![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
![]() |
![]()
Bird,
This is interesting. Part of what is getting between us is language, how we express ourselves, rather than a drastic difference of opinion. Yet a difference in view still exists, I believe. I do agree that Aman had to be an "awakening" for Frodo beyond anything that he'd experienced in Middle-earth. But I will probably also stubbornly insist that his awakening was as a hobbit. And that seems to be different from what you are saying. In my opinion, the only way Frodo could lose his "hobbit-ness" is if he lost his fea itself, and that could not be, at least if he wished to walk in the path of goodness. The clearest proof of this is Tolkien's insistence in his Letters that Frodo is a mortal, and would remain a mortal, even in the Blessed Land. Tolkien clearly states that the lands themselves change nothing. The important thing is the nature of the person who goes there. Frodo's hobbit-ness is the core of who he is. This can not and will not change. Look carefully at the words Tolkien uses to explain what will happen to Frodo in the Blessed Lands: Quote:
Yes, I've read much of Heinlein. He was enormously popular when I was in college and graduate school. And I recall Childhood's End, though not in every detail. But again I would differentiate. Frodo had the choice to evolve or not to evolve as a hobbit. He did not, however, have the choice to change into something totally different than what he was. Would there be a space of some kind between Frodo and his neighbors because he was mortal and they were immortal, because he was a hobbit and they were other? I would say absolutely yes. That space is necessary according to the plans of Eru. There would be some loneliness and sadness in that difference, but I do not see it as the enormous gulf which Heinlein postulates in his tale. In fact the opposite seems true to me. It is the small, petty people in life who demand that we become like them and 'rise to their level' in order to be accepted. If someone is truly on a higher level, they occupy a position which enables them to see and understand much of the intricate web of life. They are able to appreciate and communicate with each different being on whatever level they are on (assuming that there is basic goodness of character). There is no insistence on change, but rather an appreciation of the diversity of creation. The one character in LotR who exemplifies this attitude is Gandalf, trained in the house of the Lady Nienna who is the bringer of hope and compassion to Arda. He loved and accepted Bilbo and Frodo, and even the community in general with all its smallness and limitations. He would have wanted Frodo to grow as a hobbit, but I do not believe he would have wanted him to be anything other than what he was. In Tolkien's eyes, there is a hierarchy in the universe, both in terms of Middle-earth and in our own world. For Tolkien, that hierarchy had religious overtones. He felt we each have our part, and can fill our destiny best by growing in that role which we have been placed in by the Creator. For all we may wish it differently, a man is not an angel, neither in the 21st century or in Tol Eressea. For someone to step outside that role, and strive to become something else, was not his view of things. And I think he would have felt very uncomfortable with his humble Hobbit evolving into anything other than a Hobbit. He might have said there was enough potential for goodness and light within Hobbits for Frodo to gain healing and insight in ample measure without needing to become something different. sharon, the 7th age hobbit
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |