Failure and Punishment

[Raynor]

He acted as if he was eaten up with guilt, feelings that Tolkien confirmed in one of his letters.

I don't think that the guilts of which the professor speaks (desire to return as a hero and regret for the ring) are genuine ones - they are called in letter #246 as a flicker of the dark, one blacker than the other. Seeing that Tolkien wanted Frodo to end up "highminded, ennobled and rarefied", coupled with his chosen solitude & dark thoughts, I would say that the hobbits were perceptive and respectful enough to give him the air that he needed, sort of speaking.

With only a few exceptions, Silm recounts story after story of great and powerful Elves and mighty Numenoreans who fell flat on their faces when they tried to combat the power of the Dark Lord.

Well, technically, there weren't any numenoreans before the fall of Melkor.

When the situation is seen in that perspective it's downright amazing that Frodo, with the help of Sam, managed to do as well as he did, despite all his very real personal shortdcomings (and there were many).

Indeed; also, in the letters, Beren is seen as a precursor to the hobbits, sort of speaking:

Originally Posted by Letter #131

The chief of the stories of the Silmarillion, and the one most fully treated is the Story of Beren and Luthien the Elfmaiden. Here we meet, among other things, the first example of the motive (to become dominant in Hobbits) that the great policies of world history, 'the wheels of the world', are often turned not by the Lords and Governors, even gods, but by the seemingly unknown and weak – owing to the secret life in creation, and the pan unknowable to all wisdom but One, that resides in the intrusions of the Children of God into the Drama. It is Beren the outlawed monal who succeeds (with the help of Luthien, a mere maiden even if an elf of royalty) where all the armies and warriors have failed: he penetrates the stronghold of the Enemy and wrests one of the Silmarilli from the Iron Crown. Thus he wins the hand of Luthien and the first marriage of mortal and immortal is achieved.

which puts an interesting, clearer, light on Elrond's words at the council:

But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you. But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right; and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together your seat should be among them.

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by D*P

What do you think of Carter's assertion that Frodo's wounds were inflicted as a sort of punishment for his failures?

punishment:A penalty imposed for wrongdoing
consequence:an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
Many people confuse consequence and punishment, I believe Carter is one of them.

Originally Posted by D*P

I had never before considered that some at least of his misfortunes were, in part at least, his own fault.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Why was it folly that led to Frodo being stabbed on Weathertop? I doubt he could have escaped the Witch-King even if he hadn't used the ring. The sting was clearly Frodo's fault, though I'm not sure if overconfidence is the right term.

To some extent, if Frodo was found totally faultless in everything then that implies to me that he was a puppet with no thought or opinion or choice of his own.
Interesting, Macalaure, I think opposite. I agree that Frodo would not have escaped the wraiths on weathertop but perhaps they could've held them off long enough for Strider to come. Certainly, if Frodo hadn't put on the ring, they would not have zeroed in on him.
Why do you find Frodo to be at fault with Shelob? Please explain because I still haven't found my books and I only recall that he was delirious and therefore was semi-conscious of his surroundings.

Originally Posted by D*P

Is this contrast the reason why Frodo is not held in higher esteem among the hobbits on his return to the Shire? Rather than being wounded in victorious combat, he is struck down as a result of "folly, overconfidence and weakness" (to use Carter's words).

Other than a few close friends, Cottons and Gaffer, the others probably didn't even really listen to Frodo's part of the quest. It doesn't sound like he was ever in the mood to talk to people about it and only Sam was there the entire time. As was said in the story, they held in esteem the bravery they witnessed themselves.

Originally Posted by Mr.U

What strikes me right off is that Frodo might have viewed things not too far differently from Carter's analysis.

Originally Posted by Bb

Does Frodo feel a sense of failure? Why? What causes him to put such a high judgement upon himself?

That awful thing "hindsight is 20/20". It's nature to look back and even if we know we did the best at that time there is the critical eye that points out where we went wrong or could've done better. Even Gandalf told Bilbo to keep notes so he could point out his mistakes (the Hobbit) .

Originally Posted by Bb

Would that cause (high judgement) be related to what motivated him to accept bearing the Ring? Is there a special psychology to being this kind of Ring bearer? Does Frodo begin with a burden of confidence?

I don't think Frodo was burdened with confidence-I also don't think he belittled himself either, he was confident in Gandalf's confidence. As for taking on the ring, I think whether he felt fit or not he knew in his heart at the time of councel it would be him.

