Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
06-28-2004, 02:59 AM | #1 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 02 - The Shadow of the Past
In this chapter, the story takes a crucial turn - the true nature of the Ring is revealed, along with its history, and Frodo's adventures begin. The iconic poem - probably the first one we all memorized when reading the book! - makes its appearance. Gandalf is shown to have a central role in the unfolding plot, and the goal of the journey, the Cracks of Doom, is made clear.
As I see it, this is where the LotR ceases to be merely a sequel to The Hobbit and becomes mythological. What are your thoughts upon reading this chapter?
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
06-28-2004, 04:05 AM | #2 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
It always struck me as (especially, when considered on the scope of the whole book) as expression of simmetry in the composition of the book. To explain myself, exerpt from the contents of my edition:
Book I Chapter 1 A Long-expected Party Chapter 2 The Shadow of the Past Chapter 3 Three is Company etc to be compared with: Book II Chapter 1 Many Meetings Chapter 2 The Council of Elrond Chapter 3 The Ring Goes South etc Not only names are somehow interrelated, but the context is neatly up to match what happens in each book. So to say, in the first chapter of each book all is relatively peacefull, but inner tension builds up, in relative second chapters nothing much happens (not a feat often seen in modern writing!), just people talk(in retrospective), the third relative chapters deal with conclusions following retrospective conversation in second chapters and the rest of each book is the quest itself. very neat, I should say!
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
06-28-2004, 06:04 AM | #3 | |||
Banshee of Camelot
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 5,830
|
Just a detail which struck me already in the first chapter, and in the beginning of chapter 2 again, is that Bilbo and Frodo's friends are all much younger.
about Bilbo : Quote:
About Frodo: Quote:
I've looked at the genealogies: Pippin is 22 years younger than Frodo, Merry 14 and Fatty 12 years younger, and Sam either 12 or 15 years younger. Now why is that so ? Perhaps because the grown up hobbits were too staid, too narrowminded and had no imagination left ? I guess it was only the children that still had a sense for wonder who listened to Bilbo's tales with relish, and appreciated and admired him. Frodo too chose his companions for "tramping around the Shire" among the adolescent hobbits. Probably they were more openminded, still more adventurous and lively than the grown-ups. When I read the conversation in the "Green Dragon" and Ted Sandymans' "No nonsense" attitude., I don't wonder. Quote:
__________________
Yes! "wish-fulfilment dreams" we spin to cheat our timid hearts, and ugly Fact defeat! |
|||
06-28-2004, 06:39 AM | #4 |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,589
|
I wonder what Gandalf expected Frodo to do. Gandalf said that he hardly expected that Frodo would volunteer to take the Ring and leave the Shire. Was he planning to persuade Frodo to do so or did he have something else in mind?
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
06-28-2004, 06:48 AM | #5 | |||
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
|
Quote:
Guinevere- I too, find that quite fascinating. Quote:
Just as you stated; Quote:
Cheers, Orofaniel
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_< .....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^ |
|||
06-28-2004, 08:09 AM | #6 | ||||||||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
The Shadow of the Past
Having been a perennial latecomer so far, I thought that I would get my thoughts in early this time round.
Quote:
Gandalf’s exposition of history of Ring builds on what we learned of it in the previous chapter, making explicit what was only implicit there (concerning its preserving qualities and corruptive power). Tolkien uses Frodo in this chapter to ask all of the questions which occur to us as readers: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Frodo’s questions and comments, and Gandalf’s replies to them, also touch upon issues which go the very heart of the story. For example: Quote:
Quote:
I like the way that, as this chapter unfolds, we come to regard the Ring as another character in the story. Gandalf’s words give it a persona. He tells Frodo (and us): Quote:
For me, however, the key passage in this chapter comes when Gandalf suggests that Frodo himself tries to do away with the Ring: Quote:
Finally, a few words on the development of Sam’s character in this chapter. I like the way that he is portrayed sympathetically in his conversation with Ted Sandyman in The Green Dragon. Although Ted Sandyman appears to have the upper hand in the conversation, and as far as the Hobbit onlookers are concerned “scores points” off Sam, we know that it is in fact Sam who is speaking sense here. We already have the impression that there is danger afoot outside the cosy confines of the Shire, and Gandalf later starkly confirms this for us in his discussion with Frodo. Later, when discovered outside the window by Gandalf, Sam's humorous response helps to relieve the tension which has built up throughout most of the chapter. Even Frodo is hardly able to keep from laughing, despite the horror of all that he has learned. However, I must say that I am not (and have never been) all that keen on the “There ain’t no eaves at Bag End, and that’s a fact” line. Personally, I suspect that this line is single-handedly responsible for the dreadful characterisation of Sam in the Bakshi animated film. In any event, while we later see him as the repository of earthy wisdom and unlikely hero that he really is, I do tend to think that this foolish (albeit humorous) comment starts us out on the wrong footing with Sam (if you take my meaning ). Nevertheless, his otherwise sympathetic portrayal in the previous chapter and earlier in this chapter (which do suggest that there are hidden depths to him) do, I think, reassure us that Frodo has a suitable companion for his coming journey.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||||||||||
06-28-2004, 08:38 AM | #7 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
(Edit: cross-posted with Saucepanman)
What struck me most re-reading the chapter was Frodo's attitude: Quote:
Finally, when he accepts the task, what does he give as his motivation? Quote:
Then, the 'flip' - he will accept his burden - because he wants to save the Shire!. He's flipped from a coward to a meglomaniac, or at least a 'messiah'! Now in all this do we see the influence of the Ring on an innocent hobbit, or do we see a 'selfish, judgemental coward'? I think all this is deliberate on Tolkien's part - he wants us to see Frodo as being like ourselves. Frodo is certainly not a hero at first, not even admirable. Recalling my first reading, it took me a while to get to like Frodo - I read LotR straight after The Hobbit, & I liked Bilbo much more for a good part of the first book. I think the way Tolkien shows the growth of Frodo's character is wonderful, & it will be interesting to see how much he changes, & how he is 'purged of the gross' as the story progresses. And to see how much of the original Frodo is left by the end. |
||
06-28-2004, 08:46 AM | #8 | ||
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
One of my favourite chapters in the whole book. I shall attempt to be as brief as possible, and contain myself to two passages only, both of which develop the nature of the Ring, and highlight how it will be the centre of the narrative to follow.
Quote:
Another aspect of the poem is how it gives us a glimpse into then natures of the free folk: Elves live “under the sky” (beneath the protection/guidance of the Valar? As signified by the presence of Earendil and the other stars that they ‘worship’?); the Dwarves live under the earth where they are walled off from others “in their halls of stone”; and Men who are “doomed to die” – this is both good and bad: death is not nice, nor is having a “doom”, but doom in its fullest sense does not necessarily mean something bad, but “fated”. So in this sense, the Men are contrasted to the Elves (who are ‘trapped’ forever by their immortality “under” the sky like the Dwarves under the earth). Unlike them, Men die and find the gift of Eru. The words associated with the Ring are extraordinarily telling: “rule, find, bring, bind”. I love the order of the words here – the Ring ‘begins’ with the desire to Rule, which necessitates ‘finding’ how and who to rule, which then leads to ‘bringing’ those people under rule, and brining to bear upon them the methods of rule, and it all ends with ‘binding’ them into that singular Rule. It’s a wonderfully brief and telling description/exploration of how power works. There’s also two puns in the poem that speak volumes about the Ring. First, it’s from a place where “Shadows lie.” I love this: not just where shadows are, but where the Shadows deceive – this is how Sauron works, and this is how the Ring works: it’s a think of shadows and shadowy lies as it promises power that it will not bring; most importantly it tells the greatest lie of all: that by claiming it, one will find fulfilment of one’s desires, not the emptying of the will. The Ring is the ultimate lie: “take me and rule” when what it’s really all about is “be taken by me and be ruled.” The second pun is the name of Mordor itself – it’s always looked to me a lot like the Anglo-Saxon word for murder morðor (pronounced “morthor”). I think this contrasts to the “Mortal Men doomed to die” – it is in the nature of humanity to die, it is our fate; the Ring is from a place that perverts that fate through unnatural death (that is, the murder/loss of our very mortality by enslavement to Sauron becoming Wraiths). Quote:
One more note: I think we have a slight hint here of what Gandalf might (if pressed by Elrond, for example) have admitted was at the back of his mind for the quest ahead: he is the one who casts the Ring into the fire when Frodo is not able to. As Saucepan Man has already pointed out, Frodo is here at the beginning of his quest already completely incapable of throwing the Ring into his own little “fire,” so from that perspective he’s doomed to fail from the outset. But we’ve got this moment where Gandalf is able to convince Frodo to hand over the Ring, and then he does the deed himself. . . I’m not making any claims, I just think that it’s a reason to pause for thought. |
||
06-28-2004, 09:59 AM | #9 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Frodo? Selfish and cowardly?
Davem
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||
06-28-2004, 11:50 AM | #10 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
I'd say Frodo is selfish - he is quite self centred - he keeps himself apart from the other hobbits, he plays no real part in his community. His first thought on finding that the Ring is dangerous is to try to pass it on to someone he is supposed to care about. He wants someone else to take responsibility for the Ring from him. He'd rather Bilbo, the one who has given him the luxurious lifestyle & the wealth he enjoys, had killed Gollum - & at that time Gollum hadn't killed anything but Deagol & orcs- no babies. And lets not forget that Gandalf has no evidence that Gollum had taken babies from their cradles - Gandalf is merely reporting rumours he has heard (though they were probably true, admittedly).
He has such contempt for the people he's grown up around that he has had fantasies of them being caught up in earthquakes, or attacked by dragons - & that thought hadn't just popped into his mind at that point - he'd had those fantasies previously. He's judgemental - he has mentally sat in judgement on his neighbours & found them wanting & deserving of horrendous punishment. He's wished suffering on them - just to 'wake them up', & so, presumably to make them more acceptable to him. He passes a death sentence on Gollum, wishing he was dead. I think Gandalf realises that Frodo has these faults, & this is why he constantly, (though usually gently) rebukes him throughout the chapter for them. Of course, I am putting the 'case for the prosecution' here. We also see Frodo's potential - the decision to take the Ring, & put his life at risk is noble, to say the least, but I think there is a 'darker' side to it, which, looking back on the story from the end, is easily forgotten. We see it in his first thoughts on awaking in the Barrrow for instance. My real question is to what extent this 'dark' side we see is the action of the Ring on him, & how much is innate? |
06-28-2004, 12:18 PM | #11 | |||
Illusionary Holbytla
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,547
|
In defense of Frodo
Davem:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
06-28-2004, 01:06 PM | #12 | |||
Spectre of Decay
|
Some assorted musings.
It's interesting that here, in only the second chapter of the book, we already see the Ring as something that destroys the will of its bearers, which twists and perverts them. From this chapter the reader learns all that is necessary to understanding Gollum and the action of the central item of the story. It also contains one of the best descriptions of an addictive possession that I have ever read:
Quote:
For those who might be thinking that they have the presence and strength of mind to resist the Ring's blandishments, Tolkien has Gandalf himself explain how he would inevitably fall to evil were he to keep it: Quote:
This chapter is one of foreshadowing, of chains of events set in motion many centuries in the past, leading into a dark and uncertain future. At present, the Shire appears a safe and peaceful place, but the gathering storm is already affecting it as harried refugees bring dark and strange stories to its borders. Seen in the light of the book's ending, Frodo's words about the Shire have an air of pathos about them: "I feel that as long as the Shire lies behind, safe and comfortable, I shall find wandering more bearable: I shall know that somewhere there is a firm foothold, even if my feet cannot stand there again." The Shire will cease to be a foothold, and it will require saving more than once before the story is over. Other things are hinted at here that have yet to demonstrate their importance. The tree-man seen by Sam's cousin Halfast, present from very early in the development, hints at the existence of the Ents. It is interesting to note that this incident is present long before Tolkien knew anything about Fangorn Forest or Treebeard. The discussion of this incident between Sam and Ted Sandyman also gives us a chance to see the sort of circular arguments that Hobbits use when presented with something unfamiliar or frightening. It's another piece of social observation, funny in its way, but threatening in the light of the general atmosphere: Sandyman's words have the ominous overtones of someone who is wilfully ignoring the truth: Quote:
I'm beginning to get ahead of myself again, so I shall leave off while there are still points to be made.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? |
|||
06-29-2004, 02:41 AM | #13 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
First of all, if anyone is interested in seeing how this chapter developed, I posted an 'analysis' (for want of a word that implies less competence) yesterday on the chapter by chapter thread:http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10847 post no 19).
