|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Grey Elf
Grey Havens
Jan 11 2015, 3:45pm
Post #1 of 19
(1465 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Birthday Present
|
Can't Post
|
|
Okay, first, I am new to this board so I apologize if my observation is something that's already been discussed or is common knowledge. I just started re-reading LOTR after about 12 years and many details suddenly appear fresh.
The One Ring falls into Smeagol's possession on his birthday. Bilbo leaves the ring to Frodo on their mutual birthday. Lastly, regaining the ring is the one element critical to Sauron's rebirth.
Birthdays are the natural occasions celebrated by the innocent and good. A "rebirthday" is akin to returning from the dead and is therefore an unnatural event, one that is deeply desired by a wholly evil being.
Is this birthday theme coincidence or deliberately suggested by Tolkien?
"If not us, who? If not now, when?" HeforShe
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Jan 11 2015, 5:11pm
Post #2 of 19
(1222 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Birthdays are especially meaningful to children - I think the theme originally appealed to The Hobbit's intended audience
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The original instance of the birthday theme in Tolkien's Rings story is in a single reference in the original Hobbit narrative. Gollum regretfully tells Bilbo he's lost the Ring he promised to give the hobbit for winning the riddle game:
Bilbo gathered that Gollum had had a ring—a wonderful, beautiful ring, a ring that he had been given for a birthday present, ages and ages before in the old days when such rings were less uncommon. - Hobbit V (1937 edition)
I can only suppose that this ridiculous-seeming (in retrospect) detail is meant to let the children who are hearing the story think of how the most wonderful possessions they own came as birthday presents from the unimaginably wealthy world of adults, thus explaining the otherwise implausible introduction of a Magic Invisibility Ring to the story at this point. As you may know, the element of childish fantasy that characterizes Gollum is far stronger in the original text, because he and the Ring were not what they later became when Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings. He revised The Hobbit text after finishing LotR, and in most editions of the book now available, both Gollum and the Ring are more sinister. The passage above was recast to reflect the story involving Deagol that Gandalf recounts in LotR I.2. Here Gollum is talking to himself, not Bilbo, as he plots to use the Ring to murder the hobbit:
“My birthday-present!” he whispered to himself, as he had often done in the endless dark days. “That’s what we wants now, yes; we wants it!”
He wanted it because it was a ring of power, and if you slipped that ring on your finger, you were invisible...
“My birthday-present! It came to me on my birthday, my precious,” So he had always said to himself. But who knows how Gollum came by that present, ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said. - Hobbit V (revised edition)
Notice the difference: the narrator tells us that the Ring was not given as a present. Gollum call it his "present", but says that it "came to him" on his birthday, not that it was given to him, and the narrator darkly speculates on the actual circumstances, even mentioning (for no reason to do with the story at hand) its mysterious Master! Given the chance to re-write the first book to agree with the second, Tolkien ensured a consistent story at the expense of the original, if weaker, conception. But he did not rewrite the whole story to develop the "birthday" theme; note that in Fellowship, Bilbo in his speech refers to his birthday in Laketown during his adventure, repeating what he said then, "Thag you very buch" - but in The Hobbit there is no mention that that was his birthday, because Tolkien at the time had no idea when Bilbo's birthday was. (Tolkien did note the inconsistency and made sure that FotR Bilbo explained the discrepancy as a slip of memory in writing his memoirs!)
So what led Tolkien to conceive of the (brilliant, as usual) idea that in the sequel Frodo should get the now-sinister Ring on his birthday, echoing Gollum's experience? It's hard to pin down. We know from the source manuscripts in HoME that from the very beginning of writing the sequel, Tolkien had determined that the going-away party would be a birthday party, long before he decided which hobbit's birthday it was (Bilbo's, or his son's/heir's, or as it developed, both) and long before it became clear that the whole point was to allow the Ring to be passed on to another owner.
Given the juvenile tone of the early drafts of Fellowship, echoing The Hobbit, it's possible that as with Gollum's "birthday present" Tolkien was simply using the attraction of a birthday party in a child's eyes as a colorful opening scene to stage the announcement of a new journey. The more conscious decision at the time, I'd guess, was the clever contrast between the Unexpected Party of the first book and the Expected Party of new sequel. The most "Expected" party in a child's eyes is the annual birthday party.
In any case, Tolkien's method of invention often depended on expanding ideas that occurred by chance in earlier drafts but which seemed on consideration to be mythically powerful. The birthday theme certainly seems like a good example of this. By the time he'd finished composing LotR, the powerful connections you've noticed were thoroughly developed at every point they could be: the Birthday is identified with the Autumnal equinox and becomes a major marker from start to finish of the epic, even becoming a national holiday in Fourth-Age Gondor.
I thought the most interesting aspect of your question was the idea that Sauron's "Re-Birth" is also tied to the Ring. It's a clever construction with something to be said for it, but I don't see it being developed in the story we have. Sauron, as it is explained in the early chapters, has recovered his form and strength even without possession of the Ring. He is, it seems, becoming powerful enough even without it to conquer all of Middle-earth. The destruction of the Ring will defeat him, but his recovery of the Ring would only make his anticipated triumph likely to last forever. It's a bit creaky as a plot - your idea that he couldn't be reborn without the Ring being delivered to his tomb or something is a viable alternative plot, to be sure - but Tolkien is trying to build a quest around the theme of the destruction of the Ring, not defending it from recovery. If Sauron was amorphous or "unborn" until he recovered the Ring, the Wise could more plausibly argue that hiding it or defending it was a viable strategy to defeat him.
Thanks for the post!