[doug*platypus]

Interesting discussion so far, everyone! Thanks to all for your contributions. From the wording in the quote given in Post #1 Carter seemed to have taken it as a given that Frodo did commit wrongs, and was punished as a result. I'm sure he would be interested to see that the majority of posters here disagree with him, and that we are all ready to spring to Frodo's defence!

Frodo was, and still remains, my favourite character in the book, and I personally think that if he did do wrong, it was minor and forgiveable. After all, the quest was fulfilled because of his strong will and remarkable resistance to the Ring, with the help of Samwise, and as a direct result (as has been mentioned earlier) of the pity and mercy with which he treated Sméagol. I had never conceived of Frodo as guilty of any real mistakes until reading the Carter quotation.

Bêthberry, the "mistake of fact" which most readily springs to mind is that Carter referred to Éowyn as Théoden's daughter. I can't recall any others, but they were all minor errors in reading that seemed to give the overall impression that Carter may have only read the book once or twice, and not completely soaked in all the details yet.

Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision? I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir).

What do people think of the other folk that I mentioned: Boromir, Fëanor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Thingol. Did Tolkien dish out "just desserts" to these characters as a consequence (thanks, Holbytlass!) of their ignoble actions?

[Thinlómien]

Is it folly that causes Frodo to put the Ring on in Weathertop?
Well, the deed is foolish, yes, but not it's not done out of folly. I don't think putting the Ring on in Weathertop was Frodo's folly, after all, it was the terribly strong presence of the nazgûls added to the Ring's natural lure that drove him to it. I would be ready to hold Frodo irresponsible the same way as people with serious mental illnesses or under heavy drugs.

Is it overconfidence that causes Frodo to get attacked by Shelob?
Overconfidence? Maybe over-delight or over-carelessness could be a better word for it. Anyway, I can't see how Frodo and Sam, or anyone, would have managed to completely fool and flee Shelob. The Hobbits were very lucky and accomplished to get that far and survive that well. If you ask a hobbit to jump three metres to the air, can you really punish him if he jumps 2,5m?

Is it weakness that causes Frodo to fail on Mount Doom?
Yes it is. But it's not Frodo's personal flaw, it's a general human (hobbit/elf/dwarf/orc/whatever) weakness. So again, why should he be punished?

On the other hand, his behaviour in the Prancing Pony was folly and all the punishments he received for that were some harsh words by Strider.

And the loss of Merry's ponies (and thus a steed) and Butterbur's money and bedclothes (so maybe guilty conscience for him?), to be nit-picky.

Originally Posted by Boro

If you make an oath you better be prepared to live up to it or face the consequences. Just ask the Men of Dunharrow or Feanor.

Or his sons...

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by doug*platypus

Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision? I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir).

My personal problem with 'sin' is, that it is a religious term. All the wrongdoings in Tolkien's works (except maybe those which are directly opposed to Eru) are not given a religious perspective, or if so then I haven't seen it so far.
If I follow you correctly, then Frodo's sin was his weakness, his inability to withstand the temptation of the ring at the end. But can you hold somebody morally responsible for something that was outside his ability? Also, it's hard for me to imagine anybody would have had the strength to destroy the ring at that point (Isildur could have, I guess, because Sauron's presence was not present at the time). This could mean, in consequence, that everybody's a sinner because they are unable to entirely resist evil.
nah...

Originally Posted by doug*platypus

What do people think of the other folk that I mentioned: Boromir, Fëanor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Thingol. Did Tolkien dish out "just desserts" to these characters as a consequence (thanks, Holbytlass!) of their ignoble actions?

Surely not. I can't think of one character in LotR or Silm who doesn't meet the end they deserve. It's all "right", if you know what I mean. But I don't think we need 'sins' for this. There seems to be a general understanding in the books about what is good (pity, f.ex.) and what is bad (betrayal, f.ex.), morally/ethically, without anything remotely like the Ten Commandments or something.
If Tolkien doesn't call the wrongdoings sins, I just see no reason why we should.

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

Why do you find Frodo to be at fault with Shelob? Please explain because I still haven't found my books and I only recall that he was delirious and therefore was semi-conscious of his surroundings.

And that was his fault, I think. You don't walk into Mordor like that. As I said, overconfidence is the wrong word, but Shelob wouldn't have gotten him otherwise. It's not a moral fault or a sin, but it was Frodo's bad.

