LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 02 - The Shadow of the Past

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem's points concerning the corrupting effect of the Ring reminded me of a point which occurred to me when I re-read this chapter.

Gandalf tells Frodo:

A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twighlight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Ring. Yes, sooner or later - later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last - sooner or later the dark power will devour him.

At the outset of this passage, it is made very clear that it refers to the effect of the Ring on mortals. This suggests that the Ring might not have the same effect on immortals. It might even suggest that the Ring has no effect on immortals. Yet, later in the chapter, Gandalf makes it clear that it would have a corrupting effect on him, an immortal being.

This leads me to wonder whether the Ring might affect mortal and immortal beings differently. Clearly, it has the power to corrupt both, but do its "enwraithing" properties affect mortals only? The earlier drafts which davem quoted refer to 'elf-wraiths', so Tolkien clearly contemplated the possibility of immortals becoming wraiths. But these references had been removed by the final version. Is this, perhaps, because an immortal being, by his or her very nature, cannot become eternally confined to the "Wraith-world" alone? Any thoughts?

The passage quoted above also tells us that, if a mortal bears the Ring long enough, then he will inevitably become enslaved to it. Davem said:

The hope that runs through the whole Legendarium is simply, & only, that - you cannot be forced to surrender, you have to choose it.

But this passage suggests that the only choice a Ringbearer has is to cast the Ring away, or destroy it, before he becomes enslaved to it. If he does not do so, then he will be forced to surrender to it.

These wisdoms have proverbial quality and an innate worth that makes them timeless and applicable to my life. (Estelyn)

Exactly! And that's why it seemed so strange to me that Tolkien stated in the foreword that "there is no inner meaning or message"! (Guinevere)

Ah, but he accepted that it might have applicability to his readers.

[mark12_30]

Saucie, I read (somewhere) that elves who had been to the West lived in both worlds-- the current world and the shadow world. Hence although Frodo's friends grew dimmer as the knife -point penetrated, yet Glorfindel was shining brightly. These elves at least already live in both worlds, so I do not think they would fade.

(As an aside, I think that's what the movie was trying to show when a glowing, silver-garbed Arwen approached the wounded Frodo and he was wide-eyed at her radiance. To the rest she was clad in dark colors.)

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Saucie, I read (somewhere) that elves who had been to the West lived in both worlds-- the current world and the shadow world.

So Gandalf tells Frodo in Rivendell:

And here in Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power.'

[The Saucepan Man]

Saucie, I read (somewhere) that elves who had been to the West lived in both worlds-- the current world and the shadow world.

Yes indeed. But I was wondering whether the long-term effects of the Ring on them would be to restrict them solely to the "spirit-world" (just as it turns mortals to wraiths), or whether its "enwraithing" properties simply didn't work on them. It doesn't really matter as it's a hypothetical question, but it was just a thought prompted by Gandalf's specific reference to "mortals" in the passage which I quoted above.

My problem with the idea that the Ring inevitably corrupts its bearer is that if it does then Frodo (& Gollum) are in the end merely victims of its power, overwhelmed by a superior force that they can do nothing to withstand.

Well, Frodo is not necessarily a victim of its power. It depends whether or not it has totally enslaved him to its will by the time he reaches Mount Doom. If it has, then yes he is a victim. If not, he has a choice. But I don't think that we can deny what Gandalf is saying here about the inevitability of the Ring ultimately prevailing (with mortals at least) given sufficient time.

Clearly there is an important debate to be had concerning whether Frodo would ever have been able to destroy the Ring. My own view is that any analysis which suggests that someone else could have done it and that Frodo was simply not strong enough seriously impairs his character. But, perhaps that debate is best left until we actually reach Mount Doom in a year or so's time ( ).

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But I don't think that we can deny what Gandalf is saying here about the inevitability of the Ring ultimately prevailing (with mortals at least) given sufficient time.

I suppose Tolkien would take the Christian position - we're all 'sinners' & cannot 'save' ourselves - so our failure is guaranteed - unless 'God' intervenes. But that still leaves the question of whether Evil could win out over us if we weren't so 'flawed'. If it could then we have a universe where evil is a power in its own right, potentially strong enough to defeat good in a straight battle (=Manichaeanism). If evil can only defeat us because of our 'fallen' nature, then its our fallen nature itself which brings about our defeat (=Boethianism).

(yes, I know I'm opversimplifying the philosophical complexities there!)

