theoden and Saruman.