LotR -- Book 2 - Chapter 03 - The Ring goes South

[Tuor of Gondolin]

For an interesting interpretation (by a Christian Periodical) on hope and faith in
Middle-earth (but which really draws on "The Stairs Of Cirith Ungol" rather then "The Ring Heads South" for a source:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...0/ai_107760354

And a quote from "The Stairs Of Cirith Ungol", but one that can be extended to this chapter, and all the way back to the Silmarillion and past Bilbo's adventure:

'Beren now, he never thought he was going to get that Silmaril from the Iron crown in Thangorodrim, and yet he did, and that was a worse place and a blacker danger than ours. But that's a long tale, of course, and goes on past the happiness and into grief and beyond it-and the Silmaril went on and came to earendil. And why sir, I never thought of that before! We've got-you've got some of the light of it in that star-glass that the Lady gave you! Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?' 'No, they never end, as tales,' said Frodo. 'But the people in them come and go when their part's ended.'

Okay, the above is probably 90% off-topic to this chapter , but it may
be a bit relevant to above themes of a story going on and of hope?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Interesting thoughts about story endings, Fordim! Tuor has already connected them to the end of the story, and I'd like to point out a previous quote, one that I like very much. In 'The Council of Elrond', Bilbo already mentioned the subject:

I was very comfortable here, and getting on with my book. If you want to know, I am just writing an ending for it. I had thought of putting: and he lived happily ever afterwards to the end of his days. It is a good ending, and none the worse for having been used before. Now I shall have to alter that: it does not look like coming true; and anyway there will evidently have to be several more chapters, if I live to write them. (bolding mine)

This seems to be more about a personal happy ending than a general one - whether or not Bilbo has one depends on whether he is the one who has to take the Ring, in which case there is also the question of whether or not he will survive to tell the story's end. As I see it, Bilbo got his happy ending, but at least in Middle-earth, there was none for the Ringbearer Frodo - though he did live to write the necessary chapters about the War of the Ring!

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

It's funny how oaths made this chapter reveal much.

[Elrond: ]The Ringbearer is setting out on the Quest of Mount Doom. On him alone is any charge laid: neither to cast away the Ring, nor to deliver it to any servants of the Enemy nor indeed to let any handle it, save members of the Company and the Council, and only then in gravest need. (LotR II 1)

(Oh yeah, my book's back! )

It doesn't mention anything about actually destroying the Ring, which is just as well, as he is not the one to accomplish the mission. But he did take the Ring to Mt. Doom.

But how come Elrond did not mention the destruction of the Ring as part of Frodo's charge - after all, that's what they talked about in the previous chapter, right? Was he given some super-foresight to see that the Ring will not be destroyed by this Hobbit? Or perhaps he thought the whole affair undoable from the beginning, and like Frodo, he only thinks that they could go as far as their strengths could carry them before the Enemy overwhelms them.

Hope in Middle-earth is a crazy concept. But it does make for great stories.

Nine.

Might not the number nine represents a totality of sorts? The Aratar, the nine ships of Elendil the Faithful, and the Fellowship all represent a consummation of one sort or another.

I don't know about the Nazgûl though. Can anyone help me here?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Esty, you wrote:

As I see it, Bilbo got his happy ending

Perhaps I am jaded by my own experience of life but I really don't see Middle-Earth as being a place where anyone has a "happy ending". There are joyful endings, but there is also a profound melancholy at these moments of change. Endings are time of upheaval and movement and continuing action for Tolkien -- this is one of the things that really distinguishes his art. Aragorn and Arwen are married, that is sure, but they do so under the knowledge that Aragorn will die, and now Arwen will die as well, and they will both be parted from Elrond forever. The brief moment (really looking ahead!) in which we hear of how Elrond and Arwen spend a day walking in the White Mountains before he departs is heart rending. Even Bilbo's passing into the West is not what I would call a "happy" ending -- he is still thinking about the Ring, still hoping that the story can be finished by those who come after, when we know that the story will never end.

Who among us finds the final line of the book "happy"? Joyful, yes, but there is a sense that as fulfilling as Sam's life will be now, it is somehow lesser and smaller. The whole story "winds down" rather than ends, and there are more stories to be told (the Appendices) not all of them entirely happy.

That's why I hold to my opinion that Bilbo, much as I love the old fellow, is naive -- perhaps even dangerously naive, since the only other people in the book who share his belief in endings, that it can all wrap up and 'stop' just the way one wants it -- are figures like Sauron or Saruman!

[davem]

Oh, but I think happy endings are possible in Middle earth, because whether the ending is 'happy' or not depends on the individual's own judgement, not on some external criteria. And it doesn't matter whether we as readers would consider the ending to be happy, either.

It seems to me that Bilbo would have said that his story had a happy ending, & so would Sam. Their parts of the story had happy endings, whether the story as a whole did or not.

In short, I don't think happiness is something objective.

There are joyful endings, but there is also a profound melancholy at these moments of change.

But its possible to feel melancholy at the end of a happy story, because the 'happiness' has ended for us with the ending of the story. I felt melancholy at the end of my first reading of the Hobbit, even though it had a happy ending, because it was over. In other words, we have to distinguish between our feelings & the feelings of the characters.

That's why I hold to my opinion that Bilbo, much as I love the old fellow, is naive

Maybe, but naive people can still experience happiness - in fact, I think they're more likely to.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Fordim

much as I love the old fellow, is naive -- perhaps even dangerously naive, since the only other people in the book who share his belief in endings, that it can all wrap up and 'stop' just the way one wants it -- are figures like Sauron or Saruman-

At a time of council I suppose he knows it as well as any. Not all poems in Red Book are happily ending. He's making a joke, he's gently mocking his own younger self out - the self of the time when his There and Back journey took place. I certainly remember the sentence of 'we hobbits can't talk seriously, we have to joke about it, but it does not mean we do not get it'. (I will try to locate quote proper for you when I have the time) It is not sarcasm, rather self-effacement, he makes - smiley, remembering recent discussion on the issue

cheers

[Bêthberry]

Fordim wrote
Who among us finds the final line of the book "happy"? Joyful, yes, but there is a sense that as fulfilling as Sam's life will be now, it is somehow lesser and smaller. The whole story "winds down" rather than ends, and there are more stories to be told (the Appendices) not all of them entirely happy.

This reminds me quite forcibly of T.S.Eliot's "The Hollow Men."

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang, but a whimper.

I think for both Tolkien and Eliot, the wrenching changes of the early twentieth century were cause for profound melancoly at the passing of a world, an ethos, an entire cultural reference. Both writers in many ways strove to gather what they could of those passing values in hopes they would not be lost entirely. So, Fordim, I would suggest that reading Bilbo might require less a recourse to "our own experience of life" and more a consideration of the tenor of the story. To me, Bilbo's comments about writing should be seen within the gentle humour the elves show him and an almost sweetly or gently patronising attitude about the writer who is always talking about writing but never getting it done. Bilbo acknowledges, "I can't count the days in Rivendell." To me, Bilbo's time there has always signified an affectionate and gentle senility lived out in an "assissted living environment" , if I can use those words without being thought too negative.

davem posted:

Its certainly interesting to speculate on how far Tolkien had gone down the road to the idea of 'Morgoth's Ring' at this stage. Had he formulated the idea that Middle earth had been infected by an external evil in the form of Morgoth's malice yet, or was it more a case of 'the world, the flesh & the devil' - ie, the material world, matter itself, is a source of evil?

Seen in the context of the later idea, we could see Morgoth's malice deliberately targetting the Fellowship, but this isn't what comes across to me - nor does any feeling of Middle earth being 'evil' - its more that it has its own 'desires', its own emotions, almost, anger, pain, joy, etc,

I would agree that, in terms of LotR alone--which is all I think we should consider here-- there is no sense of malice. Indeed, I would even go farther to suggest that such an attitude might reflect a serious error: to see the world solely in terms of the needs of men or hobbits. This would be, for my reading of the book, the arrogance of human centrism, believing that Eru had created Arda solely for the personal use of the human races and not for, well, whatever reason motivated his creation. This is why I think it is important that the first defeat of the Fellowship comes not at the hand of an Enemy but of a world which is not designed solely for their own egotistic drives.

My own understanding is that they had to make sure all the Nazgul had been completely 'disembodied', which would force their return to Mordor, as they could not 're-embody' themselves. It seems, though I may be wrong, that only Sauron could provide them with the means to function, to have any presence at all, in the physical realm.

I know that is the reason given in the text, but I asked why Elrond had to delay because I think it is related to my point above: it is a decision which puts the Fellowship in more harm by causing their departure under inclement conditions. The messengers had no trouble passing over the mountain. Yet the Fellowship had to have trouble. Had Nazul been discovered to be embodied, how would that have changed the plans? Indeed, I cannot see how it would. The decision reflects, to me, a good intention but a flawed one and in that flaw lies part of the inexpressible melancoly of LotR, the poignancy of the 'long defeat.'

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Indeed, I cannot see how it would. The decision reflects, to me, a good intention but a flawed one and in that flaw lies part of the inexpressible melancoly of LotR, the poignancy of the 'long defeat.'

I see the point. I agree with it. But it seems also that Tolkien needed the Fellowship to set out on December 25 for the whole affair to have more explicitly symbolic meaning.

[davem]

Originally Posted by H-I

I see the point. I agree with it. But it seems also that Tolkien needed the Fellowship to set out on December 25 for the whole affair to have more explicitly symbolic meaning.

Tolkien himself writes in Lobdell: A Tolkien Compass:

:
'The fellowship ... left on December 25th, which then had no sgniificance, since the Yule, or its equivalent, was then the last day of the year & the first of the next year. But December 25th (setting out) & March 25th (accomplishment of the quest) were intentionally chosen by me'

'A guide to the names in LotR'

Originally Posted by Bb

Indeed, I would even go farther to suggest that such an attitude might reflect a serious error: to see the world solely in terms of the needs of men or hobbits. This would be, for my reading of the book, the arrogance of human centrism, believing that Eru had created Arda solely for the personal use of the human races and not for, well, whatever reason motivated his creation.

I think the qustion is whether its the sentient races who have 'fallen out of harmony' with the Land or vice versa. If all things proceeded from Eru in the beginning, then they should all have been in harmony at one time. The fact that they aren't is what seems to have led Tolkien to come up with the idea of 'Morgoth's Ring'.

[Bêthberry]

But it seems also that Tolkien needed the Fellowship to set out on December 25 for the whole affair to have more explicitly symbolic meaning.

Okay, HI. Cheesy plot device!