Quote:
When the other side lose it is seen as good, as glorious. So, war, in & of itself, is not tragic - only the defeat of 'our side' is tragic. War is only bad if 'we' lose......
We root for one side to win & only wish to see the utter defeat of the other. Thus, we only grieve when 'our side' loses, & cheer when the other side is beaten.
|
Whoa! Wait a minute.
If the message is so clear cut, how do you understand Frodo's response in the Scouring? Yes, he's exhausted, and that has something to do with his reluctance to take up a sword. But surely there's more to it than that.
Isn't this a case of Tolkien saying that there is more than one way to look at the use of force? Frodo is in a sense grieving even before the loss of life takes place and it's for the other side, even more than for his own. Plus, we're not just talking hobbits here, but also men.
Frodo's stance is clearly not the only way. It may not even be the best way in a practical sense (from the viewpoint of the story), but I never felt that JRRT was looking down his nose at Frodo because of the position he took. In the Letters, Tolkien tells us that "Frodo's attitude to weapons was personal" and that "he had.... reached the conclusion that physical fighting is actually less ultimately effective than most (good) men think." The efforts of Merry and Pippin essentially free the Shire, but Frodo's presence keeps bloodshed to a minimum. And it is only Frodo who has the moral authority to offer Saruman the chance of redemption essential for the moral balance of the story. Isn't Tolkien saying something about the necessity of having more than one side represented on a question of this type? In a sense he is reminding the reader that the use of physical force has plenty of questions attatched to it.
And speaking of giving your enemies a second chance... The offer to Saruman was an example of that.