Failure and Punishment

[Lush]

...and some just luck-Shelob could've stung him instead of Frodo.

You know, it very well may be luck, but I was under the impression that these dark creatures like Shelob (and the Watcher in the Water, etc.) were constantly drawn to the Ring. Perhaps Sam's luck has to do more with not being "chosen."

Note that his characters are usually at some point shown to have failings, even Aragorn displays arrogance at Edoras, Gandalf is sarcastic, Sam has a bad temper, Galadriel has a lust for power....

... Eowyn is suicidal, and even characters who are seemingly so simply drawn (well, in comparison to some of the other ones, I personally love our elf-boy, but I'm easy like that) i.e. Legolas and Gimli, have issues of prejudice they need to initially deal with.

So having Frodo 'fail' in fact elevates him.

You know, I never thought about it this way, but now that you mention it, it makes perfect sense. Stylistically, Frodo is a better character for this. Also, there is something about the proceedings at Mt. Doom that make me love him, really love him, in a way that the events leading up to the climax do not. It might have something to do with the fact that I've always taken issue with the way that Frodo and Sam speak to each other - and have been tempted to skim their storylines as the result. But Frodo's "failure" at Mt. Doom really casts their banter, their individual character quirks, in a whole new light.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

To treat them separately, to interpret one while disregarding the other, doesn't, Imo, do justice. We may be free to do so, but, at least nowadays, I believe it amounts to an argument from willful ignorance.

I don't think that anyone is seeking to argue that the events described in LotR should not be interpreted in the light of the history relayed in the Silmarillion (although there is, I suppose, an issue over the extent to which the published version reflects Tolkiens true intentions, but that's another debate). Even though I first read LotR without gaining (or needing to gain) any understanding of Eru and his role in the story, I fully accept, having read the Silmarillion, his place as the fictional God of a fictional world. But it does not follow from that that Hobbits were necessarily particularly religious beings, nor that they had any solid understanding, or awareness even, of this God.

However, going back to the original question, I don't see why the concept of "sin" should not exist in Middle-earth, simply because there was no formalised religion. In a world where good and evil exist not just as concepts, but as well delineated causes, it is perfectly possible for its inhabitants to act in a way which we would describe as "sinful", ie contrary to the cause of good. And it is equally possible for them to judge what is a "sin", whether or not they would use that precise word, and whether or not they have any conception of the deity who is the source of good.

So, yes, I would say that, regardless of their state of religious awareness, Hobbits would be able to perceive, and indeed commit, "sin". But, no, I would not say that Frodo "sinned". He may, as I have said, have acted in folly and displayed poor judgement at times (as do almost all of the characters), but he did not sin. Even at Sammath Naur, he had, as Tolkien makes clear in his Letters, achieved all that was, or could ever have been, expected of him. He was overwhelmed by an external, evil force which neither he nor anyone else in Middle-earth (Bombadil excepted) had the power to resist - even Gandalf feared succumbing to the Ring's evil. If it was a "failure", it was a blameless one, but it was not a "sin". Only a cruel, merciless and uncompassionate God could have considered it as such, and Eru is most certainly not portrayed in those terms.

It follows that Frodo deserved no punishment for his actions. Such folly as he may have committed is vastly outweighed by his achievement. And, quite rightly in my view, he received no punishment from those on the side of good, whether that be Eru or anyone else. He may have felt grief, regret and loss, but those feelings were self-imposed, and the only other torments that he suffered where inflicted on him by the agents of evil. From the good, he received only compassion and the opportunity to find healing in Aman - a just reward for his efforts.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by last section of The Council of Elrond

No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but the were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. 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,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'

What a strange phrasing that bolded part is! Who or what is it in LotR that is said to use a dominating will?

As we read this passage, for just the slightest time, there is the possibility that the Ring has called to Frodo and prompted his offer. However much we come to understand that Frodo voluntarily took up the task that is appointed for [him]--as Elrond sententiously describes it--there is this frission of fear that the Ring has already begun to work its will upon Frodo.

To dismiss this potential guess and flat out say, no question, this is Eru here is to miss this subtle suggestion of the Ring's sway. It is no more than a passing possibility, but nonetheless it is a possibilty that increases the tension of the text.

One of the ways in which Evil is made so powerful and dominant in the story is by means such as this, where we do not always know at the time which way the moral balance falls.

btw, SpM, I did point out that philosophically 'sin' would fit. However, I still believe that in our primary world the word is freighted with such weight of, as I said, loathesome depravity and disgusting wickedness, that its tone is out of place in the sub-created world.

[Farael]

Well, here are my two cents.

I was going to write something about my perspective on Christianity on LoTR, but it was leaning my whole post far from what I actually wanted to say.

It has been proposed so far that Frodo was punished by his shortcomings, that he was punished by his sins, but the way I see it, he was not punished at all. What happened to Frodo IMO (and I think Bethberry has hinted at it already) is not punishment but rather he was marred by his confrontation with evil (Is marred the proper word to use? please someone get back to me on that). That is a common theme that we see all through The Si-il and LoTR. Those who stand up to face evil, come out unharmed. Even when in the end they have grown "greater" and "wiser" it is so through much pain and peril, and I think none of the characters is wholly unmarred after the experience.