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Jan 11 2015, 5:30pm
Post #3 of 19
(1224 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I did find Sauron's birthday cake, however
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
OK, I can't comment directly on the theme of rebirth of Sauron connected or not connected with the birthday celebrations in FOTR as well as Gollum's "birthday present" story. I know people have asked over the years why Tolkien makes a big deal of hobbits giving presents to OTHERS when celebrating a birthday, and if so, why does Gollum (who started life as a hobbit or hobbit ancestor) talk about his birthday present as something he received and WHY DOES Bilbo understand that, if it's not a hobbit custom?
Another thing to ponder. I think Tolkien worked it all out later, and even his Letters that discuss this amount to retrofitting.
Anyhow, I was able to find Sauron's birthday cake on the web and thought it was appropriate here. Blood red inside, of course.
Those orcish bakers in Mordor certainly know how to decorate a cake!
a.s.
"an seileachan"
"A safe fairyland is untrue to all worlds." JRR Tolkien, Letters.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jan 11 2015, 5:33pm
Post #4 of 19
(1195 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Welcome to this part of TORN! //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
~~~~~~
"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"
This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154
|
|
|
geordie
Tol Eressea
Jan 11 2015, 10:33pm
Post #5 of 19
(1201 views)
Shortcut
|
- a whole lot - about hobbit birthday customs in Letter no. 214. here's byrdings and faunts, and everything.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 12 2015, 8:44pm
Post #6 of 19
(1175 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Now that you mention it... (And some other random thoughts and questions)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It does seem a bit odd...
While I can say no more than squire has admirably stated, I do see one thing here that may be of some interest:
I am intrigued by the clever contrivance Tolkien makes use of here: namely the occasion of a Party-- specifically a Birthday Party-- where one gives presents, and does not receive them. Now the original introduction to the book (specifically the setting of a Party) was used for many different purposes (A going-away party, an engagement party, or even a way to spend all Bilbo's money), however it fits the final tale in several ways:
1. It establishes a safe place for us to enter Middle-Earth and start our adventures
2. It makes sense to start in the Shire to link with The Hobbit
3. It engages the minds of younger readers with the excitement of a Party
What really intrigues me is the use that Tolkien makes of the Party as a way to pass on the Ring to Frodo. I think we can see some of the author's handiwork in the dialogue of Gandalf and Bilbo after his disappearance:
Bilbo says that he supposes the main reason he spent so much on a party, rather than going away quietly, was to make giving up the Ring easier for himself. Gandalf himself agrees that it was to only really good point in the whole affair.
This makes me wonder... When did the idea of giving presents on a birthday, and not getting them come in? In the Hobbit (1937) as squire quotes, the idea of a birthday present is still the traditional one we would most identify with-- getting-- and it sets up an explanation for his possessiveness, but in the Revised Hobbit it coems to him on his birthday. Why the change? I think it was to set up the idea executed in FotR where presents were given out and that wonderful scene in Bag End between Bilbo and Gandalf. I just wonder where the idea came from?
Also, as I think on it, Frodo's birthday is the same as Bilbo's. By giving both Hobbits the same birthday, it sets up an interesting (if not intentional) plot point-- both Hobbits are supposed to give presents, but by the same token, they can receive gifts from each other on this day. I think perhaps, the Ring, Bag End, and what was left of his wealth, was Bilbo's gift to Frodo. (Though we can debate on how much a present and not a 'curse' the Ring was) So Frodo and Gollum share at least a superficial similarity that the Ring came to both of them on their birthday, an interesting parallel if nothing else.
Also, seeing as it is his birthday as well, Frodo, technically, should be giving presents as well. I suppose he is counted as part of Bilbo's giving of the Party? Here, her really doesn't have to give anyone anything here, another interesting thing, well... to me anyway. Mmaybe his present was the 'gift' of Bag End to the S-B's on a later birthday? Maybe that is why he decided to do it then? I am remembered Bilbo's confusion as to Frodo's choice of time to let Bag End go, but when you think of it, it makes sense and allows another parallel to be drawn between the two-- they both gave up something 'precious' on their birthday?
As I go off on another tangent, I am wondering why there are so few direct parallels draw between Bilbo and Gollum. Between Frodo and Gollum, and Gollum and Hobbits in general, there are many more similarities pointed out. Frodo and Bilbo are likewise compared in many cases, not contrasted. I wonder if it is intentional? So often Frodo and Gollum are compared, especially as we get into TTT and beyond, creating sympathy in our minds and hearts for the pair, and perhaps it explains Frodo's pity for Gollum.
Noting these parallels, I wondered if we might draw syllogistic conclusions as to the similarities of Bilbo and Gollum, using Frodo as a medium. However, noting the lack of direct comparison, I am disinclined to think we are meant to do so. In the end, Bilbo could give up the Ring, but Gollum could never do so. The very premise of the opening chapters is that Bilbo had not succumbed to the deadly seduction of the Ring. The films tend to compare them more than the books do, and that may be the source of my confusion, but I do wonder... I know that Bilbo had to be worked into the tale as an established character, but I wonder what might have happened if he had not been so well-defined a character.
As I see it, Bilbo, Frodo, and Gollum all lie on a spectrum where Bilbo represents the most one could resist the Ring, Gollum the total abandon to desire for it, and poor Frodo is left in the middle, and able to relate to both sides. I wonder if this is what makes him so pitiable? I wonder though, if Frodo does not lean more towards the Bilbo-side of that spectrum? His heart was definitely in the right place--even in failure. The similarities to Bilbo seem more prominent to me, but I can not but acknowledge that in the darkest hours of the saga, Frodo seems more Gollum-like. I wonder if, like Frodo's 'adumbrated' failure (See 26 July 1956 Draft of letter to Miss J. Burn) his redemption was not adumbrated, in that both he and Bilbo began their ownership of the ring without greed or possessiveness?
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
(This post was edited by Rembrethil on Jan 12 2015, 8:44pm)
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Jan 13 2015, 7:03pm
Post #7 of 19
(1130 views)
Shortcut
|
You may be onto something I had never thought of.