What's interesting to me is that in the earlier versions, Gollum is far less 'evil' In fact He seems to become increasingly 'monstrous' as Tolkien develops the story. Its easier to feel compassion for the earlier Gollum than the later one. Perhaps this is to emphasise the evil of the Ring - as it is transformed from being just 'one ring' among others into being the One Ring' to rule all others, its effect on those who come into contact with it also grows. Tolkien is making Gollum increasingly monstrous - in the end he makes Gollum into the most evil, psychopathic, twisted 'thing', we could imagine. But the most interesting thing is Gandalf's statement that in the end Gollum 'had no will in the matter'. The Ring has dominated his will completely & he has no ability to choose - so in one of the first statements about the Ring in the book, Tolkien is going all Manichean on us - the Ring is a malevolent force that can dominate one's will & control one's behaviour - but, from a Christian perspective, this is heresy. Also, from a Middle Earth perspective - Tolkien has stated in Osanwe Kenta that no individual's will can be dominated by another - the individual must submit, & can end that submission at any time if they choose. So, has Gollum's will really been destroyed by the Ring? And if it has then where is the hope? The whole thing becomes merely an external battle between forces of 'Good' & 'Evil', & the moral choices of any individual have no real part to play in deciding the outcome of the battle - simply put, the more powerful side will win. But Tolkien's position is that moral choices will decide the outcome, not strength of arms. But if Gollum's will can be overthrown against his will this is not the case.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 06-29-2004 at 06:01 AM. |
06-29-2004, 05:46 AM | #14 | ||||||||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
ShadowOfThePast
Here is another instance of "Torn Frodo", plus evidence of "Tookishness"; but more fascinating still, the first mention of his prophetic dreams: Quote:
A hint of the Conspiracy soon to be Unmasked: Quote:
Another delicate hint of the Conspiracy: Quote:
In Defense of Frodo's offering the Ring to Gandalf: Quote:
Quote:
In addition, though Frodo did not know it, Gandalf even now carried the Ring of Fire-- proving that (in one sense) he could wield a ring and wield it well. Frodo was, as far as that went, correct; Frodo had not yet been told that *even Gandalf* would succumb to the Rings's temptation and curruption, and was clearly susprised by Gandalf's saying so. Up to this point their discussion had focused on incorrupt elves versus corrupted mortals. Frodo had no way of knowing that even Gandalf would be corrupted by the Ring. If it were not for the temptation to use it for good, for pity and mercy, Gandalf would have been a better choice. An intriguing visionary moment: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
||||||||
06-29-2004, 09:03 AM | #15 | ||
Deadnight Chanter
|
Excellent rendering of the Ring poem, Fordim
I feel like adding that there is a third pun on the 'shadows' theme, which occurs in Sam's reciting of Gil-Galad poem. The very last line goes as 'In Mordor where shadows are'. And that passage is even more interesting than deceitful shadows, but I withdraw my judgement until we reach the respective chapter (11, Knife in the Dark it is) Coming abck to chapter 2, it should be added that just before reciting the Ring poem, Gandalf says something just very interesting: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
||
06-29-2004, 09:34 AM | #16 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Heren-Istarion
Quote:
The Black Speech is effectively an attempt to change/invert 'reality'. So even to speak it is to distort perceptions & invite in evil. What Gandalf does in Rivendell is not just bad taste its actually incredibly dangerous.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 06-29-2004 at 09:39 AM. |
|
06-29-2004, 09:54 AM | #17 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Forgive me for another bit of structural/functional rambling . . .
