[Child of the 7th Age]

Quote from Essex: Fine. Call it what you want then, the will of Illuvatar and not Fate, I don’t mind. It just proves my point that Mercy is what the events at Sammath Naur is about. Not failure, success or ‘Sin’.

Essex, Davem,

Hope you two don't mind if I poke my nose in here. I was an early participant, then a lurker, so just wanted to say something before my final departure from this thread.

I totally agree that mercy lies at the heart of what happened on Mount Doom in terms of Frodo, and is more central than any other concept.

However, I also feel that you can't look at either "mercy" (or conversely "sin" and "failure") in a vacuum. These terms and concepts are linked.

Take one step back from the concept of mercy and you are left with an obvious question: why was 'mercy' necessary? It was only the fact that Frodo claimed the Ring that put this whole scenario into play. If Frodo had been a perfect being, he would not have needed mercy because he could have thrown the Ring into the crack. He wasn't perfect, and he couldn't throw it in, a fact that is hinted at as far back as the fireplace at Bag-end.

So neither of these things can be seen in isolation: Frodo's failure of will (what Davem terms "sin") or Frodo's prior acts of mercy. These two are part of one equation. And just as in a chemistry problem, neither half can be ignored or set aside, or you end up with something that is less than the truth.

Tolkien makes it clear in his Letters that Frodo was doomed from the start. And he did not shrink from the using the actual word "failure' in connection with Frodo.

...he is in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will'.

The italics here are mine. (It is certainly interesting that Tolkien suggests two different options here--actively falling and broken by pressure--and does not rule out either of them, since these two views were put forward and debated earlier in this thread.)

In Letter 191, the author put Frodo's "failure" even more bluntly:

No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the Ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in this world is not finally resistable by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; the the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

Despite this failure of will, Tolkien distinguishes Frodo's shortcomings from "moral failure." He makes it quite clear that there can be no 'blame' attached to the hobbit, since "by a situation created by his 'forgiveness' he was saved himself." Tolkien also clearly states that Gandalf did not blame Frodo, even though the hobbit would have been revealed the whole truth in their conversations.

Helen is right in saying that the real burden of sadness and "sin" comes after, not before, Mount Doom. The hobbit starts out relieved and at peace, but guilt comes creeping up to plague him. He can't accept that he is a simple flawed instrument rather than a hero, and, more critically, he still desires the Ring. This is one reason he must leave the Shire and go to the West to gain healing and work through everything in his head and heart. (I do not think it is the only reason, but that is another argument and thread.)

However you interpret these scenes, Tolkien is quite clear in stating that the final outcome of Sammath Naur is determined by Eru, not merely "Fate" as Essex suggests:

Frodo deserves 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).

Essex - :The "Writer of the Story" is not "fate": it is a clear reference to God. In my mind, this is indeed "help from above."

Is Eru a "murderer" as Davem hints at in one of his posts when he speaks of Gollum's death? I don't think so. Gollum condemned himself a hundred times over. He condemned himself by slaying Deagol and clinging to life hundreds of years after he should have accepted death. He condemned himself again in that poignant scene when he touches Frodo's knee, is repelled by Sam, and then makes a decision to withdraw utterly from his "master". He condemned himself yet again by making a bargain with Shelob to slay Frodo, betraying the one being who had shown him compassion in all those years.

Gollum's fate is now sealed. He has sunk to "persistent wickedness" and "damnability", as Tolkien says. It is only a question of time until his doom is sealed. That final link in the chain comes at Sammath Naur when he again claims the Ring.

The only way in which Eru might be said to enter into this equation is in the timing, not the end result. Gollum has long ago chosen the path he will take, despite the help that is sent to him in the form of Frodo; the end of that path is clearly death and destruction. In Tolkien's words...

"by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deedwas the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo!

Eru was no murderer unless you feel that those who flagrantly break the moral code of the universe are not responsible for the end result which is inevitable death, physical or spiritual! (And in this situation, the two coincided.)

******************************************

Helen,

Getting back to an old, old discussion: was it desire for the Ring, or desire to use the Ring?

We may have to disagree on this, as I feel both factors were involved. Tolkien never repudiated the ideas set down in his earlier drafts; he simply chose to keep Frodo's motives private. I've looked back through the Letters and found one or two places that also seem to imply Frodo did indeed have a desire to use the thing, but hesitate to resurrect this on the thread.

In the end, we don't know for sure. And perhaps it's meant to be that way. The central points and ideas don't change, whichever way you look at it.

And yes -- it's fun to guess. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 3:04 PM January 29, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]