Failure and Punishment

[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.

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

That's where I respectfully disagree. IMOP, there was a definite line and Frodo crossed it, from having to have it and claiming it. Bilbo had to have it, Gollum had to have it and even though Gollum toyed with the idea of claiming it (Gollum the great and making fat hobbits crawl) he knew there was a difference and did not; perhaps that could be argued since Gollum was shouting "it's mine" while falling off the cliff, but I stand by he was excited to have it in his possesion and not actually claiming it .
I agree with you that the ring affected minds but if free will really wasn't involved at all then Frodo would have lived happily after it was destroyed. I can see where Frodo would have been reluctant because of the ring to destroy it and still needed Gollum's intevntion for the deed to be done but since Frodo claimed it whether by punishment or consequence he suffered moreso.

[Raynor]

IMOP, there was a definite line and Frodo crossed it, from having to have it and claiming it.

I don't see that line, really, at least not in this context. I admit that there may be "silent" desires, which, even if very strong, are refulated, but not in this case. I believe that every ringbearer that ever had it and call it precious, _my_ precious, was claiming it also; I would say that all of them would have gone a long way, to put it mildly, to protect their exclusive ownership of the ring. The fact that the claiming (or wielding the ring or whatever) didn't result in actual mastership of the ring (for these ringbearers) is another matter altogether.

[Raynor]

Eru's hand and providence stand behind much of the story, but it was generally a hidden hand. The reader could see it; the character less so.

I disagree; I believe that all the characters that referred to fate/good fortune , that I mentioned previously, had a pretty good idea what actually lay behind.

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.

I would argue that we do have the elves who infuse Men with the knowledge of true religion, sort of speaking:

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed, HoME X

In their association with the warring Eldar Men were raised to their fullest achievable stature, and by the two marriages the transference to them, or infusion into Mankind, of the noblest Elf-strain was accomplished, in readiness for the still distant, but inevitably approaching, days when the Elves would 'fade'.

Originally Posted by Letter #131

The doom of the Elves is to be immortal, to love the beauty of the world, to bring it to full flower with their gifts of delicacy and perfection, to last while it lasts, never leaving it even when 'slain', but returning – and yet, when the Followers come, to teach them, and make way for them, to 'fade' as the Followers grow and absorb the life from which both proceed.

We also have Eonwe, herald of Manwe, teaching the numenoreans, giving them knowledge:

Originally Posted by Akallabeth, Silmarillion

Eonwe came among them and taught them; and they were given wisdom and power and life more enduring than any others of mortal race have possessed.

I also think that other heralds of the valar kept in touch with the numenoreans, even at the start of their dissent; the faithful numenoreans that made it to the shores did bring with them the knowledge of one true god:

Originally Posted by Letter #156

But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Numenor, who had refused to take pan in the rebellion (though many of them had been sacrificed in the Temple by the Sauronians) escaped in Nine Ships under the leadership of Elendil and his sons Isildur and Anárion, and established a kind of diminished memory of Numenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so.

Eru is consistently portrayed as a distant King who does not interfere after the music is laid down.

I disagree:

Originally Posted by Ainulindale, Silmarillion

Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past.

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna, Silmarillion

Then Manwe sat silent, and the thought of Yavanna that she had put into his heart grew and unfolded; and it was beheld by Iluvatar. Then it seemed to Manwe that the Song rose once more about him, and he heeded now many things therein that though he had heard them he had not heeded before. And at last the Vision was renewed, but it was not now remote, for he was himself within it, and yet he saw that all was upheld by the hand of Iluvatar; and the hand entered in, and from it came forth many wonders that had until then been hidden from him in the hearts of the Ainur.

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.

I don't think so; besides letter #156 concerning the renewing of worship, on a larger scale, we also have the worshipping of Eru, in its peculiar form, in Numenor.

The book also contains a reference to an express train but no one would say that this was a literal fact in the Shire.

Then again, I think we have enough grounds to call this a false comparison, the express train being part of other Middle-Earth anachronisms, such as golf, football, or pipweed (IIRC, tobacco came to Europe after Columbus), all these being secondary and adding to the colour of the story - while referrences to God are on a whole different level.

In my mind, there can be no true rejection until God chooses to reveal himself in a more direct manner.

Imo, a more direct manner is something very subjective; what can that be, even in our real world? A prophet, a burning bush, someone who calls himself his son? Isn't His manifestation something in the eye of the beholder, in fact? Haven't most of the heroes experienced miracles? What is a significantly direct manifestation? For me, Gandalf is enough of a direct manifestation or proof of His existence, as it is. What about the fall of Gollum?

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', 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).

Now, we could interpret damnability and salvation in pure atheistic moralistic terms, but that would mean to ignore the writer and his expressed intention.

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.

Errr, where the heck is that passage about facing the west? Anyway, I don't think that knowledge, in and of itself, is the ultimate factor of communion with Eru - rather serving Him, which is not something that is impossible; the numenoreans and, arguably, the Men of the First Age at its begining, knew about Eru (the later - directly apparently); but in both these cases, Men fell. In most, if not all, religions, the emphasis is on the feeling rather than on the form. I am sure that there, as well as here, if one truly aspires to Him, it is not in vain.

Originally Posted by Atrabeth

The Voice said:

- Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you.

[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

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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?

Sorry, I'm terrible at not referring back to what one has said before ( at myself).
Do we know how young Frodo was? I can't help but think that if Frodo was 1-3 years old there may not be much psychological impact compared to if he was 4 years on up with him not having any or very very few independant memories. Did Frodo have a 'death wish'?

[Lush]

I adore this thread.

Per Frodo - I think Tolkien does a good job of highlighting, within the character, some common symptoms of PTSD, found in survivors of great catastrophes, retired soliders, etc. It strikes me that everything that happens to Frodo is a kind of "reality check" that comes when one envisions a great epic - people can still get damaged and traumatised in great epics. It's not all waving banners and grandiose speeches.

As for whether or not Frodo is being punished - well, the very nature of these ordeals is punishing; perhaps this is the point that Tolkien is making. No one can go through something like that with perfect composure and zero mistakes. I think that perhaps the reason why one might think that Frodo is at fault is because the story is so heavily Hobbit-centered. The Hobbits are very fleshed out, very real, and they are shown to us close-up in almost all their dealings. Hence the cracks are more apparent.

It may be wise to explore the character of Sam further. Does he endure less "damage" because he is ultimately more resilient? Or is it because he bears less responsibility (i.e., he's not carrying the Ring all this time)? It fascinates me - how alike and yet different Sam and Frodo are, and what that may mean.

What's also interesting to me is whether or not Frodo's negative experiences ultimately outweigh his positive ones... He really does seem to hit a wall when he comes back to the Shire. In a weird way, his departure almost reminds me of Celebrian, even though it is seen as a gift, what happens to him at the end.