Failure and Punishment

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor, quoting 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 Raynor, quoting 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.

I don't see any grounds for concluding from these passages that Hobbits had any particular knowledge of Eru.

They could simply be colloquialisms that were picked up from travellers and fell into common use in The Shire without any real knowledge on the part of those using them of what it was they referred to. I think that it is Bilbo, in The Hobbit, who refers to the king while heading into the wilderness, despite the fact that there had been no king in those parts for many, many years. Bilbo would have had little conception of who the king was or what he stood for.

"Lor'" and "Lawks" could even refer to an earthly lord, rather than Eru. And even if they did originally refer to Eru, there is nothing to suggest that the Hobbits using these phrases knew that. Many people today use phrases like "bloody" and "blimey", and even "lawks", without actually knowing how they originated or what they originally meant.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I don't see any grounds for concluding from these passages that Hobbits had any particular knowledge of Eru.

Ok, so what do you think are the referrences to Eru/God in LotR which Tolkien mentioned in his interview? Tolkien was a religious person, he intended his work to reflect his principles and convictions - I don't see how he can achieve that by portraying an atheist world with atheist heroes. He did say that various interpretations that downplay the existence of God/religion in LotR "annoy" him and given who he was and what he believed in, I think it is understandable.

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.

He was born in 2968 and, IIRC, his mother died in 2980, which would make him 12 years old at that time.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Ok, so what do you think are the referrences to Eru/God in LotR which Tolkien mentioned in his interview? Tolkien was a religious person, he intended his work to reflect his principles and convictions - I don't see how he can achieve that by portraying an atheist world with atheist heroes. He did say that various interpretations that downplay the existence of God/religion in LotR "annoy" him and given who he was and what he believed in, I think it is understandable.

I don't know what these references could be because I honestly haven't looked for them so far and probably don't intend to. But if those are the ones, then god in the LotR is really nothing more than that: mentioned, in the sense that the name appears. In the three instances you give the name is used in ways that, as SpM said it already, in no way indicate a deeper knowledge or understanding of what was behind it. It was used in everyday sayings, colloquial expressions that don't carry a specific meaning and even seem replaceable to me, though I'm sure Tolkien would tell me otherwise. The hobbits, of course, aren't atheists in the sense of denying the existance of a god but, to me, they appear to just never have thought about it. Whether intended or not, they seem atheist in this respect, that they simply don't have a particular religion and don't see any need for one. To me they seem like children in this regard, who might say Lor or Lawks as well, but who just as well don't connect a lot with those words.

I think, though I can't give quotes or anything to back it up, that to Tolkien, God and Christianity were so natural that he made them peek out everywhere in the book, but nothing more. It was evident enough for him, and he didn't see the need to put it in there with a heavier hammer. Unfortunately, this results in the possibility for even an attentive reader to completely miss the existance of it, because though it is underlying most of the time, it is of no pivotal importance to the tale itself. I think it's an interesting question whether Tolkien would have made it more clear if he had foreseen this, or if he still would have shyed away from it for fear of allegory and "parody", as he put it.