A Happy Ending... or is it? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

davem · 01-04-2006, 05:49 PM

(This is one of those posts that you don't know whether to submit or delete - well, no: you know you should delete it but you're too egotistical to bin your work....)

I've just finished a volume on Tolkien by Robley Evans in the 'Writers of the 70's series, published in 1972. He said something interesting, which I hadn't considered. This book was written before the Sil or even the Letters was published, & he mentions that Bilbo & Frodo had been granted immortality in the end - remember the 'Frodo Lives' buttons that were around in the 60's-70's?

We read LotR now with a lot of background knowledge that readers of that period didn't have. They didn't know that Frodo would eventually die in the Blessed Realm. For them Frodo was going to Heaven, to dwell eternally with the Elves. He would recieve an eternal reward in the West without actually dying.

What the post-LotR writings by JRRT have done is make his sojourn in the West a temporary thing for us, a transition period before he dies. This actually takes away the feeling that he has been rewarded for his sufferings on behalf of the people of Middle-earth. However long he got to spend in the West, he died. His time in the West is now seen (in Tolkien's words in one of the Letters) as a period in 'purgatory'. This effectively lessens the sense of 'completion' we feel when we read of his coming to Tol Eressea.

What I mean is, whether we think of Frodo's passage into the West as an allegory of his dying, or whether we see it as his going to the Earthly Paradise, the end of Frodo's story for us now is his death. He gets no 'reward'. Its as if Tolkien's essential pessimism could not allow him to let Frodo live on.

Perhaps this is the reason the ending of LotR is so moving. Everyone (apart from the Elves) dies. Whatever sacrifices they make, however much they suffer, there is no escape from death. Of course, Tolkien said LotR is about the inevitability of death. Sacrifices are made for others, so that they can go on to make sacrifices so that others still can go on. Its a story about 'sacrifice' for others. Frodo gives up his life for others, without thought for reward (which is good, because, in the long term he gets none - only a respite).

So, its about the inevitability of death & the necessity of sacrifice & the abscence of any real reward for it that we can know about or do anything much than hope for.

We could just put that down to Tolkien's pessimism - if we weren't so moved by the story. Are we also pessimists? Is that why we're moved?

Don't think so - if that was the explanation we'd finish the book with the feeling 'Huh! I knew it was like that!'

I think the sadness we feel is down to the fact that so many things have come to an end (both within the secondary world & in the primary - ie we've finished the book), but the happiness we feel is perhaps down to the fact that things do go on: Sam goes back to Rosie & Elanor, life goes on, etc, etc ...or

Maybe what we feel is not so much 'happiness' as 'completion', fulfillment, the feeling that it was all Right in the end. That we've been told a True story - that that's how the world is.

And I know none of that makes much sense.

Elladan and Elrohir · 01-04-2006, 10:13 PM

Well, it's absolutely correct that Tolkien intentionally designed the end of the book to be bittersweet. Fading and passing away is a theme that runs throughout the entire history of Middle-earth. Whether it's the Two Trees, the Noldor, the Silmarils, Numenor, or Frodo, nothing lasts forever, no matter how great or glorious it is. One day, Morgoth will return, and the Dagor Dagorath will, we must assume, wipe out many fair things.

And whether Tolkien meant it to be or not, I think that this theme in his work is a direct result of his Christian worldview. Fading is the way things are. Man lives for seventy years or however long, and then one day he dies. And he's gone, never coming back. Ultimately, fading is a result of sin.

Not intending to preach, but this is why I would face total despair, if I were not a Christian. Being such, I believe that in God, there is something that will never pass away, and one day I will join Him in a place that will never fade. It is the way of the world that all things must pass away, but one day everything will change and we will be ushered into eternity.