Tolkien was fond of "applicability" rather than allegory, so I think many things like this were unintentional... but can be applied neatly.
"Judge me by my size, would you?" Max the Hobbit Husky.
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Jan 13 2015, 7:13pm
Post #8 of 19
(1139 views)
Shortcut
|
am going to have to join these literary discussion boards more often!
"Judge me by my size, would you?" Max the Hobbit Husky.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jan 13 2015, 7:39pm
Post #9 of 19
(1125 views)
Shortcut
|
|
nice to have you around, swordwhale! //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
~~~~~~
"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"
This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 14 2015, 2:16am
Post #10 of 19
(1117 views)
Shortcut
|
Why might that be, pray-tell? Did I just happen to say something coherent? 
I was just rambling here... saying whatever came into my mind as I typed...
So I didn't manage to scare you off with my ravings  , we'd be glad to have you! 
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 14 2015, 2:31am
Post #11 of 19
(1115 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Simply lovely, lovely post Rem
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As I see it, Bilbo, Frodo, and Gollum all lie on a spectrum where Bilbo represents the most one could resist the Ring, Gollum the total abandon to desire for it, and poor Frodo is left in the middle, and able to relate to both sides. I wonder if this is what makes him so pitiable? I wonder though, if Frodo does not lean more towards the Bilbo-side of that spectrum? His heart was definitely in the right place--even in failure. The similarities to Bilbo seem more prominent to me, but I can not but acknowledge that in the darkest hours of the saga, Frodo seems more Gollum-like. I wonder if, like Frodo's 'adumbrated' failure (See 26 July 1956 Draft of letter to Miss J. Burn) his redemption was not adumbrated, in that both he and Bilbo began their ownership of the ring without greed or possessiveness?
A pleasure to read. And I agree, and add that one of the footnotes to #131 addresses this a bit:
"(Hobbits) are entirely without non-human powers, but are represented as being more in touch with 'nature' (the soil and other living things, plants and animals), and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth. They are made small (little more than half human stature, but dwindling as the years pass) pertly to exhibit the pettiness of man, plain unimaginative parochial man - though not with either the smallness or the savageness of Swift, and mostly to show up, in creatures of very small physical power, the amazing and unexpected heroism of ordinary men 'at a pinch'. "
So indeed in that sweet and seemingly random - purely fantasy - invention of the Birthday-presents, the contrast between unimaginative human avarice and what JRRT was trying to display in the small members of the human family. I do think that their lack of personal avarice, and the taking of the Ring with no more greed than the Ring itself brings to the partnership, was crucial.
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Jan 14 2015, 3:02am
Post #12 of 19
(1116 views)
Shortcut
|
"Judge me by my size, would you?" Max the Hobbit Husky.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 14 2015, 5:30am
Post #13 of 19
(1118 views)
Shortcut
|
|
*Bows in acknowledgement of a compliment* (Warning: another ramble)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am glad you think so. If you'll allow me, I'll speculate further:
This note that Hobbits stand for 'parochial man' strikes me as the answer to those who ask why Hobbits-- not Men-- are the Main POV characters. Hobbits are there to stand for us, for if they 'dwindle' while they are 'unimaginative', it may mirror the effect a lack of imagination has on us. However, this note also gives us hope. Hope that---no matter how caught up we are in the drudgery of modern living--, it does not take great physical strength to break free and 'escape' (As Tolkien said) the bars of a mental prison devoid of imagination.
This talk of 'dwindling' has led me to ponder the role of Gollum. He has truly dwindled physically and seems to exemplify the other extreme of pettiness that Hobbits are wont to illustrate. He has definitely decreased physically, until all that knits him together is malice and the drive for possession of the Ring. So I begin wonder what kind of 'cure' Gandalf (Or more properly Tolkien) saw as possible for Gollum. When he is denied the Ring and starts the road to repentance, I think he becomes weaker:
For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.” -- TTT
Indeed he has fallen so far, that by the end of RotK, his whole reason for existence is tied to the Ring. When it ends, so does he. Here is Gollum's argument for his own existence on the slopes of Mt. Doom:
Let us live, yes, live just a little longer. Lost lost! We"re lost. And when Precious goes we"ll die, yes, die in the dust."-- RotK
It may be a lie, but a believeable one that Frodo and Sam see as plausible, and prove it to be so by leaving him. His salvation, though difficult, was never impossible:
From Letter# 194:
" The crucial moment when Gollum nearly repents"
What would have happened? Tolkien gives us his own answer:
From Letter #246
...[Sam] plainly did not fully understand Frodo's motives or his distress in the incident of the Forbidden Pool. If he {Sam} had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, things might have turned out differently in the end. For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes in II 323 ff. when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentance is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense*) wasted. Shelob's lair became inevitable...
... If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss...
(Emphasis mine)
So the idea of redemption (In the sense of a complete 'cure' and happy ending) was never used, but for the sake of the tale, I understand why it was so. However, as this letter indicates, Tolkien never thpught he was beyond saving, and (from both an authorial and in-universe POV), he was never beyond hope. I love this note, not because it contributes greatly to understanding the tale as written (Indeed it diverges drastically from it), but for the sidelight it throws on the motives at play and Tolkien's personal values. This letter was written for a reason, I think, not dissimilar from the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth
(Who was it that said I'd bring it up in my Chapter Lead? Well, I didn't! Instead I saved it for now. How clever I am! )
'To exhibit the generosity of Tolkien's mind, his love and pity for Gollum, and the tragic situations that must arise in the destruction of the Ring.'-- Adapted from Author's Commentary on the Athrabeth
I think Tolkien would have saved Gollum if he could, but for dramatic effect, did not. He never gave up on him, and I don't think we should either!
