LotR -- Book 4 - Chapter 01 - The Taming of Sméagol

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The question of the narrative splits -- ruptures, really -- is a good one. For my money, I've always just assumed that the primary reason was for suspense. It's a great way to keep the reader going: Gandalf and Pippin riding to war in Minas Tirith *whap* back in time by a few days and with Sam and Frodo. Of course, the worst one is still coming: "Frodo had been taken by the enemy" *wap* back to Gandalf and Pippin -- AAAAAGGH!!

But Bb points out a very interesting possibility with the thematic apposition of these two stories: the action-packed group-communal effort of societies against evil on the one hand, and the quieter suspenseful individual-private struggle between good and evil within each individual's heart and mind. It's not so much a back and forth movement as an in and out: history (Aragorn/Ganalf et al) and biography (Frodo, Sam, Gollum); societal and individual.

I'm really not happy, though, with any kind of Freudian approach to the current tale, if for no other reason than Freud was pretty much wrong about everything other than the fact that childhood experiences leave a mark on the developed adult. That, and the absence of a sexualised dynamic between Frodo, Sam and Gollum, makes Freud rather a red herring. Ditto for Jung, who would have us looking at these three -- who are among the most well-developed of Tolkien's characters -- as archetypes.

I suppose if I were to say anything about this division of the tale in the language of psychobabble, I would say that the story in the west is the "conscious" tale of history: it's composed of the events that everyone knows about and that everyone would expect to be a part of the tale of the End of the Third Age. Frodo, Sam and Gollum are history's "unconsious" part: unseen and unknown by almost everyone, quietly working away at a deeply personal level where the battles are moral and spiritual not physical (although there is physical trial).

Is this a way of looking at Sauron? He is so totally committed to the "conscious" face of history that he ignores the "unconscious" part until it is too late. Frodo's arrival at Mount Doom as the return of the repressed?????

Herm. . . .

[Lalwendë]

I like the way the stories have been divided in this way, and possibly one of the reasons why is that the division serves to underline the true nature of the peril all our heroes are in. Aragorn and the others have absolutely no idea what Frodo and Sam are up to and vice versa. Yet Aragorn and co. get on with the tasks which come their way just as do Frodo and Sam, despite never knowing if the risks they are taking will all turn out in vain.

If Frodo fails, then they might as well not have bothered with the Battle of Helm's Deep, and if Sauron succeeds in annihilating Gondor then Frodo's mission will not save it. Yet there is a message in this, and I think it is that despite what we know or do not know, there are always things which must be done in order to do the right thing. The division of the two main story threads only underlines the fact that each group knows nothing of the other yet still has the courage to continue and not lose faith.

Another reason that I like the division is that in Book 3 we see the more epic side to the struggle and learn of the great deeds of nation states and various races within the war, while in Book 4 we learn of the great deeds of individuals. Of course, it is not as quite as clearly cut as that, but the broad approach of each book follows this pattern; Book 3 is epic and Book 4 is intimate.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Another reason that I like the division is that in Book 3 we see the more epic side to the struggle and learn of the great deeds of nation states and various races within the war, while in Book 4 we learn of the great deeds of individuals. Of course, it is not as quite as clearly cut as that, but the broad approach of each book follows this pattern; Book 3 is epic and Book 4 is intimate.

An interesting train of thought is here: the theme of division tears the four hobbits two by two away from each other (Frodo and Sam are separated from Merry and Pippin). The Fellowship is fractured, and so is the storyline. Book Three ends with the division of Pippin from Merry; Book Four with the division of Frodo from Sam. Things become even more intimate, as each hobbit is forced to act completely independently of his compatriots and rely more on his own instincts, sense of right, etc. This is my own hobbito-centric view of the tale and it struck me as interesting in light of the discussion of storyline separations here.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Bêthberry]

Wow! I'm really glad to see my late entry produced some more movement on this thread. I would be very proud to see the Barrow Downs sustain an entire book reading week by week.

Firefoot, I think your comments about your reading habits are some of the most honest I've ever seen here on a fan-based board.

Hmm. Interesting how other people feel a let down after leaving the other story line - particularly on my first reading, I experienced a very different reaction. Upon my first reading, I was very much into Frodo (still my favorite character, but I appreciate others more as well now) - after leaving Frodo and Sam at Amon Hen, they were the only two characters I really wanted to know about. Admittedly, I did not get a whole lot out of Book 3 that first reading with the exception of a few notable passages. So eager was I to find out when I was getting on to Frodo that in name-scanning the proceding chapters I accidently found out Gandalf came back... oops. So, anyway, suffice it to say that I was thrilled to reach this chapter.

