The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

littlemanpoet · 08-02-2002, 10:18 AM

Greetings, Bethberry.

::bows with a flourish of poet's cap::

Enjoy your vacation.

I'm being muddled here. I can tell because I keep writing stuff and deleting it because I can't make myself clear, which means this isn't at all clear in my mind.

I used "providence" because of my religious background, and I've often read that term as applied to LotR - which is why I added the corrective, "chance", which is mentioned frequently in LotR (providence isn't, is it?)

I thought I had set up the choice/destiny debate by bringing up providence as opposed to pity, because I apparently have not sufficiently jettisoned my old Calvinist categories (which I don't believe anymore).

The nub of the issue is that "chance" is indeed brought up frequently enough to warrant notice. You know the type of thing I'm referring to. It's in The Hobbit, too. "You're a very fine person, Bilbo, but you are just one hobbit after all."

Or in the Council of Elrond, one of the wise tells Frodo that (he thinks) Frodo was meant to bear the Ring. I think there are other such statements in The Shadow of the Past and elsewhere throughout the story.
If Frodo was meant to bear the Ring, precisely who meant him to bear it? It would have to be someone who had at least some influence on Bilbo's decision to relinquish the Ring to Frodo, the Ring's will to be lost by Gollum deep in the mountains, Smeagol's murder of Deagol, Deagol's accidental discovery of the Ring, the Ring slipping off Isildur's finger in the Gladden Fields, the orc arrow killing Isildur, Isildur being found by the orc party, Isildur choosing to keep the Ring rather than destroy it. Who had influence over all of these decisions? Did anybody? If not, Gandalf and Elrond were either wrong or lying, which is farfetched. If someone, we must refer to our knowledge of the Silmarillion and suppose this is talking either about the Valar or about Eru. Since the Silmarillin tells us that the Valar have little to do with humans, we are left to conclude that Eru is the one who meant Frodo to be the Ringbearer. Eru is the source, therefore, of the providence, that is, the providing. But there were so many choices in the above list. What influence does Eru have over these choices, if any? Does he control choices? A Calvinist would say he does. I say Eru does not, because it doesn't make sense. So all these choices, including that of having pity, are human choices, and even Eru is somehow at the mercy of his allowance for humans to have choice (much more so than Elves, who are more tied to doom). So it seems to me that there is indeed a tension between pity and providence, because Eru can provide and provide and provide, but if pity is not there in the heart of the one provided for, all is for nothing, or at least delayed yet again.

So I guess I'm saying that whereas Frodo's choice of pity was necessary for Sauron's fall, Eru' providence was a crucial part of the whole picture, but not enough. So providence cannot stand alone as the central theme, and neither can pity.

I hope that makes sense.

08-02-2002, 10:18 AM	#21
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	Greetings, Bethberry. ::bows with a flourish of poet's cap:: Enjoy your vacation. I'm being muddled here. I can tell because I keep writing stuff and deleting it because I can't make myself clear, which means this isn't at all clear in my mind. I used "providence" because of my religious background, and I've often read that term as applied to LotR - which is why I added the corrective, "chance", which is mentioned frequently in LotR (providence isn't, is it?) I thought I had set up the choice/destiny debate by bringing up providence as opposed to pity, because I apparently have not sufficiently jettisoned my old Calvinist categories (which I don't believe anymore). The nub of the issue is that "chance" is indeed brought up frequently enough to warrant notice. You know the type of thing I'm referring to. It's in The Hobbit, too. "You're a very fine person, Bilbo, but you are just one hobbit after all." Or in the Council of Elrond, one of the wise tells Frodo that (he thinks) Frodo was meant to bear the Ring. I think there are other such statements in The Shadow of the Past and elsewhere throughout the story. If Frodo was meant to bear the Ring, precisely who meant him to bear it? It would have to be someone who had at least some influence on Bilbo's decision to relinquish the Ring to Frodo, the Ring's will to be lost by Gollum deep in the mountains, Smeagol's murder of Deagol, Deagol's accidental discovery of the Ring, the Ring slipping off Isildur's finger in the Gladden Fields, the orc arrow killing Isildur, Isildur being found by the orc party, Isildur choosing to keep the Ring rather than destroy it. Who had influence over all of these decisions? Did anybody? If not, Gandalf and Elrond were either wrong or lying, which is farfetched. If someone, we must refer to our knowledge of the Silmarillion and suppose this is talking either about the Valar or about Eru. Since the Silmarillin tells us that the Valar have little to do with humans, we are left to conclude that Eru is the one who meant Frodo to be the Ringbearer. Eru is the source, therefore, of the providence, that is, the providing. But there were so many choices in the above list. What influence does Eru have over these choices, if any? Does he control choices? A Calvinist would say he does. I say Eru does not, because it doesn't make sense. So all these choices, including that of having pity, are human choices, and even Eru is somehow at the mercy of his allowance for humans to have choice (much more so than Elves, who are more tied to doom). So it seems to me that there is indeed a tension between pity and providence, because Eru can provide and provide and provide, but if pity is not there in the heart of the one provided for, all is for nothing, or at least delayed yet again. So I guess I'm saying that whereas Frodo's choice of pity was necessary for Sauron's fall, Eru' providence was a crucial part of the whole picture, but not enough. So providence cannot stand alone as the central theme, and neither can pity. I hope that makes sense.