[The Saucepan Man]

If it could then we have a universe where evil is a power in its own right, potentially strong enough to defeat good in a straight battle (=Manichaeanism). If evil can only defeat us because of our 'fallen' nature, then its our fallen nature itself which brings about our defeat (=Boethianism).

But, if Man is “fallen”, doesn’t this in itself imply the existence of evil as a separate power in its own right, since the “fall” of Man could only have been brought about by the intervention of evil (as an element of the external conflict between good and evil)? If so, then it seems to me that there is in practice little distinction between these two propositions. Either way, the inevitability of Man’s ultimate submission to the Ring (as explained by Gandalf in the passage quoted above) is brought about by the interference of an external evil power.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

But, if Man is “fallen”, doesn’t this in itself imply the existence of evil as a separate power in its own right, since the “fall” of Man could only have been brought about by the intervention of evil (as an element of the external conflict between good and evil)?

Well, define 'evil'!

Tolkien states (via Elrond) that nothing was evil in the beginning* . My understanding is that the conflict in Middle Earth is not one of 'Good' vs 'Evil' - ie two equal but opposite forces in conflict, but rather of 'Good vs corrupted/marred 'Good'. Which is why I would disagree that:

the inevitability of (as explained by Gandalf in the passage quoted above) is brought about by the interference of an external evil power.

& say that 'Man’s ultimate submission to the Ring' is a choice made by the individual - often under extreme pressure - & not something which happens to them as a result of their will being overwhelmed by an unstoppable force.

This means there is no need to bring in an objectively existing 'Evil' force or power in opposition to Eru (of course there are individuals who do 'evil' things, bwhat they serve is twisted 'Good').

( * - of course, one could get into a deep discussion as to whether the 'nothing' which Elrond refers to here is the Void, in which Melkor went into in search of the Secret Fire, in which case we would have a kind of Manichaeanism - Eru=Good & the Void=Evil. But I don't think Tolkien intended that, & also, it would deny Evil any form of 'existence', & 'Evil' would then simply be an absence of 'Good'.)

[davem]

SpM

But this passage suggests that the only choice a Ringbearer has is to cast the Ring away, or destroy it, before he becomes enslaved to it. If he does not do so, then he will be forced to surrender to it.

My problem with the idea that the Ring inevitably corrupts its bearer is that if it does then Frodo (& Gollum) are in the end merely victims of its power, overwhelmed by a superior force that they can do nothing to withstand.

But is Frodo just a victim? To me he is a tragic hero, & his tragedy
comes from his surrender in the end - he carries it to the Fire, weary, confused, in pain, & at the last moment I can almost hear the voice of the Ring:' I can make it stop, I can make all the pain go away, & you can rest. Just claim me.'

And he does. That's what's heartbreaking. It wouldn't be so horrible if he had been so overwhelmed that he had lost control of his will & didn't know what he was doing. What makes me weep for Frodo is that in the end he just wants it to stop, so he can rest, free from the suffering he's been through. And its the fact that evil still, even at the end can't simply sweep his will & sense of identity away, but he must surrender it - & does. The cruelty of the Ring, & its master is brought into stark relief by this final moment. And Frodo's self condemnation, his feelings of failure, are much harder to read about.

Mark

I also wanted to pick up on your earlier point about Frodo dreaming of the mountains, & of crossing the River, because Frodo's dreams become an increasingly important element in the story, And they all seem to be prophetic dreams, or dreams about actual events which are happening to others. How is this possible - are those events somehow 'destined'? In Osanwe Kenta Tolkien states that the future is known only to Eru, & so can only be revealed by him. Are we seeing Eru's presence running throughout the story, surfacing in these dreams & visions?

[HerenIstarion]

Following OK implications, there are hints of the whole event being Eru's [direct?]intervention:

LoRT Book I chapter 02, Gandalf to Frodo

Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that maybe an encouraging thought

meant whom by, we wonders?

More hinted at in the Unfinished Tales:

UT, Gandalf reminding himself of events preceeding There and Back Again

But that was not enough for me. I knew in my heart that Bilbo must go with him, or the whole quest would be a failure – or, as I should say now, the far more important events by the way would not come to pass.

UT, Gandalf persuading Thorin to take Bilbo along:

'Listen to me, Thorin Oakenshield !' I said. 'If this hobbit goes with you, you will succeed. If not, you will fail. A foresight is on me, aid I am warning you.'

and, finally:

But that has been averted – because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring not far from Bree. A chance-meeting, as we say in Middle-earth

Ambivalent phrase, this last one - it may imply that is was indeed by chance, but the intonation is such that it implies that what happened may seem to be a chance, but there is more to it just a bit deeper down