All right, enough of the theology. If I've offended you, I apologize; like I said, I'm not trying to preach, proselytize, or shove my religion down your throat; I'm just stating my beliefs, and I think Tolkien's were similar. Certainly, we see more than an indication of this in his works. We can assume that Eru Iluvatar, the God of Ea, never fades or passes away. And think of Galadriel's final words to Treebeard. "Not in Middle-earth, nor until the lands that lie under the wave are lifted up again. Then in the willow-meads of Tasarinan we may meet in the Spring. Farewell!"

yavanna II · 01-06-2006, 12:48 AM

I don't think Tolkien would have wanted a "too-sweet" ending, meaning everybody is perfectly happy, perfectly satisfied with the world.

Moreover I think he had been greatly influened by his religion (see Elladan & Elrohir's post above), and I do not think he made ME a perfect world, wherein once evil is defeated, it is forever banished. I remember old Dumbledore saying to Harry, "evil cannot be fully defeated... just kept at bay" (I can't quote this, since I haven't got my HPHBP).

I suppose it applies in our very own world, and in Arda too. They can't be 100% happy, the story's end has not got to be 100% happy.

~yavie

Gurthang · 01-07-2006, 03:16 PM

You know, I just realized that this is part of what makes The Hobbit so much different from LotR. The endings are so completely opposite.

The Hobbit ends, if I recall correctly, with Gandalf and Bilbo (and others, I think) sitting around smoking pipeweed and recounting how good it is to be back to life as normal. And that's what it is. Bilbo goes back to the Shire and continues like it was before his grand adventure, that is, of course, after he gets all his stuff back. But really, that ending is really a very happy ending and almost gives the 'happily ever after' feeling.

But with LotR, as is stated many times above, is not like that at all. It's not really negative, like 'they lived miserably ever after' but there's certainly no 'happily ever after.'

This makes me think that this is why the Hobbit, on the whole, seems like such a more pleasant and 'feel good' tale as compared to LotR. Sure, I love them both, but they are very different, and this suddenly makes a lot of sense as to why.

01-04-2006, 05:49 PM	#1
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	(This is one of those posts that you don't know whether to submit or delete - well, no: you know you should delete it but you're too egotistical to bin your work....) I've just finished a volume on Tolkien by Robley Evans in the 'Writers of the 70's series, published in 1972. He said something interesting, which I hadn't considered. This book was written before the Sil or even the Letters was published, & he mentions that Bilbo & Frodo had been granted immortality in the end - remember the 'Frodo Lives' buttons that were around in the 60's-70's? We read LotR now with a lot of background knowledge that readers of that period didn't have. They didn't know that Frodo would eventually die in the Blessed Realm. For them Frodo was going to Heaven, to dwell eternally with the Elves. He would recieve an eternal reward in the West without actually dying. What the post-LotR writings by JRRT have done is make his sojourn in the West a temporary thing for us, a transition period before he dies. This actually takes away the feeling that he has been rewarded for his sufferings on behalf of the people of Middle-earth. However long he got to spend in the West, he died. His time in the West is now seen (in Tolkien's words in one of the Letters) as a period in 'purgatory'. This effectively lessens the sense of 'completion' we feel when we read of his coming to Tol Eressea. What I mean is, whether we think of Frodo's passage into the West as an allegory of his dying, or whether we see it as his going to the Earthly Paradise, the end of Frodo's story for us now is his death. He gets no 'reward'. Its as if Tolkien's essential pessimism could not allow him to let Frodo live on. Perhaps this is the reason the ending of LotR is so moving. Everyone (apart from the Elves) dies. Whatever sacrifices they make, however much they suffer, there is no escape from death. Of course, Tolkien said LotR is about the inevitability of death. Sacrifices are made for others, so that they can go on to make sacrifices so that others still can go on. Its a story about 'sacrifice' for others. Frodo gives up his life for others, without thought for reward (which is good, because, in the long term he gets none - only a respite). So, its about the inevitability of death & the necessity of sacrifice & the abscence of any real reward for it that we can know about or do anything much than hope for. We could just put that down to Tolkien's pessimism - if we weren't so moved by the story. Are we also pessimists? Is that why we're moved? Don't think so - if that was the explanation we'd finish the book with the feeling 'Huh! I knew it was like that!' I think the sadness we feel is down to the fact that so many things have come to an end (both within the secondary world & in the primary - ie we've finished the book), but the happiness we feel is perhaps down to the fact that things do go on: Sam goes back to Rosie & Elanor, life goes on, etc, etc ...or Maybe what we feel is not so much 'happiness' as 'completion', fulfillment, the feeling that it was all Right in the end. That we've been told a True story - that that's how the world is. And I know none of that makes much sense. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