[The Saucepan Man]

I don’t think that Frodo can be seen as having ever been guilty of moral wrongdoing, so I would agree that “sin” is an inappropriate word to use in the context of his struggles.

That said, he is not a “perfect” hero. He does succumb to folly and misjudgement on occasion, as indeed do almost all of the characters on the side of good (even the likes of Gandalf and Aragorn). Which, is as it should be, in terms of their believability as characters. And also in terms of the credibility of the story itself.

The impact of LotR largely turns on the reader believing in the sheer power of the evil with which the protagonists are faced. Sauron is only indirectly portrayed in the tale, largely by “proxy” through his minions and through the Ring itself. So, it is imperative that the Ring, as the principal evil “character” in the story, is seen and accepted by the reader as a powerful, practically irresistible, force for evil. This is portrayed through the effect that it has on the other characters, notably the likes of Gollum, Boromir and Galadriel, but also directly through its effect on Frodo - in scenes such as those which take place in Bree, on Weathertop and on the final struggle through Mordor towards Orodruin.

The most important scene, in this regard, is of course that which takes place at Sammath Naur. I distinctly remember thinking, when I first read the story, what an anticlimax it would be if, when Frodo and Sam finally reached the Crack of Doom, Frodo simply tossed the Ring in. At the same time as being shocked and horrified by Frodo’s “failure” to do so, I was also relieved in a way that this object of great evil and power was not so easily destroyed. It kind of justified the rest of the tale, if you know what I mean. The manner in which the Ring does meet its end is a masterpiece of story-telling, since it manages to avoid anticlimax, while nevertheless achieving a satisfactory resolution of the Quest.

Frodo did not sin and nor (in terms of what was, or could be, expected of him) did he fail. But neither, thankfully, was he the perfect, all-conquering hero. Frodo’s frailties are an important aspect of the literary effect of the tale, as they contribute both to his credibility as a character and to the portrayal of the sheer power of the Ring and (by implication) its maker.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

I don't think Frodo was burdened with confidence-I also don't think he belittled himself either, he was confident in Gandalf's confidence. As for taking on the ring, I think whether he felt fit or not he knew in his heart at the time of councel it would be him.

By burden of confidence I meant he lacks confidence. He is a loner, he has a few close friends, but not a wide social group. Even before the journey to Rivendell, he is distanced from the majority of hobbits. He lacks at least social confidence and a sense of closeness with these denizens, despite his very strong love for the Shire and for his fellow hobbits. My musings wondered if this insecurity or lack of confidence is what, ironically, empowers him to accept the burden of Ring bearer. He who belongs tangentially accepts the act which will make him the supreme saviour. Yet when he returns, he is just as much a loner as before. He never wins the kind of relationships which Sam's close network provide. As I said before, what is the role of his bereavement in his psychology?

Originally Posted by doug*platypus

Bêthberry, the "mistake of fact" which most readily springs to mind is that Carter referred to Éowyn as Théoden's daughter. I can't recall any others, but they were all minor errors in reading that seemed to give the overall impression that Carter may have only read the book once or twice, and not completely soaked in all the details yet.

Well, that just strengthens the suggestion that he based his interpretation of Frodo on a flimsy reading, then, eh?

Originally Posted by doup*p

Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision? I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir).

Well, I suppose we could consider how much Tolkien's "long defeat" partakes of Catholic ideas of human fallibility. However, his mythology lacks an "original sin" on the part of either humans or hobbits. As I suggested on The Silm chapter by chapter discussion, there is no "fall" among the children.

Another reason why it seems to me that the word 'sin' does not belong in Middle-earth is its connotations. While philosophically it can be argued that the word merely denotes separation from God, it is a word highly marked by extreme connotations of wickedness and depravity. There's something morbid about it which does not seem to me to fit with Middle-earth's sad longing and recognition that evil will always be with us.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry,

I think you've hit the nail on the hand when you draw attention to the connotations of the word "sin". It's possible to have a simple definition of sin that only mentions the commission of illegal or immoral actions. But even if we lay aside questions of depravity or deliberate intention, there is another thorny question involved. Most definitions of "sin" have a religious underpining and are inextricably tied to the concept of God.

Here are some definitions:

answer.com: A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Theology.
Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

Columbia Uni. Press: sin, in religion, unethical act. The term implies disobedience to a personal God, as in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and is not used so often in systems such as Buddhism where there is no personal divinity.