Gollum's redemption, as it was came with Frodo's, and Tolkien gives an alternative sequence of event if he had been redeemed:
From Letter #246
I think that an effect of his {Gollum's} partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together – and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo. Frodo in the tale actually takes the Ring and claims it, and certainly he too would have had a clear vision – but he was not given any time: he was immediately attacked by Gollum.
Another thing that interests me is the attribution of Gollum's failure in his redemption:
From Letter # 96:
"the tragedy of Gollum who at that moment came within a hair of repentance - but for one rough word from Sam."
How much do you blame Sam for this? I was inclined to do so harshly, but again Tolkien has his say:
Also from Letter #246
This{Sam's inability to see Gollum's change} is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last (In the sense that 'pity' to be a true virtue must be directed to the good of its object. It is empty if it is exercised only to keep oneself 'clean', free from hate or the actual doing of injustice, though this is also a good motive) but for the good of Gollum too late.)
So, how do you feel now? To me, it feels much like the failed redemption of Gollum and according to the 'logic of the story'-- a sad occurrence but a wholly natural one, as well.
All this has drastically changed the way I see Gollum. I feel much like a Frodo reproved by Gandalf, and perhaps I understand a bit more clearly the pity both Bilbo and Frodo had for Gollum.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
(This post was edited by Rembrethil on Jan 14 2015, 5:32am)
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 15 2015, 12:09am
Post #14 of 19
(1091 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thoughts on Gollum, Frodo and Sam, and salvation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am glad you think so. I do. This note that Hobbits stand for 'parochial man' strikes me as the answer to those who ask why Hobbits-- not Men-- are the Main POV characters. Hobbits are there to stand for us, for if they 'dwindle' while they are 'unimaginative', it may mirror the effect a lack of imagination has on us. However, this note also gives us hope. Hope that---no matter how caught up we are in the drudgery of modern living--, it does not take great physical strength to break free and 'escape' (As Tolkien said) the bars of a mental prison devoid of imagination. (Rem)
Well put syllogism, and I would say that his desire to avoid allegory and to also make that transition from 'fantasy' to 'unremembered history' is my first thought as to why Hobbits figure as they do. I base this a lot on my reader's reaction to O.F.S. - not in a quote-by-quote way, but the general, emotional tie I think JRRT had with the faerie becoming the unacknowledged real of this world. Wishful? perhaps. Good for us? Quite likely. I know it has been for me.
This talk of 'dwindling' has led me to ponder the role of Gollum. He has truly dwindled physically and seems to exemplify the other extreme of pettiness that Hobbits are wont to illustrate. He has definitely decreased physically, until all that knits him together is malice and the drive for possession of the Ring. So I begin wonder what kind of 'cure' Gandalf (Or more properly Tolkien) saw as possible for Gollum. When he is denied the Ring and starts the road to repentance, I think he becomes weaker: (Rem)
"For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.” -- TTT I think here a note of Gollum's beginnings strike me. I hunted it down in Letter #181 (early 1956) "The domination of the Ring was too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would never have had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path." I think the origins of Gollum play a part - the origins of who he was, when he was Sméagol. Just as the origins of who Frodo was play a part as well: (also from #181) "The final scene of the Quest was so shaped simply because having regard to the situation, and to the characters of Frodo, Sam and Gollum, those events seemed to me mechanically, morally and psychologically credible. But, of course, if you wish for more reflection, I should say that within the mode of the story the 'catastrophe' exemplifies (an aspect of) the familiar words: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil". "Lead us not into temptation &c' is the harder and the less often considered petition." The letter goes on to detail the circumstances by which Frodo is set upon to carry the Ring, and how the matter of exactly who he was BEFORE the Quest is the only thing that may have saved him, and Middle-earth: "Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could 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. (Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.) ... But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own salvation is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point a prudent person would have told Frodo the Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear 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. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace' , that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo!" (underline mine, #181)
I see in this bit that in JRRT's cosmology, the essential point of unintended good arising from evil does NOT make the evil in any way redeemable. "Into the ultimate judgment of Gollum I would not care to enquire. The 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 marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honorable. 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). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge." (#181) But that the ultimate judgment of damnability does not belong to the fellow sharers of the raft seems to acknowledge evil, and seems to imply that is a judgment that can be made; yet to recognize its final punishment in the eyes of and right of God.
From Letter# 194:
" The crucial moment when Gollum nearly repents" What would have happened? Tolkien gives us his own answer: (Rem)
From Letter #246 ...[Sam] plainly did not fully understand Frodo's motives or his distress in the incident of the Forbidden Pool. If he {Sam} had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, things might have turned out differently in the end. For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes in II 323 ff. when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing', said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!'. His repentance is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense*) wasted. Shelob's lair became inevitable...
... If he had, what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss...
(Emphasis mine)
I add to this section: To 'pity' him, to forbear 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. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace' , that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo!" (#181, also quoted above, underline mine)
I think JRRT did see him as pitiable, and if the above from Letter #246 were the ending or even a facsimile of, then we could consider that Gollum was redeemed. But the pity of Frodo (logically disastrous, as JRRT writes) - that pity saves the world but it also is no credit to Gollum, per se. It is instead a tribute to Frodo (and Bilbo, in his day.) I also like in this letter that JRRT sees the actions of Sam as psychologically fitting and believable. And if we see Sam as the extension of the Hobbit/human family central hero, that means that it is Frodo who is acting a bit out of the norm: ennobled, as JRRT says, and with a Quest under extenuating and humanly impossible circumstances. He is the Elf-friend, and has maybe left this world a bit already. So I can see him pitying Gollum being of value - even if I do not see the value in Gollum himself. I can also see the revulsion of Sam for Gollum, and forgive him his bungling: because any redemption that hangs on so tiny a thread as a harsh word I do not think would endure. And Sam's revulsion and rejection of Gollum is actually quite correct, in the strictly moral sense. What he feared happened: Gollum DID try to rob and kill Frodo. So I agree with this conclusion you reach entirely: Also from Letter #246 This{Sam's inability to see Gollum's change} is due of course to the 'logic of the story'. Sam could hardly have acted differently. (He did reach the point of pity at last (In the sense that 'pity' to be a true virtue must be directed to the good of its object. It is empty if it is exercised only to keep oneself 'clean', free from hate or the actual doing of injustice, though this is also a good motive) but for the good of Gollum too late.)
