Failure and Punishment

[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.

[Raynor]

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.

I disagree; this view would ignore all the turns of events, as we, or even the characters see them, that show the finger of God. Ignoring the underlying, invisible, struggle between higher good and evil is, imo, ignoring the logic of this universe. Although hobbits are repeatedly referred to as vulgar, I don't think that 'vulgarised' forms of referrences are necessarily void, in general - and esspecially in this particular case. We even see that the opposite is true in the cases of Denethor and Saruman - they are supposed to have the highest knowledge among Men and Istari, and still, they fail in hope and turn into weapons of evil. Frodo was raised by Bilbo, who in turn was in contact with the elves of Rivendell, and visites them even after the quest from the Hobbit; Gandalf also had him under his protection and guidance; given the logic of the story, I believe he had a spiritual sense of good and wrong. Concerning Frodo and Gollum, Tolkien stated that:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

Personally, I believe that Tolkien was presenting a rethoric dilemma - I doubt he considered folly on behalf of Frodo, quite the contrary being the case:

Originally Posted by Letter #191

He was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved – by Mercy : by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.

Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said [- although He is called “the One” in Appendix A, The Numenorean Kings ). See Vol. I p. 65:

'"Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker."' (Gandalf to Frodo.)

Originally Posted by Letter #246

[The simple minds] tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is present in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God.

Tolkien further says in that letter that Frodo was given grace by God on two sorts of occassions: “first to answer the call (at the end of the Council) after long resisting a complete surrender” – in the book, it is stated that:

Originally Posted by Council of Elrond

At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice. – I will take the ring

And secondly, “later in his resistance to the temptation of the Ring (at times when to claim and so reveal it would have been fatal), and in his endurance of fear and suffering”. Even Frodo as ringbearer is unique in his time:"few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. cf Letter #192; "Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision" cf letter #181. In the end, I guess a book reflects the reader; some aknowledge elements Tolkien put and intended to be seen and some don't and what is "objectively" close to a correct interpretation changes from age to age and place to place. I, for one, contently accept the professor's view.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree; this view would ignore all the turns of events, as we, or even the characters see them, that show the finger of God. Ignoring the underlying, invisible, struggle between higher good and evil is, imo, ignoring the logic of this universe.

I'm not ignoring the underlying struggle between good and evil, but if we take the LotR alone, then it's not clear where 'good' comes from. It's just there. You can feel that there's some "higher force" behind certain events, but though it's clear what Tolkien meant that to be, I don't think it is unambiguous to an unbiased reader.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Although hobbits are repeatedly referred to as vulgar, I don't think that 'vulgarised' forms of referrences are necessarily void, in general - and esspecially in this particular case. We even see that the opposite is true in the cases of Denethor and Saruman - they are supposed to have the highest knowledge among Men and Istari, and still, they fail in hope and turn into weapons of evil. Frodo was raised by Bilbo, who in turn was in contact with the elves of Rivendell, and visites them even after the quest from the Hobbit; Gandalf also had him under his protection and guidance; given the logic of the story, I believe he had a spiritual sense of good and wrong.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Of course vulgarised forms aren't necessarily void, but these particular instances occur when Sam fears Gandalf might turn him into something unnatural and when Merry complains about the mess in the bathroom. Both scenes have a very nice comedic value. There are many non-comical and non-vulgar scenes including hobbits, all of which don't contain references of this kind.
Neither does the knowledge of Saruman and Denethor lead to good, nor does the ignorance of the hobbits lead to evil. They can have a feeling for good and evil nevertheless, just like Child put it. Frodo's above average knowledge (hobbit-wise) of things makes him a wiser person, but not necessarily a better one.

Originally Posted by Raynor

In the end, I guess a book reflects the reader; some aknowledge elements Tolkien put and intended to be seen and some don't and what is "objectively" close to a correct interpretation changes from age to age and place to place. I, for one, contently accept the professor's view.

I guess there are just more than one valid interpretations of the work, Tolkien's own being one of them. Isn't that, after all, one of the reasons the LotR has found such a huge, and diverse, readership?