Britannica: Wrongdoing, particularly the breaking of moral or religious rules. In the Hebrew scriptures, sin is viewed as a hatred of God or defiance of his commandments. The New Testament regards sinfulness as the inherent state of humanity, which Jesus came into the world to heal. Christian theologians divide sin into actual and original sin. Actual sin, consisting of evil acts, words, and deeds, is in turn divided into mortal sin, in which the perpetrator deliberately turns away from God, and venial sin, a less serious transgression committed without full awareness of wrongdoing.

If we accept definitions like these, then we've got a problem that is much bigger than Frodo. Since sin requires disobedience to or estrangement from God and/or disobedience to the known will of God, I don't see how Frodo or any other man of the Third or Fourth Age could possibly sin. There was such a huge gulf between Eru and his created world. How can you hate God or reject his will when you don't even know him or his commandments?

God's commandments may be etched in men's hearts as moral law, but men of Arda had little sense of where those commandments were coming from. It would be possible for a Valar or a Maier to sin, or perhaps even a being like an Elf or Balrog who had once lived in the Blessed Lands and had more of an idea who Eru was. But how can we hold men of Middle-earth accountable in terms of deliberate sin when knowledge of God was so limited to them? Men knew more about the Dark Lord and his minions than they did about Eru or the Vala. This isn't surprising since the former regularly showed their faces in the world, while the latter had almost wholly withdrawn by the beginning of the Third Age. Men and women of Arda could actively fight for evil or good, transgress or uphold the innate moral code, or display character flaws, but they could not sin in the way we use that word, even a lowlife like Wormtongue.

Just consider this discussion in terms of Frodo. The closest that Frodo came to knowing "God" was seeing the light reflected in the eyes of the Elves or having deep discussions with Gandalf. Most hobbits and men wouldn't even have known that much. When Frodo saw the men of Gondor stand at the table and turn to face Numenor and the West in the manner of a blessing (Eru isn't even mentioned, mind you!), he felt ashamed for his lack of knowledge. How could God hold man accountable for that which he doesn't know? As to what happened to Frodo in the Blessed Lands, whether his understanding and knowledge increased, that is a story that we can only guess at.

P.S. If someone wants to hold my feet to the fire and insist I use the term, I'd prefer the Catholic concept of 'venial sin'.

[Raynor]

Tolkien was in fact "annoyed" by the fact that readers perceived that Middle Earth had no religion:

Originally Posted by Letter #165

The only criticism that annoyed me was one that it 'contained no religion' (and 'no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of 'natural theology'. The odd fact that there are no churches, temples, or religious rites and ceremonies, is simply part of the historical climate depicted. It will be sufficiently explained, if (as now seems likely) the Silmarillion and other legends of the First and Second Ages are published.

In his 1971 BBC interview, Tolkien stated that God/Eru is mentioned in LotR, the probable referrences being:

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

- Lor bless you, Mr. Gandalf, sir! said Sam. Nothing! Leastways I was just trimming the grass-border under the window, if you follow me.
...
- I heard a deal that I didn't rightly understand, about an enemy, and rings, and Mr. Bilbo, sir, and dragons, and a fiery mountain, and – and Elves, sir. I listened because I couldn't help myself, if you know what I mean. Lor bless me, sir, but I do love tales of that sort.

Originally Posted by A conspiracy unmasked, FotR

- Lawks! said Merry, looking in. The stone floor was swimming. You ought to mop all that up before you get anything to eat. Peregrin, he said. Hurry up, or we shant wait for you.

Interestingly enough, these referrences are made by common people. There are also various other referrences to fate or good fortune, made all the way by Sam, Gildor, Elrond, Boromir, Aragorn or Galadriel. All in all, I would say that Frodo did have the required knowledge (arguably on a profane level) to make an informed decision whether an act was sinful or not.

Moreover, in the Fourth Age that Child mentioned, it is speculated by Tolkien that the worship of Eru will be renewed, in the sense that more than it was so at the end of the third age:

Originally Posted by Letter #156

It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard.

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by Bb

By burden of confidence I meant he lacks confidence

Oh. I saw it as a person who has confidence may be burdened with always having to be confident, even in a situation they feel they are not. In that case I agree with what you stated, except I think Frodo was even more of a loner when he came back. He certainly isolated himself which consequently worsened his situation.
What is the role of his bereavement in his psychology?(Bb)
One thing we have to keep in mind is that the ring was literally ripped from his hands and destroyed at the peak of his lust for it. At the time when he fully gave himself-heart, mind, body, soul to it by "claiming" it as his own. That certainly will and did leave emotional scarring. Hence Frodo's pining away for the ring even though he knows it was for the greater good of himself and MiddleEarth that it was destroyed.

Originally Posted by D*P

Did Tolkien dish out "just desserts" to these characters as a consequence of their ignoble actions?

Did Boromir really have to die? In terms of consequence, Boromir's actions of trying to take the ring from Frodo caused Frodo to utterly fear him and fear what the ring's influence would be on the others so he left the fellowship. Frodo still feared him untill he found out about his death from Faramir. And I would hazard a guess that he thought better of Boromir when told how his death came about in helping his friiends.
Boromir protected Merry and Pippin because Aragorn (in book) told him to go after them and help fix the mischief he caused when everyone was scattering in a panic to find Frodo. As we know he dies fighting for them. His death may be a blessing in disguise because it definitely raises his esteem in everyone's eyes and Boromir being a warrior/protector died in probably the way he has always wished. I think it was ablessing also because I don't think Boromir could really live with himself for succoming to such weakness-bullying and taking away something from some one half his height, third his weight and less fighting skills, a noble warrior would never do that. Now this would be a person who would beat himself up for the rest of his life- a person with my definition of having a "burden of confidence".

[Raynor]

One thing we have to keep in mind is that the ring was literally ripped from his hands and destroyed at the peak of his lust for it. At the time when he fully gave himself-heart, mind, body, soul to it by "claiming" it as his own. That certainly will and did leave emotional scarring. Hence Frodo's pining away for the ring even though he knows it was for the greater good of himself and MiddleEarth that it was destroyed..

I don't think that his free will had the tinniest bit to do with his claiming of the ring; I also believe that we can safely attribute his regret of the ring to the power of evil. Were it not for the ring's ability to affect minds, I think he would have cast it away and lived happy with it.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Raynor,

Although this is a side road, I wanted to respond since this bears on the discussion of whether "sin" can be legitimately applied to Middle-earth. The whole question of the extent to which Eru was known by Arda's inhabitants has always intrigued me, so please forgive me if I run on a bit. This is as much for myself as you. I also wanted to add that I don't believe there is a simple "right" answer here, although it's valuable to search for one.

First, this is a very different question than the one we usually raise: to what degree LotR was "Catholic" in its revisions. I do agree that Tolkien gradually incorporated much Christian and Catholic content and symbolism into the later revisions of his book. Eru's hand and providence stand behind much of the story, but it was generally a hidden hand. The reader, if so inclined, could see it; the characters less so.

Tolkien never introduced a clear set of religious or theological beliefs to the men of Middle-earth. We are in a pre-revelation world, although one where men were expected to act according to an innate sense of goodness. We see morals and philosophy but no modes of worship other than Meneltarma, which I'll get to in a moment. The only exception to this pre-revelation rule were the stories by Andreth and Adanel found in Morgoth's Ring written in the last years of Tolkien's life.

Eru is consistently portrayed as a distant King who does not interfere after the music is laid down. There are exceptions. Tolkien stated that Manwe did consult Eru and very rarely Eru would decide to bend the rules of the natural world such as he did for Beren and Luthien. The author also wrote that "the cases of Luthien (and Tuor) and the position of their descendents was a direct act of God." (When Tolkien wanted to be direct, he certainly could!)

Rather, it's the Valar who maintain all contact with the peoples of Middle-earth, although they had drastically cut back on this by the Third Age. Moreover, Tolkien was in a dicey spot. He didn't want to suggest that the peoples of Arda were "worshipping" the Valar. Even the "prayers" offered by the men of Gondor were not diected at Eru or the Valar, but were simply a moment to face west and remember Numenor and the lands of Elvenhome that lay beyond.

The real question to me is what did "men" know of Eru? How often did He enter into their mind? Just how big was that gulf? The Elves would have known who Eru was through the tales of the Silmarillion even if they had not been present in Valinor; the "good" men of Numenor and Beleriand might also know something if only because they came in contact with Elves. I assume this kind of information and belief would have been passed down in families into the Third Age. But such families were a minority.

I'm not comfortable using colloquial expressions as "proof" that God was part of the life of the average hobbit. The book also contains a reference to an express train but no one would say that this was a literal fact in the Shire. Rather I get the feeling that the author uses such off-beat "archaic" references to convey a particular feeling to the reader.

