The Lord of the Bible?

[littlemanpoet]

Exhibit #4: Frodo is Seen

While Gandalf is gone for the most part of the next seventeen years, Frodo is seen. Just once he is "fingering something in his pocket" when Lobelia Sackville-Baggins is about. He is not recorded as becoming invisible. We do not read that Frodo uses the Ring or is not seen where he is expected to be seen.

This implies that Frodo heeds Gandalf's advice and shows wisdom. What's more, he behaves in a very unhobbit-like manner, constantly wandering about the Shire's wilds and talking with Dwarves and Elves when he gets a chance. This makes him a bad hobbit, maybe, but not a bad person.

The point is, he remains free from the Ring. Lack of use results in lack of addiction, and therefore the Ring holds little if any sway over him. His heart is his own. He stewards the Ring and does not possess it. This is critical.

Tolkien does not specifically use the word "steward" in this part of the story, but what he does say indicates that Frodo is not behaving like a possessor of the Ring. The only alternative, short of dropping it on the side of the road, is stewardship. This word and theme will come back often in the story; it is an important element. Frodo stewards the Ring, which places him in an appropriate relationship to a thing. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Frodo's heart is not with the Ring, but with the Shire.

The Ring's power does leave him well-preserved, but that may be the effect of having it near. The important thing is that Frodo is not under the Ring's influence, and that is a very good thing, especially considering what Gandalf has to tell him soon.

I would like to thank the people who contributed to this thread so intensely & helped to achieve so many views & viewers.

[littlemanpoet]

Uh, I have more 'exhibits', but it seems the call for them has died down. Anyway....

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet,

I've been reading and enjoying the posts. However, with a cramped schedule, I haven't had anything to add or question. But I did want you to know you have a reader.

[Raynor]

lmp, I disagree with your point that Bilbo couldn't give the ring away on his own:

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

[Gandalf] For he gave it up in the end of his own accord: an important point.
...
[Gandalf] You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make" you – except by force, which would break your mind

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Child.

Raynor, you make a good point since Gandalf is Tolkien's truth teller. This statement of Gandalf's about Bilbo "giving it up in the end of his own accord" is interesting, and serves as an excellent example (imho) of Tolkien's realistic combining of that ever present dilemma of human existence, the interplay between free will and providence. Both are real (again imho) and it is impossible to tease them apart from each other. Gandalf is speaking to one of the two realities at the point, and being Tolkien's truth teller, is uselessly gainsaid. However, read the narrative carefully and you will still see that Bilbo needed all the help Gandalf could provide to summon the will, or should I say, be given the strength of will, to resist the allure of the Ring.

Gandalf is also correct that he would break the mind of Bilbo or Frodo, for he is merely finite. But it is arguable that a more subtle Power may be at work here, that knows hobbits from their inner workings due to the fact of having invented them in the first place (and I mean this as a reference to Tolkien only in pun), which I choose to call providence; or perhaps it might best be called "chance, if chance you call it".

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

Raynor, you make a good point since Gandalf is Tolkien's truth teller. This statement of Gandalf's about Bilbo "giving it up in the end of his own accord" is interesting, and serves as an excellent example (imho) of Tolkien's realistic combining of that ever present dilemma of human existence, the interplay between free will and providence. Both are real (again imho) and it is impossible to tease them apart from each other. Gandalf is speaking to one of the two realities at the point, and being Tolkien's truth teller, is uselessly gainsaid. However, read the narrative carefully and you will still see that Bilbo needed all the help Gandalf could provide to summon the will, or should I say, be given the strength of will, to resist the allure of the Ring.

In my opinion, Gandalf's role was more of an eye-opener than anything else. Therefore, it is conceivable that a "life situation" (I am thinking, for example, of a new and better understanding of Gollum's situation, or even of the Ringwraiths') with similar consequences on Bilbo's view of his relation to the ring, would have prompted him to take the same path. In the end, it would only be another manifestation of providence/grace, as Gandalf too is.

Originally Posted by Raynor

lmp, I disagree with your point that Bilbo couldn't give the ring away on his own:

Gandalf of Bilbo: " And he needed all my help too". This implies Bilbo could not have given up the Ring totally of his own accord. What Gandalf means is that Bilbo was not forced physically to hand the Ring over. Though quite what this point has to do with this thread is beyond me.

The thread was based on the idea that if the Bible had not been written, the LOTR may not have even existed. It is the inspiration of all that is good about it.