So, how do you feel now? To me, it feels much like the failed redemption of Gollum and according to the 'logic of the story'-- a sad occurrence but a wholly natural one, as well. (Rem) (Who was it that said I'd bring it up in my Chapter Lead? Well, I didn't! Instead I saved it for now. How clever I am! (Rem) THAT was a wondrous discussion. I am glad to recall it.  'To exhibit the generosity of Tolkien's mind, his love and pity for Gollum, and the tragic situations that must arise in the destruction of the Ring.'-- Adapted from Author's Commentary on the Athrabeth
(This post was edited by Brethil on Jan 15 2015, 12:23am)
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 15 2015, 6:22pm
Post #15 of 19
(1067 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Another quote I have always found interesting
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(Story placement: while at the sighting of the Oliphaunts)
...On the whole, Sam is behaving well, and living up to repute. He treats Gollum rather like Ariel to Caliban... (#64)
Though JRRT was not an enthusiastic Shakespeare fan, I find this quote about two very different servants interesting. I meant to include it but forgot to put it in my last Ramble to you.
(This post was edited by Brethil on Jan 15 2015, 6:23pm)
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 15 2015, 7:15pm
Post #16 of 19
(1066 views)
Shortcut
|
I once read through Letters, but most of it was lost on me, I think, in a straight read-through. It is wonderful how you can recall pertinent passages at the appropriate time!
I think here a note of Gollum's beginnings strike me. I hunted it down in Letter #181 (early 1956)
"The domination of the Ring was too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would never have had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path."
Maybe this is the missing syllogism between Bilbo and Gollum? As Gandalf said, the Ring worked such a comparatively less evil in Bilbo because he began his possession with pity. Though pity alone would not save him, it helped him give it up in time. Perhaps if Gollum had used it more benignly, Tolkien saw an alternate historical parallel to Bilbo? Of course, for the sake of the tale, it fell out rather differently, and these untrodden paths of history, as I have said, are not meant to be used to extrapolate an altered chronicle of actual occurrences, but rather to shed light on the larger 'philosophical morality' of Middle-Earth-- Tolkien's unwritten laws for the operation of the world-- A world where moral virtue is always repaid, Power is a corrosive substance, and small heroes triumph against all odds.
As a side-note I wonder what can be inferred about Gandalf here? He said the Ring would work on his sense of 'pity' to drive him to evil, but he praised Bilbo's pity as his 'saving grace'? What exactly would have warped this virtue into a vice? Is it the possession of Power itself?
I think the origins of Gollum play a part - the origins of who he was, when he was Sméagol. Just as the origins of who Frodo was play a part as well: (also from #181)
"The final scene of the Quest was so shaped simply because having regard to the situation, and to the characters of Frodo, Sam and Gollum, those events seemed to me mechanically, morally and psychologically credible. But, of course, if you wish for more reflection, I should say that within the mode of the story the 'catastrophe' exemplifies (an aspect of) the familiar words: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil".
"Lead us not into temptation &c' is the harder and the less often considered petition."
I love this letter, and Tolkien goes on to explain in more detail:
'The view, in the terms of my story, is that though every event or situation has (at least) two aspects: the history and development of the individual (it is something out of which he can get good, ultimate good, for himself, or fail to do so), and the history of the world (which depends on his action for its own sake) - still there are abnormal situations in which one may be placed. 'Sacrificial' situations, I should call them: sc. positions in which the 'good' of the world depends on the behaviour of an individual in circumstances which demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal - even, it may happen (or seem, humanly speaking), demand a strength of body and mind which he does not possess: he is in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will': that is against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under the duress.
The letter goes on to detail the circumstances by which Frodo is set upon to carry the Ring, and how the matter of exactly who he was BEFORE the Quest is the only thing that may have saved him, and Middle-earth:
"Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could 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. (Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.) ... But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own salvation is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point a prudent person would have told Frodo the Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear 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. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace' , that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo!" (underline by Brethil, #181)
I see shades of a.s.'s brilliant observation in the Chapter Discussion of A Shadow of the Past, here. I'll just add the one sentence that follows the last line of this letter, then comment:
By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours.- Letter #181
I think this all links back to the main idea of what kind of hero Frodo is. He is a Tragic/Germanic hero, tossed about by the whims of Fate, and whose heroism lies not in conquering the situations and living 'happily ever after', but in his patient suffering and endurance of the pains of the Quest, and the reward of wisdom and clarity it brings.
I see in this bit that in JRRT's cosmology, the essential point of unintended good arising from evil does NOT make the evil in any way redeemable.
No, but I see this 'grace' as the essence of Eucotastrophe-- evil turned to good. Frodo was rewarded according to his intentions, and Gollum got his desserts. Gandalf himself said to Frodo:
“Deserves it {death}! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many — yours not least.”
The consequences (a term not necessarily negative) were not always immediate, tangible, or in exact measure to the virtue expended, but the rewards came to fruition at the right time. The questions brought up by this quote are perfectly answered by the next one:
"Into the ultimate judgment of Gollum I would not care to enquire. The 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 marvelous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honorable. 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). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge." (#181)
But that the ultimate judgment of damnability does not belong to the fellow sharers of the raft seems to acknowledge evil, and seems to imply that is a judgment that can be made; yet to recognize its final punishment in the eyes of and right of God.
Perfectly stated. Who are we to question the Providence of M-E?
I think JRRT did see him as pitiable, and if the above from Letter #246 were the ending or even a facsimile of, then we could consider that Gollum was redeemed. But the pity of Frodo (logically disastrous, as JRRT writes) - that pity saves the world but it also is no credit to Gollum, per se. It is instead a tribute to Frodo (and Bilbo, in his day.) I also like in this letter that JRRT sees the actions of Sam as psychologically fitting and believable. And if we see Sam as the extension of the Hobbit/human family central hero, that means that it is Frodo who is acting a bit out of the norm: ennobled, as JRRT says, and with a Quest under extenuating and humanly impossible circumstances. He is the Elf-friend, and has maybe left this world a bit already. So I can see him pitying Gollum being of value - even if I do not see the value in Gollum himself. I can also see the revulsion of Sam for Gollum, and forgive him his bungling: because any redemption that hangs on so tiny a thread as a harsh word I do not think would endure. And Sam's revulsion and rejection of Gollum is actually quite correct, in the strictly moral sense. What he feared happened: Gollum DID try to rob and kill Frodo. So I agree with this conclusion you reach entirely:
This whole situation is a tricky quagmire, but I think you have summarised it well, but let me try to put it into my own words:
Sam, who I wanted to blame at first, is not to be seen as culpable for Gollum's villainy. In his response, he takes the most logical path of mistrusting Gollum. The action is not 'wrong', either morally or logically, per se, but Frodo takes it a step further in line with is status as a Tragic Hero. Sam here, might very well stand for the Romantic hero, dealing out judgement and death to the evil-doers so that peace can return to the land. This is the typical way Evil is vanquished in Fairy Tales. Frodo takes an unconventional approach, as you say, and tries to reform Gollum, at a cost to himself. Now imagine if a Tragic Hero replaced a Romantic one in a fairy tale of a Wicked King and knights? The hero, instead of slaughtering the wicked knights might instead try to reform them, and with at least partial success, prevent the shedding of blood. On the other hand, he might be betrayed and martyred--this leading to the repentance of some wicked knights. In both cases, Evil is vanquished, but the hero is rewarded in different ways. Who is to say one way is better than the other? It is a difference of temperament and methodology, but they are all heroes.
One last quote from Letter #246:
Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero,... he did not endure to the end.... For finite judges of imperfect knowledge, {the existence of Mercy} must lead to the use of two different scales of 'morality':
To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise... To others, in any case of which we know enough to make a judgement, we must apply a scale tempered by 'mercy'...
I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure....{It was} impossible... for any one to resist... His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy...
We are finite creatures with absolute limitations.... Moral failure can only be asserted, I think, when a man's effort or endurance falls short of his limits, and the blame decreases as that limit is closer approached.
Nonetheless, I think.. some individuals seem to be placed in 'sacrificial' positions: situations or tasks that for perfection of solution demand powers beyond their utmost limits, ... Judgement upon any such case should then depend on the motives and disposition with which he started out, and should weigh his actions against the utmost possibility of his powers... Frodo undertook his quest out of love...and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could..and go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been – say, by being strangled by Gollum, or crushed by a falling rock.
This seems to answer all my questions for the moment. if I had to summarise this all in one sentence, it would be this:
'All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us'
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 18 2015, 4:26am
Post #17 of 19
(1066 views)
Shortcut
|
I once read through Letters, but most of it was lost on me, I think, in a straight read-through. It is wonderful how you can recall pertinent passages at the appropriate time! Thank you Rem, but I seriously doubt it was lost on you at all! BTW: I think 'Ramble' should become TORNspeak for a detailed conversation, especially involving Letter citation.  I think here a note of Gollum's beginnings strike me. I hunted it down in Letter #181 (early 1956)
"The domination of the Ring was too strong for the mean soul of Sméagol. But he would never have had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path."
Maybe this is the missing syllogism between Bilbo and Gollum? As Gandalf said, the Ring worked such a comparatively less evil in Bilbo because he began his possession with pity. Though pity alone would not save him, it helped him give it up in time. Perhaps if Gollum had used it more benignly, Tolkien saw an alternate historical parallel to Bilbo? Of course, for the sake of the tale, it fell out rather differently, and these untrodden paths of history, as I have said, are not meant to be used to extrapolate an altered chronicle of actual occurrences, but rather to shed light on the larger 'philosophical morality' of Middle-Earth-- Tolkien's unwritten laws for the operation of the world-- A world where moral virtue is always repaid, Power is a corrosive substance, and small heroes triumph against all odds. (Rem)
As a side-note I wonder what can be inferred about Gandalf here? He said the Ring would work on his sense of 'pity' to drive him to evil, but he praised Bilbo's pity as his 'saving grace'? What exactly would have warped this virtue into a vice? Is it the possession of Power itself? What I feel reminded by, overwhelmingly here, is that line from Sador (book Sador!) "But the up-climbing is painful, and from high places it is easy to fall low." Those great in power, like Gandalf, have very far to fall. No so someone like Frodo or Bilbo. And then there is Gollum: he has NOT very far to fall, but perhaps starting from a low, mean, pitiless hillock the depths to which he can fall to are deeper? And maybe an underlying theme here is that Power and true Pity are mutually incompatible?
"Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could 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. (Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.) ... But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own salvation is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point a prudent person would have told Frodo the Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear 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. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace' , that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo!" (underline by Brethil, #181)
I see shades of a.s.'s brilliant observation in the Chapter Discussion of A Shadow of the Past, here. I'll just add the one sentence that follows the last line of this letter, then comment:
By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours.- Letter #181
I think this all links back to the main idea of what kind of hero Frodo is. He is a Tragic/Germanic hero, tossed about by the whims of Fate, and whose heroism lies not in conquering the situations and living 'happily ever after', but in his patient suffering and endurance of the pains of the Quest, and the reward of wisdom and clarity it brings. (Rem)
I see a.s. point here too, and very well taken. Indeed, Frodo as a hero is removed from the mundane reality of humanity. I agree with your statement above, with the coda that the pains he endures are there to strip him further from this world, from everyday existence, and to create an otherworldly hero. So perhaps not whims as much as ... tests. Cauterizations of spiritual wounds as they are given, like healing by fire? That's why in so many ways I see the journey of Frodo much like the Stations of the Cross. Every suffering a step towards healing beyond *this* world; with a smattering of Samaritans in the mix.