These quotations in the Letters may be helpful. It suggests that at least the "good" men knew of the existence of God but that he was a very remote presence even in their lives:

There are no temples or churches or ganes in this world among "good" peoples. they had little or no religion in the sense of worship. For help they may call on a Vala (as Elbereth) as a Catholic might on a Saint....But this is a primitive age: and these folk may be said to view the Valar as children view their parents or immediate adult superiors, and though they know they are subjects of the King he does not live in their country nor have there any dwelling. I do not think Hobbits praced any form of worship or prayer (unless through exceptional contact with Elves). The Numenoreans ....were pure monotheists, But there was no temple in Numenor (until Sauron introduced the cult of Morgoth). The top of the Mountain, the Meneltarma or Pillar of Heaven, was dedicated to Eru, the One, and there at any time privately and at certain times publicly, God was involked, praised and adored: an imitation of the Valar and the Mountain of Aman. But Numenor fell and was destroyed and the Mountain engulfed, and there was no substitute. Among the exiles, remenents of the Faithful who had not adopted the false religion nor taken part in the rebellion, religion as divine worship seems to have played a small part.....

Let me digress back to Frodo, which is where the whole question of "sin" started. Frodo was definitely quieter and more reflective than the average hobbit (though he had rowdy moments as well.). Both he and Sam verbally invoke Elbereth in tough situations. Sam tells us that there was a light in Frodo's eyes, and Gandalf also saw a light shining through his body, like a tiny sliver of one of the Silmarils. Part of the story of the trek to Mordor was the growth of that light and presumably the awareness that lay behind that light as well as Frodo's capacity to feel pity and mercy. These two are surely linked. Frodo had heard the stories of the ancient Elvish lore from Bilbo when he lived with him. If any hobbit should have been aware of Eru, it was definitely Frodo. Yet when he has dinner with Faramir and saw his men rise to face West, he is filled with a feeling of sadness. Frodo feels ashamed that the Shire has no observence like this and that he knows nothing of such things.

That to me is poignant. The "very best" hobbit knows enough to grieve for the great gulf that stands between him and the light, but he can not bridge that gap on his own without the support of his community. As good and decent as hobbits are, that kind of support does not exist for Frodo. It's surely one of the reasons why he's eventually compelled to leave for the Havens. On one level Frodo needs healing; on the other he has outgrown the Shire. And if the gulf is wide for Frodo, it's much wider for the average hobbit. And of course even this limited knowledge was not available to the Men of the east and others who followed Sauron.

Good and evil definitely existed in Arda and people chose sides but the word "sin" doesn't apply. In a pre-revelation world, Eru is too distant a figure: the gulf between man and deity is fixed. There's so much that these men and hobbits do not know or understand. In a religious sense, "sin" can only exist when there is a willful rejection of God. In my mind, there can be no true rejection until God chooses to reveal himself in a more direct manner. Tolkien surely sensed this when he chose to write out the Athrabeth in the final years of his life. It was a personal testament to his desire to somehow bridge that gap, written in terms familiar to him in the "real" world.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

What is the role of his bereavement in his psychology?(Bb)
One thing we have to keep in mind is that the ring was literally ripped from his hands and destroyed at the peak of his lust for it. At the time when he fully gave himself-heart, mind, body, soul to it by "claiming" it as his own. That certainly will and did leave emotional scarring. Hence Frodo's pining away for the ring even though he knows it was for the greater good of himself and MiddleEarth that it was destroyed.

Oh dear, I am not doing a very good job being specific, am I? The bereavement I referred to was the one I mentioned earlier, that of the survivor child whose parents have died while he was young. What effect did that loss have on his psychology?

As to this discussion between Child and Raynor, I think it shows the difficulty in agreeing what texts are applicable. doug*p's original post began with LotR and Frodo and then considered ifThe Silm provided characters who were treated differently than Frodo is. Using The Silm to explain LotR is a different matter.

We can quote the Letters and HoMe and the Silm 'till the entwives come home, but how relevant are those texts in terms of elucidating Lord of the Rings? Either that story stands on its own, and we consider just the evidence given there, or it becomes an incomplete story which makes sense only by recourse to these other undeclared texts. This is the perennial conundrum in Tolkien.

EDIT: oops, cross posted with the Pan Man