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

[Fingolfin II]

Davem wrote-

Or perhaps Tolkien felt that Gollum must be made as monstrous as possible in order to emphasise the necessity for, & value of, pity, by requiring us to pity a true 'monster'. We are presented with someone for whom there is absolutely no reason to feel pity. But Tolkien seems to be saying that we should feel pity. So, it doesn't matter what an individual does, its somehow 'obligatory', according to the 'Wise' to feel pity for them, & to show mercy.

I don't feel 'obliged' to feel pity for Gollum- I just do. This is because Gandalf shows us that there is a chance for redemption, and more than anything, that Gollum's 'darker side' (i.e. murdering his friend, eating babies, etc.) is because of the Ring's effect on him and in doing this Tolkien wants to highlight the marked impact the Ring has on it's bearers.

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.'

Gandalf says this to Frodo to show him that he should feel some empathy for Gollum, who is- to my mind- a tragic villain. I think that it is also foreshadowing of what Frodo himself is to become under the influence of the Ring, as no one in Middl-Earth can overcome it's temptation (apart from Sauron and Tom Bombadil). Gandalf says that even though Gollum is someone to be despised for his heinous crimes, he is also someone to be pitied for what has driven him to commit these crimes and his distressed mental state.

On a side track, I think that HerenIstarion's note on the chapter structure and content of the first three chapters of Books I and II (Post #2) is very astute and no doubt intentional, in order to create a consistency and common structure if you like, for the reader to follow-

Not only names are somehow interrelated, but the context is neatly up to match what happens in each book. So to say, in the first chapter of each book all is relatively peacefull, but inner tension builds up, in relative second chapters nothing much happens (not a feat often seen in modern writing!), just people talk(in retrospective), the third relative chapters deal with conclusions following retrospective conversation in second chapters and the rest of each book is the quest itself.

Davem, your comments about 'Mad Baggins' are very true and I think that you are right when you say-

I just find it fascinating how Tolkien is depicting the way folklore is created. And its totally believable.

Tolkien has a way of bringing characters to life and making them seem so much like people we know that it is quite amazing. I never thought I would identify so well with a character called 'Bilbo' or 'Frodo' for that matter!

[Guinevere]

Very good point about the importance of pity, Fordim !

'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.'

"No message" in LotR , huh ? Well, for me this is certainly a message!


I also agree very muchwith Davem's remarks about "Mad Baggins"!

There seems nothing left for me to say, except that I'm a bit puzzled by a small detail at the end of the chapter:
Sam says "Lor bless you, Mr Gandalf, sir!" and "Lor bless me, sir" . How does that expression fit into Middle-earth ? Just another anachronism like clocks, postoffices etc.? Otherwise Hobbits don't seem to have any religion at all!

[Evisse the Blue]

Sam says "Lor bless you, Mr Gandalf, sir!" and "Lor bless me, sir" . How does that expression fit into Middle-earth ?

Aha! Yes, I wondered about that too. I came to the conclusion that it's either a slip of Tolkien's, or a 'translation' of a particular hobbit interjection. In the same way that the hobbit names were 'translated' in English, to make them more familiar, a specific hobbit interjection (which may or may not have included a mention of divinity) was rendered as that.

The discussion on pity brought to mind an older thread I started where I was trying to argue that feeling pity for the villains made one more vulnerable to their vile deeds. I still believe that, to an extent, but I agree that in Tolkien's world it all turns out for the common good and pity is redeeming.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Evisse

The discussion on pity brought to mind an older thread I started where I was trying to argue that feeling pity for the villains made one more vulnerable to their vile deeds. I still believe that, to an extent, but I agree that in Tolkien's world it all turns out for the common good and pity is redeeming.

This is a point really worth considering. The early 'version' of Gollum - Digol - who isn't either a murderer or a canibal, is easier to feel pity for. The later one isn't. There's no reason why we should pity him. So, the 'highest' form of pity, like mercy, is pity & mercy for the undeserving. Tolkien has created a monster in Gollum & yet asks us to feel pity for him. Is this equivalent to asking us to feel pity for Saddam Hussain, or Osama Bin Laden, or Hitler? The Ring may be responsible for Gollum's seduction to evil, yet what is the Ring, if not a symbol of desire for power, control, domination.