In light of my ideas that an author's heroes represent the 'best' and 'highest ideals' that the author has (as well as villains representing their worst fears). In Frodo and in Aragorn I can say that I see JRRT's highest ideals: in Aragorn, it is the truly humanly heroic, of the earth Man, the Man that JRRT may have felt himself in another mien. In Frodo, I see a spiritual ideal: one that is beyond the reach perhaps of almost all normal, human people: it is a combination of innate factors plus the many sufferings and the unseen hand of the Firstborn in his that allow him to get to Mount Doom. Frodo on Mount Doom is more than halfway to the Blessed Realm, I think; it explains his rather lackluster response to the Scouring of his beloved Shire: he has in truth already left it I think.
This seems to answer all my questions for the moment. if I had to summarise this all in one sentence, it would be this:
'All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
As Frodo and Aragorn, and Sam all did. Fantastic conclusion Rem.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 20 2015, 4:25pm
Post #18 of 19
(1050 views)
Shortcut
|
As a side-note I wonder what can be inferred about Gandalf here? He said the Ring would work on his sense of 'pity' to drive him to evil, but he praised Bilbo's pity as his 'saving grace'? What exactly would have warped this virtue into a vice? Is it the possession of Power itself?
What I feel reminded by, overwhelmingly here, is that line from Sador (book Sador!) "But the up-climbing is painful, and from high places it is easy to fall low." Those great in power, like Gandalf, have very far to fall. No so someone like Frodo or Bilbo. And then there is Gollum: he has NOT very far to fall, but perhaps starting from a low, mean, pitiless hillock the depths to which he can fall to are deeper?
And maybe an underlying theme here is that Power and true Pity are mutually incompatible?
Interesting thoughts here. I immediately am reminded of an old adage:
The bigger they are, the harder they fall
I like the idea that a person of greater power would be more likely to fall to the temptation of the Ring, and as I review Tolkien's words on the topic, I become more convinced of it.
In Gollum's case, I think that he might be one who has not so much to lose, or a great amount of influence, but has made a choice to take his 'fall'-- small as it may be. In so choosing, the very pettiness of what he has done strikes me. He is never a great danger to the cause of good--Gandalf could have roasted him from 100 paces if he had felt so inclined--, so why does he stick around? I think that he stands for a very sad sort of villain. He has not so much to lose in his 'fall', but what little he had, he gave up for a mean series of thefts and pranks. What did his evil bring him? In this petty evil, he falls into such complete despair and it is the only thing that lends strength to his arms. He has already lost so much for the sake of the 'precious' he cannot let it go, or else what would be the meaning of his sacrifices? They were frivolous wastes, and he doesn't want to admit it to be true.
Are Pity and Power mutually exclusive? I'd like to think not, and neither did Tolkien. I'm sure he wrote Eru as a benevolent deity; possessed of complete power and control. Maybe the difficulty for mortals of great power to be creatures of great pity is the gap between the Mundane and Divine?
Another thought...Power is usually gained by the strength of others harnessed to your will. Maybe the difficulty lies in obtaining Power by dominating the will of others? Gandalf's power came not from this source, and so he was able to learn Pity.
I see shades of a.s.'s brilliant observation in the Chapter Discussion of A Shadow of the Past, here. I'll just add the one sentence that follows the last line of this letter, then comment:
By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours.- Letter #181
I think this all links back to the main idea of what kind of hero Frodo is. He is a Tragic/Germanic hero, tossed about by the whims of Fate, and whose heroism lies not in conquering the situations and living 'happily ever after', but in his patient suffering and endurance of the pains of the Quest, and the reward of wisdom and clarity it brings. (Rem)
I see a.s. point here too, and very well taken. Indeed, Frodo as a hero is removed from the mundane reality of humanity. I agree with your statement above, with the coda that the pains he endures are there to strip him further from this world, from everyday existence, and to create an otherworldly hero. So perhaps not whims as much as ... tests. Cauterizations of spiritual wounds as they are given, like healing by fire? That's why in so many ways I see the journey of Frodo much like the Stations of the Cross. Every suffering a step towards healing beyond *this* world; with a smattering of Samaritans in the mix.
In light of my ideas that an author's heroes represent the 'best' and 'highest ideals' that the author has (as well as villains representing their worst fears). In Frodo and in Aragorn I can say that I see JRRT's highest ideals: in Aragorn, it is the truly humanly heroic, of the earth Man, the Man that JRRT may have felt himself in another mien. In Frodo, I see a spiritual ideal: one that is beyond the reach perhaps of almost all normal, human people: it is a combination of innate factors plus the many sufferings and the unseen hand of the Firstborn in his that allow him to get to Mount Doom. Frodo on Mount Doom is more than halfway to the Blessed Realm, I think; it explains his rather lackluster response to the Scouring of his beloved Shire: he has in truth already left it I think.
Here, I am reminded of the Letter quote that says, roughly, 'I we do not aim for the highest mark, we shall certainly fall short of our best'. I agree that much of what the legendary heroes accomplish is impractical for us ordinary folks, but so often, I think, many forget that these heroes are their to present unrealistic ideals, and blow them off. However, if we set them as our mark, we may yet fall short of their greatness, but in doing so, we have at least made progress further than we would have if we had simply given up. 'It's not the destination, but the journey'. In realising this, it makes it so much more meaningful when another more realistic, flawed hero succeeds, and we begin to feel like we could do it too!
