The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - The Meaning of Pity and Mercy...what is the RIGHT thing to do?

Child of the 7th Age · 04-23-2002, 11:02 AM

Jessica--This is sharon, the 7th age hobbit, whom you quoted at the beginning in your question. I've been tied up with the "real world" a number of days, and haven't been able to find computer time. So I'm glad to read this thread now as it is very interesting.

Yes, on one level I certainly agree that it is no good to look simplistically at LOTR or any other of Tolkien's writings as a guidebook for our ethical life in the 7th age. Things are just too different in many respects. We do not have to fight evil incarnate but a strange mixture of the good and bad, where it's sometimes difficult to even discern one from the other. And then there are the seductive voices of Saruman. I believe we have plenty of those.

And yet, there are messages in this book which would be applicable in any time and place--the realization that we have moral choices to make and these choices will have consequences that go far beyond our little selves. In that sense, whether we actually use terms like "pity" or "mercy" in our age, the phenomenon of forgiveness and forbearance couched in whatever terms we care to dress them up in does have relevance today.

As far as the question whether Frodo would have struck back and killed someone if he had been in a life threatening situation, the answer is absolutely yes. Why was he wearing Sting at his side, unless he acknowledged this as a real possibility? Only near the end of the book, does he remove it and state that he thinks it is his fate not to strike again. But this is in the very special situation of Mount Doom and the realization that using a sword to strike out against evil will have absolutely no effect.

But there is another question that bears raising. Why is it Frodo (and not Sam or Faramir) who advocates restraint with Gollum? Frodo argues with Faramir that Gollum is not wholly wicked. It is as if Frodo can see things in others' souls most characters can not see. He can somehow look deep into Gollum's small, shriveled heart and see there light, still hidden, almost extinguished, but still the possibility of goodness.

Perhaps it's not surprising that Frodo would be able to see this light. Just listen to Sam's comments as he watched Frodo sleep in the depths of Mordor. Sam comments that a light shining from Frodo's face was even brighter than when he had last seen it: "Now the light was even clearer and stronger....Frodo's face was peaceful, the marks of fear and care had left it; but it looked old, old and beautiful, as if the chiselling of the shaping years was now revealed in many fine lines that had before been hidden, though the identity of the face was not changed" (II, 269) Only a being who had this kind of light within himself can sense the presence of it, though hidden and dilluted, even in Gollum. Since I do not have this level of insight or light, I am afraid my own response would be more like Faramir's or even Sam's, cautioning and suspicious.

But I have no doubt that it was Frodo's ability to sense that light, his ability to show caring to Smeagol (the little part of Smeagol that was still left under Gollum) which permitted Frodo to succeed with the Ring, even in the limited sense that he did. And even Gollum could love and identify with the specialness that was in Frodo--the scene where he cautiously touched the sleeping Frodo's knee with almost a caress. Frodo's generosity and love were so unlikely that even Gollum could not help but respond. If only Sam had managed to stay asleep, what might have happened? In a sense, this is Frodo's finest moment, more profound than what happened on Mount Doom itself.

In the end, Frodo withstood evil because he bound himself not to the power of the Ring, but to others. It is in this context that Frodo's pity and mercy must be considered. Frodo finds himself in his love for Sam and in his compassion for Smeagol. Without this dependence, a dependence based on humility, he would have fallen victim to the Ring as many others had done. No, I don't think I have the heart or moral insight to respond like this and so my attempts at pity and mercy are necessarly more limited and halting. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

04-23-2002, 11:02 AM	#12
Child of the 7th Age Spirit of the Lonely Star Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 5,133	Jessica--This is sharon, the 7th age hobbit, whom you quoted at the beginning in your question. I've been tied up with the "real world" a number of days, and haven't been able to find computer time. So I'm glad to read this thread now as it is very interesting. Yes, on one level I certainly agree that it is no good to look simplistically at LOTR or any other of Tolkien's writings as a guidebook for our ethical life in the 7th age. Things are just too different in many respects. We do not have to fight evil incarnate but a strange mixture of the good and bad, where it's sometimes difficult to even discern one from the other. And then there are the seductive voices of Saruman. I believe we have plenty of those. And yet, there are messages in this book which would be applicable in any time and place--the realization that we have moral choices to make and these choices will have consequences that go far beyond our little selves. In that sense, whether we actually use terms like "pity" or "mercy" in our age, the phenomenon of forgiveness and forbearance couched in whatever terms we care to dress them up in does have relevance today. As far as the question whether Frodo would have struck back and killed someone if he had been in a life threatening situation, the answer is absolutely yes. Why was he wearing Sting at his side, unless he acknowledged this as a real possibility? Only near the end of the book, does he remove it and state that he thinks it is his fate not to strike again. But this is in the very special situation of Mount Doom and the realization that using a sword to strike out against evil will have absolutely no effect. But there is another question that bears raising. Why is it Frodo (and not Sam or Faramir) who advocates restraint with Gollum? Frodo argues with Faramir that Gollum is not wholly wicked. It is as if Frodo can see things in others' souls most characters can not see. He can somehow look deep into Gollum's small, shriveled heart and see there light, still hidden, almost extinguished, but still the possibility of goodness. Perhaps it's not surprising that Frodo would be able to see this light. Just listen to Sam's comments as he watched Frodo sleep in the depths of Mordor. Sam comments that a light shining from Frodo's face was even brighter than when he had last seen it: "Now the light was even clearer and stronger....Frodo's face was peaceful, the marks of fear and care had left it; but it looked old, old and beautiful, as if the chiselling of the shaping years was now revealed in many fine lines that had before been hidden, though the identity of the face was not changed" (II, 269) Only a being who had this kind of light within himself can sense the presence of it, though hidden and dilluted, even in Gollum. Since I do not have this level of insight or light, I am afraid my own response would be more like Faramir's or even Sam's, cautioning and suspicious. But I have no doubt that it was Frodo's ability to sense that light, his ability to show caring to Smeagol (the little part of Smeagol that was still left under Gollum) which permitted Frodo to succeed with the Ring, even in the limited sense that he did. And even Gollum could love and identify with the specialness that was in Frodo--the scene where he cautiously touched the sleeping Frodo's knee with almost a caress. Frodo's generosity and love were so unlikely that even Gollum could not help but respond. If only Sam had managed to stay asleep, what might have happened? In a sense, this is Frodo's finest moment, more profound than what happened on Mount Doom itself. In the end, Frodo withstood evil because he bound himself not to the power of the Ring, but to others. It is in this context that Frodo's pity and mercy must be considered. Frodo finds himself in his love for Sam and in his compassion for Smeagol. Without this dependence, a dependence based on humility, he would have fallen victim to the Ring as many others had done. No, I don't think I have the heart or moral insight to respond like this and so my attempts at pity and mercy are necessarly more limited and halting. sharon, the 7th age hobbit [ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ] __________________ Multitasking women are never too busy to vote.