I think that quite naturally there are passages and events that various readers skim through while others linger over them. It must reflect the various interests we have as readers--perhaps there is ground here for a thread on "What we skip and why".

I didn't mean to imply that I am not interested in Sam and Frodo. My interest in this "gap" really extends to trying to understand how it works rather than to discredit either side. And I think Lyta's observation about the Merry/Pippin and Sam/Frodo split is a good one. We can probably later discuss what different lesson, if any, each takes home with him.

Thank you Estelyn for the link to your thread with its link to a fascinating article and thank you davem for pointing out Jung's tripartite model. I have to laugh to myself at Fordim's dismissal of "psychobabble." While I myself do not have faith/ grant credence to either Freud or Jung's models, I think they can be useful to provide a model or layout of understanding, a way of thinking about the characters. It is also wise to keep in the back of our minds the possibility that the author was consciously working with some kind of pattern like this--not that it means automatically that the pattern works in the text for later readers, but that some kind of modelling or grouping might be going on.

That, and the absence of a sexualised dynamic between Frodo, Sam and Gollum, makes Freud rather a red herring. Ditto for Jung, who would have us looking at these three -- who are among the most well-developed of Tolkien's characters -- as archetypes.

I will grant Fordim his point that Sam, Frodo and Gollem are some of the most complexly portrayed characters. Yet I don't see that it necessarily follows that they cannot be "archetypes." Literature abounds with characters who readers feel are fully actualized characters with agency and subjectivity but which also somehow partake of a larger aspect. Seen this way, archetype does not mean psychological simplicity but in face greater complexity.

The interiority or individual nature of Sam's, Frodo's andGollem's struggle is I think very interesting and made more interesting by the fact that they are isolated from the historical struggles of Aragorn and Co. Furthermore, I think it is interesting that while we can find relational patterns among Sam, Frodo and Gollem, I am less able to do that with the Aragorn/ Legolas/ Gimli axis. Perhaps this occurs simply because the plotting is different and the presence of the Ring and its power allows a more tightly developed focus. Without the kind of historical and cultural knowledge which Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli have, the hobbit three act out the problem of evil on the personal level.

As for a repressed Sauron, while we are at it, Fordim, I'm sure we could manage some kind of Hegelian model to account for him.

ahem.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thank you Estelyn for the link to your thread with its link to a fascinating article and thank you davem for pointing out Jung's tripartite model .

Re: the 'tripartite' model: I find this image by S. Juchimov from the Russian edition of LotR to sum up the symbolism & interrelationships between the three characters. Sam (the ego) stands between Gollum (the Shadow), holding it at bay with his sword, while he looks towards Frodo (the 'Self') symbolising psychic wholeness. Frodo is depicted as a saint, standing within a double 'halo', the outer one of which seems maybe to be symbolic of the Ring.

[Kuruharan]

I was rereading this today a passage stuck in my mind in a way it never had before.

Frodo looked straight into Gollum's eyes which flinched and twisted away. "You know that, or you guess well enough, Smeagol," he said quietly and sternly. "We are going to Mordor, of course. And you know the way there, I believe."

"Ach! sss!" said Gollum. covering his ears with his hands, as if such frankness and the open speaking of the names, hurt him. "We guessed, yes we guessed," he whispered; "and we didn't want them to go, did we?"

This is an interesting exchange for a number of reasons. Gollum was obviously in possession of information that Sauron lacked. However, it makes one wonder how long Gollum had suspected that Frodo was on his way to Mordor. Sauron never guessed that the Ring was on its way to anyplace other than Minas Tirith. Did Gollum also believe that was where Frodo was headed or did he think from the time that he picked up the Fellowship's trail that they were going to Mordor? That also brings up the issue of what Gollum thought Frodo was doing…

[Captain Grishnahk]

Holy Iluvator. I havn't read The Taming of Smeagol in a long while. It was one of my favorite chapters when in the TWO TOWERS. I am reading through lotr on my 3rd time through and i am almost finished with ROTK.

Kuruharan, thats a great point! I've never really thought about it. Gollum apparently began following the fellowship from Moria. Perhaps he guessed like he said, or maybe he was watching as Boromir tried to take it...? I dont know, i just love discussing LOTR with yall.