Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Dininziliel

In spring of 1420, post-Shire scouring, Frodo became ill in early March. In "The Grey Havens" we are told that Farmer Cotton

While it seems obvious that the "it" for which Frodo mourned was the Ring, there is something about those absolute terms, "forever," and "all" that causes my curiosity to nibble at the corners of possible meanings. The Ring may have been destroyed, but weren't some other things also gone forever--innocence, for instance? Was he speaking only of the emptiness in his life, or might he also have been registering the passing of a particular light and joy from ME?

The nature of the Ring has been discussed in eloquent detail, so this is not a thread about the Ring itself.

The question is: what does Tolkien tell us in his various stories, essays, and letters about the loss incurred through great and profound struggles--even when light triumphs over darkness. Is it possible to have the opposite outcome where "all is light and full of joy"?

Yes, this "it" Frodo's talking about is the Ring. As has been said the Ring represented Everything to Frodo, and Frodo had lost it all. The Ring gone left him with scars that never healed. It wasn't just loss of innocence but more than that. Had the Ring been an object that needed to be destroyed and it got destroyed the way it did, it wouldn't have Frodo as much. The thing was that the quest had cost him his very being. Something that could not come back. So, this "it is gone forever, and now all is dark and empty" refers to the loss of something greater than innocence.
There can be no victory without suffering and loss, it is evident. Changes are often disasterous; and are the demand of this universe. So, there HAS TO be someone who gives up their life for us. Boromir, Theoden and Frodo sacrificed their lives for the greater good. Middle-earth won, a new Age came that was free of evil of Sauron. But it cost people a lot. Thousands of people died. How could there be any victory without this sacrifice, suffering and loss? No, there can be no victory without loss. Also Prof. Tolkien says, "Victors can not enjoy victory." The loss is inevitable and unavoidable.

I'd like to address someone here who said Frodo was a "pawn" of Eru, who Eru used to save the world. I disagree. Please someone let me know if I've got him wrong. Frodo being pawn means he had no free will, and having no free will sounds odd to me, and makes Eru and Valar sound sort of petty. The task might have been appointed for Frodo but it was upto him whether he wanted to take the task or not. And he did. That is more than being "pawn".