Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[Evisse the Blue]

I take it to mean: "It (the ring) is gone, and now all (the world devoid of all the bad - but also the good things that the existance of the ring made possible) is dark and empty." It's something that we readers can relate to - the story has come to an end.

The question is: what does Tolkien tell us in his various stories, essays, and letters about the loss incurred through great and profound struggles--even when light triumphs over darkness. Is it possible to have the opposite outcome where "all is light and full of joy"?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you asking 'can there be complete triumph without any loss and pain whatsoever?' or am I getting the wrong idea?

[Nimikôi Angarauko]

I am getting the same idea Evisse, but this thread is bringing to my mind a couple of phrases "War is hell" and "In war there are no winners only losers". In my opinion I do not tihnk any one can go thruogh war, be it real or fanciful, and not be effected by it, What happens to the warriors when there is nothing left to fight? Perhaps it was the lose of innocence Frodo was talking about considering that there hadn't been a battle involving Hobbits since the battle of the greenfields, and yes i know Bilbo was in the battle of the five armies but he didn't see much action. I don't think it was the lose of innocence Frodo was talking about,but more along the lines of the lose of the world much change followed after the destruction of the Ring, which adds to the symbolism of the end of third age and begining of the fourth, Frodo was a relic of the third age ,just like Gandalf, trapped in a new era without the ability to adapt to shift of power. crap cant finish post peroid over AAHHHH

[davem]

What is gone, is everything the Ring came to symbolise for Frodo - power over his life, his world, his destiny. Hope (both estel & amdir ). In the end the Ring came to symbolise/mean way too much for Frodo, which stopped him being able to destroy it. Everything he cared about was symbolised by the Ring. So without it there was nothing at all. His state is possibly best understood by the fact that for him, even his innocence had become bound up with the Ring, so when it was destroyed his innocence was also.

What does the Ring not come to symbolise/contain for Frodo? What is not destroyed along with it?

The state of despair he had entered into by the end of the story is one which probably none of us can truly understand. He had no hope - neither in life, or in death. There was no light & joy here in this world - not for Frodo, & one wonders if there was for Tolkien.

Though, one has to wonder if contemplating Frodo's mindset is wise - what did Nieztsche say about staring into the void...

[Finwe]

By the end of the War of the Ring, Frodo had become attached to the Ring. He even refused to destroy it, deep in the heart of Mount Doom. It had become an integral part of him. When Gollum fell into the lava with the Ring, the emotional effect on Frodo was similar to if someone had ripped a limb or two off of him. Those scars would have still been there for a very long time.

[Firefoot]

The question is: what does Tolkien tell us in his various stories, essays, and letters about the loss incurred through great and profound struggles--even when light triumphs over darkness. Is it possible to have the opposite outcome where "all is light and full of joy"?

I don't think it is. In any of the great struggles or conflicts there was at least some loss. On an even broader scope than just Frodo, in the War of the Ring think of all the losses there were. There were several people that died, for example Théoden, Hama, Halbarad, and many others. Arwen became mortal and the Elves passed away into the West. In all that suffering, victory is at best bittersweet. It can't be truly joyous because of all the loss. How can anyone come away unmarked or unaffected from a war or other bitter struggle?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Dininziniel,

This is an interesting thread but I think you've raised two related issues rather than simply one.

First, there is the general theme of "loss versus joy" in Tolkien's writing. You pose the question in these terms:

The question is: what does Tolkien tell us in his various stories, essays, and letters about the loss incurred through great and profound struggles--even when light triumphs over darkness. Is it possible to have the opposite outcome where "all is light and full of joy"?

Tolkien clearly thought there could be no joy that was pure and unblemished. At least three influences helped mold this view:

• Tolkien's personal experience as a child and young adult, namely the loss of both his parents, and his guardian's subsequent order to separate from Edith.
• His basic Catholic belief that the world is inherently flawed and there can be no real victory until the end of time
• The influence of the Northern epics and legends that were equally or even more somber in tone than his own writing

All of these influenced Tolkien's portrayal of loss, which is a consistent theme throughout his writing. Which of these had the greatest impact? We can only guess, but I would think his serious difficulties in childhood had a great deal to do with how he came to feel underneath. Perhaps the other two gave intellectual expression to what lay below.

Your second question centers on Frodo and the extent to which he personally suffered loss. I find myself in a strange position here. On the one hand, no one could possibly argue that Frodo was not profoundly affected by the Ring. What happened to him left a lasting mark, and Davem has summed up this idea very well.

Yet, I wonder whether Davem hasn't portrayed Frodo in too stark terms? He and I have had a similar discussion before on suffering, so I don't think he'll be too surprised at what I'm going to say.

First, here is what Davem wrote:

The state of despair he had entered into by the end of the story is one which probably none of us can truly understand. He had no hope - neither in life, or in death. There was no light & joy here in this world - not for Frodo, & one wonders if there was for Tolkien.

I would not say this, and I am not sure Tolkien would either.....Frodo being in a state of despair so extreme that he has no hope in life or death. That is further than I am willing to go. When I read Davem's post, I had a vivid image of the poem "Sea-Bell" in my head. There is no doubt that the nightmare Tolkien depicts in Sea-Bell was part of Frodo's experience when he returned to the Shire. But it was, in my estimation, only one part. There was more going on than that. Frodo acted as deputy mayor, and managed to live with Sam and his family.

For many years, I acted as a grief support counselor and briefly as a crisis counselor. Grief is very strange. One moment it can totally overwhelm you, and the next you manage to stagger on and go through the motions of living. I imagine Frodo's experience was similar to that: very, very bad times alternating with times where he felt empty and sad but was able to get through the day. This is how Tolkien depicts Frodo's periodic "episodes".

Strangely enough, one of the dominant expressions of ongoing grief and depression is not overt despair and reckless action but complete exhaustion and immobility. You feel as if you can't take another step forward. Because of this, it is difficult to make decisions or act in a concerted way. The fact that Frodo decided to go West in hope of finding help tells me that, as sick as he was, there was enough left inside him to try and seek a better path.

I do not see Frodo as totally devoid of hope. He still had feelings for Sam and the Shire. Because of this, Frodo was capable of recognizing that on a certain level the Shire had been saved and could even tell this to his friends. What he wasn't capable of doing was taking an active role in that saved Shire, or fitting in again.

Near the end of the book, we see the shores of Tol Eressea through Frodo's eyes:

Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. and then it seemed to him that is in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld a white shores and beyond thema far green country under a swift sunrise.

This verbal portrait suggests a tiny glimmer of light underneath all Frodo's grief and guilt. When a person is totally immersed in despair, they are incapable of appreciating either goodness or beauty. The fact that Frodo could look on those shores and sense their underlying purity suggests that something in him was still capable of responding to goodness.

This really brings us back to Din's initial post, how Tolkien saw joy and loss as intertwined. The feeling at the end of LotR is not utter despair but rather bittersweet loss. As hurt as Frodo was, I think that this was even true for him.


Frodo was hurt, terribly hurt, but I do not see it as a hurt without hope. We don't know what happens to Frodo in the end, perhaps because Tolkien himself did not know. Perhaps he found healing in this world, and perhaps he did not. But the way Frodo is depicted in the final chapter at least suggests to me that a tiny measure of hope was there and healing was still possible.

[symestreem]

To borrow a quote from the movie,

How do you go back?

What did Frodo have left, really? He gave up his normal life in the Shire for a life of war and misery to save the world; then when he accomplishes his task, this life too is gone? What did he have left? Sure, he had Sam and his family. I think Frodo is mourning his past lives- both of them, because in his "first" life, before the Ring, he was happy; and in his "second" life, the Quest, he had a purpose, something to hold on to. To borrow another quote:

What are we holding onto?

Frodo's life was empty; he had superficial things, and a few friends. But even Sam could not understand what he had gone through; perhaps Elrond, Gandalf or Galadriel could have, but they weren't there. After going through what Frodo went through, everything else seems sort of unimportant. Like in the story of King Arthur and the Holy Grail, when the Knights who found the Grail were taken to heaven because they had nothing else to do. What did Frodo have to live for? Even when he had the Ring, there was more light in his world because he was battling it, and that was an act of good. But now it's just sort of... grey...
Also, remember that this took place upon the anniversary of Frodo's poisoning by Shelob. Perhaps he didn't always feel this way, just when memories came rushing in...

When the memory of the fear and darkness troubles you...

I

[davem]

Child, ok, maybe I did go a bit too far - but then I wonder. If we accept the 'conceit' behind LotR - it was written by the Hobbits involved - then who exactly wrote the account of Frodo's arrival at the Undying Lands? Sam did. Is Sam constructing a 'happy ending' for Frodo's story - perhaps based on Frodo's own account of his dream in Tom Bombadil's house. We can't know if Tolkien intended us to take the last scene as an actual event in the story. For me the scene gains in poignancy if it is Sam's own invention, his own hope for Frodo's recovery. Hope poignant as grief, but hope without guarantees. The Sea Bell seems a truer reflection of Frodo's state at the end.

I still feel that Tolkien is saying something about the effect of extreme trauma - though I bow to your experience, Child. He seems to be saying that the worst part is not what it 'gives' you but rather what it takes from you. Its not that you end up with an overwhelming weight of grief, pain (physical & emotional) & terrible memories. Its that it takes something. After that kind of trauma something is gone, which can never be regained. There is a hole, a void, which rather than healing over, simply grows. I think this is what happened to Frodo. A void had been opened up with the loss of the Ring, which grew over time till it swallowed up everything he had left - or would have if he'd stayed. Its like he was watching everything he loved & cared about, his personality, his 'self' being slowly but inexorably sucked into that abyss.

Again, after Sam watches the Ship sail out of the Havens we know nothing of what really happened to Frodo or the others on that Ship, so the hope it portrays is in question - some readers will choose to accept it as a fact, others as Sam's hope for his friend. I can't help thinking that was deliberate on Tolkien's part.

[Dininziliel]

Quickly, addressing hope vs. despair and what happened to Frodo after departing ME—Letter # 154:

. . . the mythical idea underlying is that for mortals, since their ‘kind’ cannot be changed forever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to mortal earth, they can and will ‘die’—of free will, and leave the world.”

Frodo, Bilbo, Sam (and Gimli?) would heal, find peace, and then willingly leave the world. This would give hope (for those who choose good), and is perhaps what Tolkien wants us to understand about the nature of our (human) existence in this world. I know there are better Tolkien citations, but that’s the one I found first!

Now, on the original question--

I think what I was really asking was if Frodo’s experience is the natural and inescapable outcome of having carried & then lost the Ring—is the personal, inner struggle with evil & good always going to end in a living void on earth even if good wins out? This has turned out to be a slippery wicket as it seems to touch on many things yet nothing all at once. Child helped greatly by seeing two parts to this:

First, there is the general theme of "loss versus joy" in Tolkien's writing. Tolkien clearly thought there could be no joy that was pure and unblemished.

Child then listed three reasons for this, but this is the most immediately relevant one to my mind:

His basic Catholic belief that the world is inherently flawed and there can be no real victory until the end of time.

Child then posited the second part:

. . . the second question centers on Frodo and the extent to which he personally suffered loss.

Being thus refreshed by the clarity of this framework I went looking for Tolkien’s words on the matter. Since I’m reading Letters of . . . from start to finish I thought I would check my notes & annotations to see what could be found. Gosh, it sure did take awhile, but the effort was rewarded in a letter I haven’t gotten to yet.
Letter #181:

The view, in the terms of my story, is that though every event or situation has (at least) two aspects: the history and development of the individual (it is something out of which he can get good, ultimate good, for himself, or fail to do so), and the history of the world (which depends on his action for its own sake)—still there are abnormal situations in which one may be placed. ‘Sacrificial’ situations, I should call them: sc. Positions in which the ‘good’ of the world depends on the behaviour of an individual in circumstances which demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal . . . he is in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his ‘will’: that is against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under the duress.

(This same letter also contains an answer to Firefoot’s question:

How can anyone come away unmarked or unaffected from a war or other bitter struggle?

Tolkien/Letter #181:

. . . I think that ‘victors’ never can enjoy ‘victory’—not in the terms that they envisaged; and in so far as they fought for something to be enjoyed by themselves (whether acquisition or mere preservation) the less satisfactory will ‘victory’ seem.

It would be impossible not to want a personal outcome to any struggle.)

So, there are two things operating simultaneously—(1) individual self, and (2) self in a flawed (Tolkien would say “fallen”) world. My orientation to LotR, and now most of Tolkien’s work as I perceive it, is its reflection of and instructive application regarding the world within me and the world outside me. I was coming at this with the presumptive notion that we all take up the Ring at some point and have the choice of wither it (and we) shall go. I wanted to know if, in this fallen world, there is a possibility for me, or anyone, to carry the Ring to Doom, cast it in, and then go home in joy and peace. Or am I (and anyone else) doomed to Frodo’s experience as Davem so chillingly described:

There is a hole, a void, which rather than healing over, simply grows . . . which grew over time till it swallowed up everything he had left - or would have if he'd stayed . . .

According to what Tolkien said in letter #181, this latter outcome is the more likely one as it would be beyond all endurance for me (and anyone else).

(I am also recalling Tolkien’s many statements regarding the “long defeat” in the battle w/evil until the final ending of the world, but cannot recall the source.)

The immediate, natural next question is: Jeepers! Why bother? Perhaps the answer to this is the answer to Davem’s question:

What does the Ring not come to symbolise/contain for Frodo? What is not destroyed along with it?

Last, part of the original question was: What can be found in Tolkien’s work—LotR, Letters of . . . , HoME, UT’s, Silmarillion. etc. [to further support or refute the positions presented so far?]