Failure and Punishment

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Ok, so what do you think are the referrences to Eru/God in LotR which Tolkien mentioned in his interview?

I have no idea. I have no doubt that they are there if Tolkien said that they are. Quite possibly, he simply meant the oblique references to Eru in terms of fate, providence etc. Or he could have been referring to the phrases that you have identified. Even if this was the case, however, it does not follow from their use of such phrases that Hobbits would have had any conception of Eru as God. Child, I think, has made out a good case for the proposition that they did not.

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

I am not saying that Hobbits were atheists, in the sense that they actively denied the existence of Eru. Rather, since Eru had little direct relevance in their day-to-day lives, I don’t see them as really giving much, if any, thought to the matter. It was simply not important to them. Much like my own general approach to the question of God’s existence.

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

Well, it may have annoyed him, but it was not something which he could control. Indeed, by excluding any direct reference to Eru in LotR and minimising the references to his existence and role in the tale, it might be said that he allowed his readers to overlook his own interpretation of his work as an implicitly religious one. I don’t doubt that the references are there, for those who are inclined to pick up on them. But, for those who are not, they are not a necessary aspect to one’s understanding and enjoyment of the story. When I first read LotR, long before most of the additional material now available had been published, I had no conception of Eru and gave little, if any, thought to the role of religion in Middle-earth. These things were simply not necessary to my enjoyment of the story. Indeed, had overt reference been included, such that I could not have blithely overlooked them, it might well have put me off, as I dislike being preached at. First time round (aged 14), I gave up on reading the Silmarillion in consequence of the overly biblical nature of its opening chapters.

It’s not a question of denying or downplaying the author’s intentions, but rather of being given the freedom to react to the work in a way that is appropriate and relevant to me. Having since read the Silmarillion and the other available materials, I am obviously aware of, and understand, Eru’s place in the story. But it does not follow from this that this fictional God has any particular relevance to me outside the fictional world that he presides over. And nor does it incline me to alter my view that the Hobbits of the Third Age were not particularly religious beings.

Edit: Cross-posted with Macalaure, whose thoughts are along similar lines to my own.

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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

Thanks, Raynor.
Wow, twelve. That does make a huge difference on his bereavement psychology(Bb). It may not be a direct cause of his loner-ness, certainly a factor because it sets him apart. And that would definitely be a sobering experience the death of ones parents in an already taboo situation (being on the water) with some suspicions of murder (one pushed the other in).
Maybe he did feel like (at that age) there would be more to his life than that of hobbits in general. Of course, there's Bilbo and Gandalf feeding into him how special he is so by the time the council comes around he does feel like he could and should be the one to take it. I don't mean that in a cocky sort of way but an affirmation sort of way.


Would agnostic be more appropriate describing the hobbits in general than atheist?

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

In the context that I think you mean, the 'principles and convictions' being his Catholicism I thought Tolkien didn't want that-to be overtly Catholic in his story. Otherwise, it implies that if a person doesn't believe in a god, a catholic god then that person doesn't have principles or convictions and fictional characters can't be written with them.


I don't see Frodo as being punished by Eru. To be punished by a deity would take an act by that deity, all his suffering is in consequence of his behavior, decisions and things beyond his control that he experienced-punished in the way Lush suggests because of the ordeal being punishing in nature.

Originally Posted by Lush

Does he (Sam) 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)?

The biggest factor to me being the difference is that their experiences were different. Sam was there the whole time but as stated he bears less responsibility and didn't make decisions that were never his to make (putting ring on at Weathertop) and some just luck-Shelob could've stung him instead of Frodo.