So, I have to agree with SpM. Frodo's change is not due to the powers of "good"... it is because of the powers of "evil", and their skill to corrupt all that they come in contact with. Even if this 'contact' is fighting against them.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

btw, SpM, I did point out that philosophically 'sin' would fit. However, I still believe that in our primary world the word is freighted with such weight of, as I said, loathesome depravity and disgusting wickedness, that its tone is out of place in the sub-created world.

Actually, I would hold to the opposite view. In Middle-earth, good and evil are pretty well-defined. In almost every situation which Tolkien portrays, the good guys are opposed to the evil guys, and there is generally little difficulty in identifying which side any particular individual falls on. Anything that is done to further the cause of the good guys may be categorised as good, and therefore virtuous. Anything done to further the cause of the evil guys is evil, a transgression of good and so a sin. For the reader, at least, it is generally fairly easy to tell which is which.

Not so in the real world, at least to one such as I with no strong religious conviction. Transgressions, such as theft and even murder, are not necessarily attributable to evil, but have circumstantial causes or contributing factors – poverty, addiction, childhood abuse etc. Although they may be crimes in the legal sense, there may be said to be mitigating factors, from both a legal and a moral perspective. Those who were at one time considered terrorists latterly become labelled as freedom-fighters, world statesman or founding fathers. I therefore, would find it much easier to categorise a transgression as a “sin” in Middle-earth than I would in the real world.

That said, acts do occur in Tolkien’s tales which might be regarded as transgressions, but which are committed with good intentions or have a good outcome. I have in mind, for example, Bilbo’s “theft” of the Arkenstone and Eowyn’s disobedience to Theoden. Both of these acts have good, indeed essential, outcomes, yet they might strictly be regarded as “sins”. Both Bilbo and Eowyn are wounded for their troubles (Eowyn almost fatally so). Does this represent “punishment” for their “sins”? If so, it is fleeting, since ultimately, both are rewarded. Bilbo is forgiven by Thorin and gains his fair share of Smaug’s horde. Eowyn’s feelings for Aragorn are replaced with stronger feelings for Faramir, whom she meets while healing from her wound. I am sure that there are a number of other, similar examples.

Are these transgressions against “absolute moral truths” or exceptions to them? If the former, do they deserve greater punishment or are the outcomes just? If the latter, how are the peoples of Middle-earth to judge what is acceptable and what is not? By the intentions of those committing them? By the outcome? Or does this introduce an element of moral relativity to Middle-earth?

And where does this leave poor old Turin, whose intentions throughout were mostly good, but whose acts generally led only to doom and disaster, both for himself and for any others whose paths he crossed?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I therefore, would find it much easier to categorise a transgression as a “sin” in Middle-earth than I would in the real world.

You obviously do more loyering in Britain-land than watching American televangelists. And it is the appalling, abject, humiliating contemptibleness which they apply to the word 'sin' which is/would be so out of place in Middle-earth, despite as you say the moral universe it entails. Despite his characters' errors and mistakes, Tolkien never denies them dignity. Not even poor old Lobelia. Or, I would even argue, pathetic Wormtongue and Saruman himself.

Originally Posted by SpM

And where does this leave poor old Turin, whose intentions throughout were mostly good, but whose acts generally led only to doom and disaster, both for himself and for any others whose paths he crossed?

Well, where does it leave one of the prime tragic heroes he ressembles, Oedipus?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by SpM

Are these transgressions against “absolute moral truths” or exceptions to them?

I think that the quote I gave previously on post #6 applies in these cases; a deed is not a sin, depending on the intention of the doer. While the case of Eowyn, as depicted in LotR, may seem a little morally ambiguous, or at least more so than Bilbo's, in the HoME XII version of the Tale of Years, credit is given too to her love of her father:

Originally Posted by 3018

She for love of the King rode in disguise with the Rohirrim and was with him when he fell.

Originally Posted by Beth

And it is the appalling, abject, humiliating contemptibleness which they apply to the word 'sin' which is/would be so out of place in Middle-earth, despite as you say the moral universe it entails.

Then again, even in LotR we have Frodo all to eager to deal death to Gollum for his wicked deeds, something which Gandalf thoroughly disapproves. Although Frodo is far more likeable than his real world counterparts, in both realms we find opinions which are extremely ..."unchristian", if I may say so; good enough that there are other points of referrence - Gandalf in the books, and true (as in positive) spiritual teachings, in our world. And may I note that Frodo changed deeply from the time of the "Shadow of the Past "to the time when it became crystal clear that Gollum will rob him (about "Mount Doom"); he spared Gollum's life, against what would seem better judgement, which defines true pity.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Lal

Note that his characters are usually at some point shown to have failings . . . Gandalf is sarcastic . . .