Tolkien seems to be saying that we are obliged to do the 'right' thing - show pity & mercy to all, & leave the rest to the 'Authority'. Perhaps his philosophy is that if we do the right thing the Authority can work through us & bring about a good result, whereas if we don't do the right thing it can't.

As to sympathising with evil characters & so becoming more vulnerable, perhaps Tolkien is simply saying that we shouldn't judge, & that we only have to follow the right path & trust that the Authority will bring things to a good end.

[mark12_30]

I like lmp's take on this. The Shire is modeled on Edwardian England. Clocks, umbrellas, blessings, and all. In Edwardian England, the Rules had a firmly religious base, whether it was remembered by the individual or not.

Just so the Shire; The essential Goodness comes from the moral foundation set up by Eru in the king's lands eons ago in Numenor, which oozed over intot he laws brought to Gondor and Arnor, and thence to the Shire with "The King" and "The Rules"-- even if the "Why" of the morality is forgotten. The religion is indeed (in the case of the hobbits) entirely forgotten, but evidence of its foundation apparently still lingers, just like their references to The King and The Rules. They linger like dusty mathoms.

[Mirkgirl]

Being a bit more practical (or cynical) I always saw that pity/mercy repays. Whether in straightforward sense or the higher power intervene (Gollum helping them find the way and destroying the ring at the end) or simply it makes you feel good in your skin and thus less vulnerable (Bilbo and the ring). However it's just a matter of opinion I guess.

The reason for this post is a lot more trivial... I just wanted to post one quote which is from the other end of the book (exactly the second chapter from back too), but still, I believe, belongs to be discussed together with this one.

from "The Scouring of the Shire"
- No, Sam! - said Frodo. - Do not kill him even now. For he has not hurt me. And in any case I do not wish him to be slain in this evil mood. He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.
Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. - You have grown, Halfling, - he said. - Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. You have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go and I will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you health and long life. You will have neither. But that is not my doing. I merely foretell.

Do not kill when it's not needed. It doesn't mean be weak and let your enemies harm you, it simply means do not kill for the sake of revenge only. Also we understand that even revenge can be sweater with the enemy alive

[Essex]

To go back to an earlier point raised by Squatter, regarding Sam's point about the 'Tree-men'

After a few readings of lotr, I finally picked up on this. To me, Tolkien inserts this passage and what transpires later to add yet another example of Loss in this novel. To me, Loss is a central theme to LOTR, whether it be Frodo losing the Shire, Sam losing Frodo, Elrond losing Arwen, Gollum losing the Ring, etc. But for this example, I'm talking about the Ents losing the Entwives.

We hear Treebeard's story to Merry and Pippin in TT, but unfortunately the hobbits were obviously not present at the Green Dragon when Sam spoke about the Tree-men, and did not hear of the story from Sam's cousin Hal. (As to the 'sex' of the tree-men, they could well have been entwives instead of ents of course, what does Hal know....)

If only they had heard this, I hoped.

And I know I'm getting ahead of myself here mentioning ROTK but.....

To add to Treebeard's sadness in Many Partings, as he says goodbye to the Company, Aragorn throws a spanner in the works:

Treebeard's face became sad. 'Forests may grow,' he said. 'Woods may spread. But not Ents. There are no Entings.'
'Yet maybe there is now more hope in your search,' said Aragorn. 'Lands will lie open to you eastward that have long been closed.'

Sam! Are you listening to this? Tell treebeard to look West, not East!!

And to add a twist, it seems Treebeard is only talking as an aside to Merry and Pippin as they drain their bowls:

'Well, good-bye! And don't forget that if you hear any news of the Entwives in your land, you will send word to me.'

Talk to Sam, Treebeard! Talk to Sam! He'll remember......

But no, Tolkien leaves Treebeard in his sadness, and gives us another melancholic example of Loss, foreshadowed by Sam in the Green Dragon in Bywater at the begining of the story......