Well, Frodo, it's nice to see you again, but... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë · 05-10-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legolas

I'm not sure why you quoted me,

I suppose I was responding to what you said about how it might appear if the other Hobbits had come back to Rivendell to tell Bilbo about Frodo's death. It immediately brought to mind the situation of fellow servicemen coming home to tell those left what had happened to their relatives. How that led into what else I said, that's just Lalwende Logic...

To me, it makes perfect sense that Frodo came back alive but broken. He demonstrated the effects of the Ring to others, he acted as Tolkien's 'sacrificial' figure, and the end was all the more bittersweet. There was the relief that Frodo lived, but then the horror of what had happened to him; the world was changed after the Ring was destroyed, and in that sense, Frodo was emblematic of that change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpM

I have a very clear memory of thinking, when I was first reading LotR, what an anti-climax it would be if they made it to Mount Doom and simply threw the Ring in. Notwothstanding the travails of actually getting to Orodruin, it would just have seemed too easy. Perversely, therefore, I was actually rather relieved when Frodo claimed the Ring as his own and refused to destroy it. In consequence, the events of Sammath Naur were (and remain) utterly compelling to me and thankfully brought no sense of anti-climax whatsoever.

I don't remember thinking that clearly about the end! I was probably just thinking "whoa!" at the time.

But afterwards, it always stayed with me as an incredible climax to the story. At that age I was used to the traditional 'happy ending' to a story, and on one level, LOTR does have a happy ending - Frodo Lives! And then he gets to go and live with the Elves! I remember thinking wow...they all live happily ever after. But it isn't really like that at all. That only struck me some time after finishing the book. I now think it is the perfect ending to the story, and even more, that Gollum's death was the perfect way for his character to be 'signed off'.

I wonder would Gollum still have been the one to destroy the Ring if Frodo had died at Cirith Ungol? I don't honestly think it would have been possible, and so we would have lost that perfcet ending.

mormegil · 05-10-2006, 05:47 PM

I would echo what Davem so eloquently stated and add my few thoughts. Frodo's 'death' was needed for Samwise to become a hero and overcome his greatest obstacle and show that he could sacrifice his master to accomplish the task. However if Frodo had in fact died, in the end it would have defeated poor Sam. He cared too much and was to dedicated to Frodo. Samwise would have returned a crushed and defeated man with no future. I think it would be similar to Frodo's fate after the ring but different in that it was a combination of the ring and the loss of Frodo.

davem · 05-11-2006, 05:21 AM

Mormegil makes an important point here. If Frodo had succeeded in the Quest & lived happily ever after it would have trivialised the whole story, but if Frodo had died & Sam had been broken by the Quest (whether he succeeded or not) the end would have been too bleak. Tolkien succeeds wonderfully by having both Sam & Frodo come through to the end. Frodo's breaking brings home the sacrifice required in the detruction of the Ring, Sam's happy marriage shows us it was worthwhile. Frodo's words at the end (some people have to give things up so that others may keep them) sums this all up beautifully.

Frodo's end is the catastrophe, Sam's the Eucatastrophe that gives it meaning. The odd thing, if you think about it, is that this 'Eucatastrophe' is 'merely' Sam going home to his wife & child & sitting in his chair by the fireside with Elanor on his lap. Yet Tolkien has seemed (in OFS) to imply that a Eucatastrophe is much bigger that that - that it offers a 'glimpse beyond the circles of the world' & compares it to the Resurrection of Christ.

Sam's return, the end of the story, is small, intimate, mundane. And of course that's what the whole thing has been for - all the loss, the suffering , the sacrifice. Not to defeat Sauron, or place Aragorn on the Throne of Gondor - those are means to the real end, which is to make it possible for all the Sams to return to their Rosies & sit by the fire with their children on their laps. Because in the end that's all that really matters. The slaughter at Helm's Deep, on the Fields of the Pelennor, the long slow slog up Orodruin (or further back - its the purpose of the Ainulindale, the reason Beren & Luthien entered Thangorodrim & faced Morgoth, why Earendel crossed the Sea to ask aid of the Valar). It was all so that Sam could sit by his fireside & dandle Elanor on his lap. And all the evil, the cruelty & hate-fired destruction of Morgoth, Sauron & their minions was for the opposite reason - all to prevent Sam sitting in his favourite old chair with Elanor on his lap.

So, that one scene is the great eucatastrophe of the whole Legendarium, the most sublime depiction of the victory of Good over Evil imaginable. That's why it has to end at that point, why Frodo had to survive beyond Cirith Ungol: so that there was another who could make the sacrifice of their beloved things so that Sam didn't have to sacrifice his own.

05-10-2006, 05:47 PM	#2
mormegil Maundering Mage Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 4,651	I would echo what Davem so eloquently stated and add my few thoughts. Frodo's 'death' was needed for Samwise to become a hero and overcome his greatest obstacle and show that he could sacrifice his master to accomplish the task. However if Frodo had in fact died, in the end it would have defeated poor Sam. He cared too much and was to dedicated to Frodo. Samwise would have returned a crushed and defeated man with no future. I think it would be similar to Frodo's fate after the ring but different in that it was a combination of the ring and the loss of Frodo. __________________ “I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

05-11-2006, 05:21 AM	#3
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	Mormegil makes an important point here. If Frodo had succeeded in the Quest & lived happily ever after it would have trivialised the whole story, but if Frodo had died & Sam had been broken by the Quest (whether he succeeded or not) the end would have been too bleak. Tolkien succeeds wonderfully by having both Sam & Frodo come through to the end. Frodo's breaking brings home the sacrifice required in the detruction of the Ring, Sam's happy marriage shows us it was worthwhile. Frodo's words at the end (some people have to give things up so that others may keep them) sums this all up beautifully. Frodo's end is the catastrophe, Sam's the Eucatastrophe that gives it meaning. The odd thing, if you think about it, is that this 'Eucatastrophe' is 'merely' Sam going home to his wife & child & sitting in his chair by the fireside with Elanor on his lap. Yet Tolkien has seemed (in OFS) to imply that a Eucatastrophe is much bigger that that - that it offers a 'glimpse beyond the circles of the world' & compares it to the Resurrection of Christ. Sam's return, the end of the story, is small, intimate, mundane. And of course that's what the whole thing has been for - all the loss, the suffering , the sacrifice. Not to defeat Sauron, or place Aragorn on the Throne of Gondor - those are means to the real end, which is to make it possible for all the Sams to return to their Rosies & sit by the fire with their children on their laps. Because in the end that's all that really matters. The slaughter at Helm's Deep, on the Fields of the Pelennor, the long slow slog up Orodruin (or further back - its the purpose of the Ainulindale, the reason Beren & Luthien entered Thangorodrim & faced Morgoth, why Earendel crossed the Sea to ask aid of the Valar). It was all so that Sam could sit by his fireside & dandle Elanor on his lap. And all the evil, the cruelty & hate-fired destruction of Morgoth, Sauron & their minions was for the opposite reason - all to prevent Sam sitting in his favourite old chair with Elanor on his lap. So, that one scene is the great eucatastrophe of the whole Legendarium, the most sublime depiction of the victory of Good over Evil imaginable. That's why it has to end at that point, why Frodo had to survive beyond Cirith Ungol: so that there was another who could make the sacrifice of their beloved things so that Sam didn't have to sacrifice his own. __________________ “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."