01-04-2006, 10:13 PM	#2
Elladan and Elrohir Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Halls of Mandos Posts: 332	Well, it's absolutely correct that Tolkien intentionally designed the end of the book to be bittersweet. Fading and passing away is a theme that runs throughout the entire history of Middle-earth. Whether it's the Two Trees, the Noldor, the Silmarils, Numenor, or Frodo, nothing lasts forever, no matter how great or glorious it is. One day, Morgoth will return, and the Dagor Dagorath will, we must assume, wipe out many fair things. And whether Tolkien meant it to be or not, I think that this theme in his work is a direct result of his Christian worldview. Fading is the way things are. Man lives for seventy years or however long, and then one day he dies. And he's gone, never coming back. Ultimately, fading is a result of sin. Not intending to preach, but this is why I would face total despair, if I were not a Christian. Being such, I believe that in God, there is something that will never pass away, and one day I will join Him in a place that will never fade. It is the way of the world that all things must pass away, but one day everything will change and we will be ushered into eternity. All right, enough of the theology. If I've offended you, I apologize; like I said, I'm not trying to preach, proselytize, or shove my religion down your throat; I'm just stating my beliefs, and I think Tolkien's were similar. Certainly, we see more than an indication of this in his works. We can assume that Eru Iluvatar, the God of Ea, never fades or passes away. And think of Galadriel's final words to Treebeard. "Not in Middle-earth, nor until the lands that lie under the wave are lifted up again. Then in the willow-meads of Tasarinan we may meet in the Spring. Farewell!" __________________ "If you're referring to the incident with the dragon, I was barely involved. All I did was give your uncle a little nudge out of the door." THE HOBBIT - IT'S COMING

01-06-2006, 12:48 AM	#3
yavanna II Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: in my own little world Posts: 142	I don't think Tolkien would have wanted a "too-sweet" ending, meaning everybody is perfectly happy, perfectly satisfied with the world. Moreover I think he had been greatly influened by his religion (see Elladan & Elrohir's post above), and I do not think he made ME a perfect world, wherein once evil is defeated, it is forever banished. I remember old Dumbledore saying to Harry, "evil cannot be fully defeated... just kept at bay" (I can't quote this, since I haven't got my HPHBP). I suppose it applies in our very own world, and in Arda too. They can't be 100% happy, the story's end has not got to be 100% happy. ~yavie Last edited by yavanna II; 01-06-2006 at 12:51 AM.

01-07-2006, 03:16 PM	#4
Gurthang Sword of Spirit Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Oh, I'm around. Posts: 1,401	You know, I just realized that this is part of what makes The Hobbit so much different from LotR. The endings are so completely opposite. The Hobbit ends, if I recall correctly, with Gandalf and Bilbo (and others, I think) sitting around smoking pipeweed and recounting how good it is to be back to life as normal. And that's what it is. Bilbo goes back to the Shire and continues like it was before his grand adventure, that is, of course, after he gets all his stuff back. But really, that ending is really a very happy ending and almost gives the 'happily ever after' feeling. But with LotR, as is stated many times above, is not like that at all. It's not really negative, like 'they lived miserably ever after' but there's certainly no 'happily ever after.' This makes me think that this is why the Hobbit, on the whole, seems like such a more pleasant and 'feel good' tale as compared to LotR. Sure, I love them both, but they are very different, and this suddenly makes a lot of sense as to why. __________________ I'm on a Mission from God.