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 23 2015, 3:04am
Post #19 of 19
(1061 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thoughts back...color-coordinated!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As a side-note I wonder what can be inferred about Gandalf here? He said the Ring would work on his sense of 'pity' to drive him to evil, but he praised Bilbo's pity as his 'saving grace'? What exactly would have warped this virtue into a vice? Is it the possession of Power itself?
What I feel reminded by, overwhelmingly here, is that line from Sador (book Sador!) "But the up-climbing is painful, and from high places it is easy to fall low." Those great in power, like Gandalf, have very far to fall. No so someone like Frodo or Bilbo. And then there is Gollum: he has NOT very far to fall, but perhaps starting from a low, mean, pitiless hillock the depths to which he can fall to are deeper?
And maybe an underlying theme here is that Power and true Pity are mutually incompatible?
Interesting thoughts here. I immediately am reminded of an old adage:
The bigger they are, the harder they fall
I like the idea that a person of greater power would be more likely to fall to the temptation of the Ring, and as I review Tolkien's words on the topic, I become more convinced of it.
In Gollum's case, I think that he might be one who has not so much to lose, or a great amount of influence, but has made a choice to take his 'fall'-- small as it may be. In so choosing, the very pettiness of what he has done strikes me. He is never a great danger to the cause of good--Gandalf could have roasted him from 100 paces if he had felt so inclined--, so why does he stick around? I think that he stands for a very sad sort of villain. He has not so much to lose in his 'fall', but what little he had, he gave up for a mean series of thefts and pranks. What did his evil bring him? In this petty evil, he falls into such complete despair and it is the only thing that lends strength to his arms. He has already lost so much for the sake of the 'precious' he cannot let it go, or else what would be the meaning of his sacrifices? They were frivolous wastes, and he doesn't want to admit it to be true.
Very nicely stated on Gollum. The opposite end of the spectrum of achievement: as we will say below, pushing upwards to grasp for an accomplishment in the clouds brings us to new and unseen heights...but denying one's ability and looking down in the mud does the converse, and leads to what we have with Gollum; despair and emptiness.
Are Pity and Power mutually exclusive? I'd like to think not, and neither did Tolkien. I'm sure he wrote Eru as a benevolent deity; possessed of complete power and control. Maybe the difficulty for mortals of great power to be creatures of great pity is the gap between the Mundane and Divine?
I like that idea. I need to mull it, but I like it.
Another thought...Power is usually gained by the strength of others harnessed to your will. Maybe the difficulty lies in obtaining Power by dominating the will of others? Gandalf's power came not from this source, and so he was able to learn Pity.
I see shades of a.s.'s brilliant observation in the Chapter Discussion of A Shadow of the Past, here. I'll just add the one sentence that follows the last line of this letter, then comment:
By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours.- Letter #181
I think this all links back to the main idea of what kind of hero Frodo is. He is a Tragic/Germanic hero, tossed about by the whims of Fate, and whose heroism lies not in conquering the situations and living 'happily ever after', but in his patient suffering and endurance of the pains of the Quest, and the reward of wisdom and clarity it brings. (Rem)
I see a.s. point here too, and very well taken. Indeed, Frodo as a hero is removed from the mundane reality of humanity. I agree with your statement above, with the coda that the pains he endures are there to strip him further from this world, from everyday existence, and to create an otherworldly hero. So perhaps not whims as much as ... tests. Cauterizations of spiritual wounds as they are given, like healing by fire? That's why in so many ways I see the journey of Frodo much like the Stations of the Cross. Every suffering a step towards healing beyond *this* world; with a smattering of Samaritans in the mix.
In light of my ideas that an author's heroes represent the 'best' and 'highest ideals' that the author has (as well as villains representing their worst fears). In Frodo and in Aragorn I can say that I see JRRT's highest ideals: in Aragorn, it is the truly humanly heroic, of the earth Man, the Man that JRRT may have felt himself in another mien. In Frodo, I see a spiritual ideal: one that is beyond the reach perhaps of almost all normal, human people: it is a combination of innate factors plus the many sufferings and the unseen hand of the Firstborn in his that allow him to get to Mount Doom. Frodo on Mount Doom is more than halfway to the Blessed Realm, I think; it explains his rather lackluster response to the Scouring of his beloved Shire: he has in truth already left it I think.
Here, I am reminded of the Letter quote that says, roughly, 'I we do not aim for the highest mark, we shall certainly fall short of our best'. I agree that much of what the legendary heroes accomplish is impractical for us ordinary folks, but so often, I think, many forget that these heroes are their to present unrealistic ideals, and blow them off. However, if we set them as our mark, we may yet fall short of their greatness, but in doing so, we have at least made progress further than we would have if we had simply given up. 'It's not the destination, but the journey'. In realising this, it makes it so much more meaningful when another more realistic, flawed hero succeeds, and we begin to feel like we could do it too!
In my comparisons, I realize I forgot to add Sam. Aragorn is the highest and most noble I think in the syllogism; a bit removed form us. Frodo is halfway to another world, but then there is Sam and I think HE may be the 'highest mark' for those of us in the world of every-day humanity. I think that is why Sam gets the real-world, physical life with a wife, and a joyous large family, that Frodo cannot have. When I wrote (I think over in a chapter discussion) that JRRT often matches up Bad Guys according to one's stature ('enemies commensurate with experience' the job ad would read): then, we have Sam vs. Shelob. Huh? He couldn't win...couldn't possibly...yet he does. He does not destroy her, no - maybe that WAS too much of a task. But he defeated her, to serve his love for Frodo and for what Frodo desires: the Quest to be fulfilled. An amazing victory, and I think it says something about what JRRT felt Sam-the-everyman was capable of, if the motivation was deep and pure enough.
|
|
|
|
|
