The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - LotR -- Book 6 - Chapter 3

Fordim Hedgethistle · 10-12-2005, 01:49 PM

I think, as is so often the case around here, that the difference is one of semantics: davem says "constrained choice" I say "no choice" but it all adds up to the same thing. It's an established fact that nobody can withstand torture -- Hollywood's vision of the man strong enough to resist torture is a myth: this is why CIA agents always have cyanide pills: because their political masters (who are masters in the art of torture themselves) know that there is no one who can't be broken. Sometimes, if the torturer is sloppy, the subject dies before he or she breaks, but that's the only way the victim can 'win'.

This is what happens to Frodo: he is broken by the Ring after enduring torture far beyond what anyone could have expected of him: the only way to have avoided taking the Ring would have been to die on the way to Mount Doom. His decision to take the Ring is no more a "free" or "willed" choice than is the "choice" of a torture victim to reveal what he or she knows. Yeah, sure, the person being burnt by a blowtorch chooses to talk, but that's not really what I would call a failure of their will or of their moral fibre. What that moment is about is the violence and evil of the torturer, not the supposed weakness of the victim.

The purpose of torture is not to force the person to talk ("tell us what we want to know and the pain will stop") -- it's not a bargain. The purpose of torture is to remove the victim's ability to think or decide rationally, in which case the choice is not 'really' his or hers at all.

As to the supposed lack of heroism for Frodo looked at this way, well, I look at him this way and he's a hero to me. Am I wrong? It seems to me an odd argument: Frodo is heroic because he chose evil. It seems even odder to me to argue that a Catholic writer would not portray as heroic someone who is "a passive victim"....I've read the Bible and I don't recall Christ leaping from the cross and smiting folk with thunderbolts! And as far as I can remember, Mary cried for her son, but didn't exactly storm the castle of Pontius Pilate!

davem, flattering as it may be for me to be confused with Mister Underhill, it was he, not I, who cited letter 246....although I would have.

10-12-2005, 01:49 PM	#21
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	I think, as is so often the case around here, that the difference is one of semantics: davem says "constrained choice" I say "no choice" but it all adds up to the same thing. It's an established fact that nobody can withstand torture -- Hollywood's vision of the man strong enough to resist torture is a myth: this is why CIA agents always have cyanide pills: because their political masters (who are masters in the art of torture themselves) know that there is no one who can't be broken. Sometimes, if the torturer is sloppy, the subject dies before he or she breaks, but that's the only way the victim can 'win'. This is what happens to Frodo: he is broken by the Ring after enduring torture far beyond what anyone could have expected of him: the only way to have avoided taking the Ring would have been to die on the way to Mount Doom. His decision to take the Ring is no more a "free" or "willed" choice than is the "choice" of a torture victim to reveal what he or she knows. Yeah, sure, the person being burnt by a blowtorch chooses to talk, but that's not really what I would call a failure of their will or of their moral fibre. What that moment is about is the violence and evil of the torturer, not the supposed weakness of the victim. The purpose of torture is not to force the person to talk ("tell us what we want to know and the pain will stop") -- it's not a bargain. The purpose of torture is to remove the victim's ability to think or decide rationally, in which case the choice is not 'really' his or hers at all. As to the supposed lack of heroism for Frodo looked at this way, well, I look at him this way and he's a hero to me. Am I wrong? It seems to me an odd argument: Frodo is heroic because he chose evil. It seems even odder to me to argue that a Catholic writer would not portray as heroic someone who is "a passive victim"....I've read the Bible and I don't recall Christ leaping from the cross and smiting folk with thunderbolts! And as far as I can remember, Mary cried for her son, but didn't exactly storm the castle of Pontius Pilate! davem, flattering as it may be for me to be confused with Mister Underhill, it was he, not I, who cited letter 246....although I would have. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.