Failure and Punishment - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Macalaure · 11-28-2006, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doug*platypus

Some have mentioned that the term "sin" or "sinners" is not applicable in Middle Earth. I agree that it would be out of place within the text, which was purged of almost all references to religion. But can we not discuss the book using such terms? Isn't it, after all, "consciously" Catholic in the revision?

I can't help but feel that by having Frodo fail at the last and give in to the temptation of the Ring, Tolkien was trying to say that even great heroes are not without sin (although he still upheld such chivalric heroes as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir).

My personal problem with 'sin' is, that it is a religious term. All the wrongdoings in Tolkien's works (except maybe those which are directly opposed to Eru) are not given a religious perspective, or if so then I haven't seen it so far.
If I follow you correctly, then Frodo's sin was his weakness, his inability to withstand the temptation of the ring at the end. But can you hold somebody morally responsible for something that was outside his ability? Also, it's hard for me to imagine anybody would have had the strength to destroy the ring at that point (Isildur could have, I guess, because Sauron's presence was not present at the time). This could mean, in consequence, that everybody's a sinner because they are unable to entirely resist evil.
nah...

Quote:

Originally Posted by doug*platypus

What do people think of the other folk that I mentioned: Boromir, Fëanor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Thingol. Did Tolkien dish out "just desserts" to these characters as a consequence (thanks, Holbytlass!) of their ignoble actions?

Surely not. I can't think of one character in LotR or Silm who doesn't meet the end they deserve. It's all "right", if you know what I mean. But I don't think we need 'sins' for this. There seems to be a general understanding in the books about what is good (pity, f.ex.) and what is bad (betrayal, f.ex.), morally/ethically, without anything remotely like the Ten Commandments or something.
If Tolkien doesn't call the wrongdoings sins, I just see no reason why we should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

Why do you find Frodo to be at fault with Shelob? Please explain because I still haven't found my books and I only recall that he was delirious and therefore was semi-conscious of his surroundings.

And that was his fault, I think. You don't walk into Mordor like that. As I said, overconfidence is the wrong word, but Shelob wouldn't have gotten him otherwise. It's not a moral fault or a sin, but it was Frodo's bad.

**The Saucepan Man** · 11-28-2006, 07:32 AM

I don’t think that Frodo can be seen as having ever been guilty of moral wrongdoing, so I would agree that “sin” is an inappropriate word to use in the context of his struggles.

That said, he is not a “perfect” hero. He does succumb to folly and misjudgement on occasion, as indeed do almost all of the characters on the side of good (even the likes of Gandalf and Aragorn). Which, is as it should be, in terms of their believability as characters. And also in terms of the credibility of the story itself.

The impact of LotR largely turns on the reader believing in the sheer power of the evil with which the protagonists are faced. Sauron is only indirectly portrayed in the tale, largely by “proxy” through his minions and through the Ring itself. So, it is imperative that the Ring, as the principal evil “character” in the story, is seen and accepted by the reader as a powerful, practically irresistible, force for evil. This is portrayed through the effect that it has on the other characters, notably the likes of Gollum, Boromir and Galadriel, but also directly through its effect on Frodo - in scenes such as those which take place in Bree, on Weathertop and on the final struggle through Mordor towards Orodruin.

The most important scene, in this regard, is of course that which takes place at Sammath Naur. I distinctly remember thinking, when I first read the story, what an anticlimax it would be if, when Frodo and Sam finally reached the Crack of Doom, Frodo simply tossed the Ring in. At the same time as being shocked and horrified by Frodo’s “failure” to do so, I was also relieved in a way that this object of great evil and power was not so easily destroyed. It kind of justified the rest of the tale, if you know what I mean. The manner in which the Ring does meet its end is a masterpiece of story-telling, since it manages to avoid anticlimax, while nevertheless achieving a satisfactory resolution of the Quest.

Frodo did not sin and nor (in terms of what was, or could be, expected of him) did he fail. But neither, thankfully, was he the perfect, all-conquering hero. Frodo’s frailties are an important aspect of the literary effect of the tale, as they contribute both to his credibility as a character and to the portrayal of the sheer power of the Ring and (by implication) its maker.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-28-2006, 07:32 AM	#2
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,390	I don’t think that Frodo can be seen as having ever been guilty of moral wrongdoing, so I would agree that “sin” is an inappropriate word to use in the context of his struggles. That said, he is not a “perfect” hero. He does succumb to folly and misjudgement on occasion, as indeed do almost all of the characters on the side of good (even the likes of Gandalf and Aragorn). Which, is as it should be, in terms of their believability as characters. And also in terms of the credibility of the story itself. The impact of LotR largely turns on the reader believing in the sheer power of the evil with which the protagonists are faced. Sauron is only indirectly portrayed in the tale, largely by “proxy” through his minions and through the Ring itself. So, it is imperative that the Ring, as the principal evil “character” in the story, is seen and accepted by the reader as a powerful, practically irresistible, force for evil. This is portrayed through the effect that it has on the other characters, notably the likes of Gollum, Boromir and Galadriel, but also directly through its effect on Frodo - in scenes such as those which take place in Bree, on Weathertop and on the final struggle through Mordor towards Orodruin. The most important scene, in this regard, is of course that which takes place at Sammath Naur. I distinctly remember thinking, when I first read the story, what an anticlimax it would be if, when Frodo and Sam finally reached the Crack of Doom, Frodo simply tossed the Ring in. At the same time as being shocked and horrified by Frodo’s “failure” to do so, I was also relieved in a way that this object of great evil and power was not so easily destroyed. It kind of justified the rest of the tale, if you know what I mean. The manner in which the Ring does meet its end is a masterpiece of story-telling, since it manages to avoid anticlimax, while nevertheless achieving a satisfactory resolution of the Quest. Frodo did not sin and nor (in terms of what was, or could be, expected of him) did he fail. But neither, thankfully, was he the perfect, all-conquering hero. Frodo’s frailties are an important aspect of the literary effect of the tale, as they contribute both to his credibility as a character and to the portrayal of the sheer power of the Ring and (by implication) its maker.