So sarcasm is a fault? I'd rather see it as a nautral thing, just one type of humour. (Disclaimer: That was not sarcasm... and this is not either... nor this...nor that... and so on... )

I previously thought the word "sin" should not be applied to ME, since it's so strongly tied with Christianity and the Christian God. But, yesterday, while reading, I came across this (and I swear it was pure chance): Sam says: "It's a sin to wake you, Mr Frodo." (The Great River, FotR) Now, there's the tiny chance I'm mistaken since my copy was in Finnish and I forgot to check from the English one, but I don't see why any other word than "sin" should have been translated as "synti" (the Finnish word), since "synti" is as biblical as "sin".

Now, if the characters in the LotR use the word "sin", is there any reason for us not to use it when describing them and their actions? Yet, I interpret Sam's words not as "it's against God/Eru to wake you" but as "it's a horrible deed to wake you" where the word "sin" is used as a synonym of "horrible deed" rather than as a biblical term.

So, what was my point? I'm not sure anymore.

[littlemanpoet]

from the last section of The Council of Elrond

No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but the were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. 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,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What a strange phrasing that bolded part is! Who or what is it in LotR that is said to use a dominating will?

As we read this passage, for just the slightest time, there is the possibility that the Ring has called to Frodo and prompted his offer. However much we come to understand that Frodo voluntarily took up the task that is appointed for [him]--as Elrond sententiously describes it--there is this frission of fear that the Ring has already begun to work its will upon Frodo.

To dismiss this potential guess and flat out say, no question, this is Eru here is to miss this subtle suggestion of the Ring's sway. It is no more than a passing possibility, but nonetheless it is a possibilty that increases the tension of the text.

One of the ways in which Evil is made so powerful and dominant in the story is by means such as this, where we do not always know at the time which way the moral balance falls.

Hmm.... Hmmmm....! Well now.... Hroom hoom, even...! It's just that the Ring is not in the habit of 'pronouncing some doom long foreseen'. It's not just a "dominating will", but one that rules; for it is a ruler that pronounces dooms, not a lord of rings. And sententious or not, Elrond is one of Tolkien's "truth speakers" in LotR. So there is a real appointing going on, and not by any Elves, not even by Gandalf.

The passage has the character of a hard task appointed being reluctantly accepted. In fact, Frodo wishes with all his might to stay at Rivendell, the implication being that someone else can take the Ring to Mount Doom. So no, I don't dismiss your potential reading, Bêthberry; rather, considering the way the context of the passage reads, I just don't buy it. The passage shows that this is not the Ring at all, which, if it could speak, would most likely be trying to get Frodo to flee with the Ring from all these VIPs. The only possibility is that the Ring is, perhaps, trying to get the weak Frodo to go in the general direction of where the Lord is. But that's at the most. And even if one allows for that, there's still the greater will that is pronouncing a doom, appointing a ringbearer, and Frodo is both bound by destiny and free to accept that destiny, and does so. So in my opinion it doesn't so much increase the tension of the text as flout the context. Sorry.

[Raynor]

I agree with lmp's interpretation. In the Shadow of the Past, Gandalf says that:

I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_to find the Ring, and _not_ by its maker. In which case you also were _meant_to have it.

So someone else was at work, meaning for Bilbo to find the ring and Frodo to have it; I think it is only natural to presume that this someone (who is not the ring maker, directly or indirectly I might add) also wanted Frodo to carry the ring to Mount Doom. If so many people were strangely summoned to the Council, how come no other stood up to carry the ring? It seems to me that all of them where searching inside, but none found the calling - save Frodo. Not even Boromir, who was probably the most susceptible to the ring's corruption, is not enticed, for better or for worse, to take it at that moment.

[Lush]

In Middle-earth, good and evil are pretty well-defined. In almost every situation which Tolkien portrays, the good guys are opposed to the evil guys, and there is generally little difficulty in identifying which side any particular individual falls on. Anything that is done to further the cause of the good guys may be categorised as good, and therefore virtuous. Anything done to further the cause of the evil guys is evil, a transgression of good and so a sin. For the reader, at least, it is generally fairly easy to tell which is which.

But this is why I like Gollum; because his character challenges and complicates this structure. In my opinion, he does this more so than Bilbo and Eowyn. Of course, he's never really as "good" as either of the two, but there are moments that disclose his capacity for being good. And whether or not he is punished when he dies in the end is also something worth pondering...

[Aiwendil]

Lush wrote:

But this is why I like Gollum; because his character challenges and complicates this structure. In my opinion, he does this more so than Bilbo and Eowyn. Of course, he's never really as "good" as either of the two, but there are moments that disclose his capacity for being good. And whether or not he is punished when he dies in the end is also something worth pondering...

This is true; I also like Gollum for this reason. And another example of a morally ambiguous Tolkien character is my personal favourite - Turin.

But, to utter my catch phrase, there's a distinction we ought to make. To say that Tolkien's characters are often morally ambiguous is a very different thing from saying that Tolkien's world is morally ambiguous. Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct. There is never any question of what ends should, morally speaking, be sought, though there is often some question concerning, first, how best to go about achieving those ends, and, second, whether a particular character will in the event seek that end or not.