"The Shadow of the Past" is the first of two big expository chapters in the book. Now The Lord of the Rings has a lot of exposition to be dealt with, enough to give some authors nightmares no doubt. Before we can really get on with the story of the Ring we must first understand what the Ring is, the circumstances of its being made, how Sauron came to lose it, how it then came to Gollum, what Sauron means to do about it, how much he knows, etc., etc. In other words, we must learn much of the history of the Second Age and nearly all that of the Third. Tolkien faced quite a task in presenting all this to the reader. The conventional wisdom holds that exposition is a necessary evil, to be dealt with as briefly as possible and preferably not until the main action of the plot has gotten underway. As Tolkien has certainly not gotten the main plot underway in chapter one, it would appear almost ludicrous for him to put the burden of about half the exposition on chapter two. Yet it comes off splendidly. Why? I don't think I have a complete answer to that, and I would certainly appreciate anyone else's thoughts on the matter. But as far as I can see there are three things that make the exposition engaging rather than boring: 1. Tolkien uses the simple but effective trick of presenting the exposition in the form of a dialogue between a character with the information and a character that needs the information. Imagine how much more dry the chapter would be if all this backstory were presented in the narrator's voice rather than Gandalf's. The dialogue allows the reader to idenitify with Frodo, to sympathize with Frodo's curiosity and thus to be satisfied when Gandalf presents the information. 2. The whole chapter is, like the second expository chapter of the novel in book II, framed in terms of a big question: what is to be done about the Ring? The various pieces of information thus have a direct relevance and an immediate significance that they would not have if they were presented merely as a story. We want to hear the exposition because we want to understand the Ring so that we can weigh the various courses of action that Frodo might take. 3. For Tolkien, exposition was not just a necessary evil; it was a valuable thing in itself. Tolkien was, after all, quite used to writing this sort of history; he had been working on the Silmarillion material since about 1918. He did not consider the story of the making of the rings, and the Last Alliance, and the slaying of Isildur just necessary backstory to the tale at hand. He thought they were interesting in themselves, and so he made them interesting in themselves. And no doubt he realized that a large part of what was going to make The Lord of the Rings (or any similar novel) work was the depth and "reality" or inner consistency of the world in which it takes place. So the exposition has triple value - it sets up the primary story, it's interesting as a story in itself, and it provides a sense of depth to Middle-earth. |
06-29-2004, 10:04 AM | #18 | |
Spectre of Decay
|
Quote:
There is also the consideration that the Ring was created by Sauron, a fallen angel, and that his ability to dominate and will to power are bound up in its very fabric. Only those with greater strength of will than Sauron himself stand even a chance of resisting the Ring, and the amount of strength required grows the closer it comes to the place of its making. That this object can take over the will of its owners is reason enough to destroy it; but if one makes the moral choice to leave the Ring behind, as does Bilbo (with help from Gandalf), or not to take it up, as does Faramir, then one is spared the battle of wills that Frodo has thrust upon him. His moral choice is to attempt the ultimate rejection of power, to contest with the will of the Ring; that he fails in this is not as important as his intention to try.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? |
|
06-29-2004, 10:41 AM | #19 | |
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
|
Frodo a coward? Nuh hu...
Quote:
Selfish? I wouldn't use that word. As for Frodo keeping himself away from the other Hobbits and playing no real part in the community, doesn't mean a he's selfish and self centred. I think that The Shadow of the Past, the chapter in itself and the dialogues with Gandalf show quite the opposite. When Gandalf says that Frodo has to take the Ring away from the Shire, Frodo doesn't hide that he's horrified and sacred, no, not at all- but he also says he'd do anything for the Shire. There is also some talk going on here about Frodo acting cowardly. Here too, I would disagree. The Hobbit lad is scared! Who wouldn't be scared when he realises he’s holding "The One Ring" - The Ring of Evil - in his hand, knowing that Nazgûls are out to get him? I think this chapter shows how Frodo, even though he's horrified, wins over himself in a way that he takes the Ring from Gandalf too keep so that Sauron won't find. Even though Gandalf is away fro several years, he still keeps it safe. A selfish/self centred coward wouldn't do that after my opinion. Cheers, Oro
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_< .....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^ |
|
06-29-2004, 10:46 AM | #20 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Squatter
Quote:
Of course, this question becomes really significant at the Sammath Naur, so we shouldn't really pursue it here. |
|
06-29-2004, 11:01 AM | #21 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Oh, but we can pursue the question here, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere. As I cited above (but will do so again here)
Quote:
This ambiguity perhaps explains the ambiguity of this strangly split Frodo -- is a flawed person showing those flaws but able to overcome them, or is he a Good person being taken over by Evil? I think that these questions are introduced here, raised to a fever pitch as the novel progresses, but then never fully answered (which is a smart move on Tolkien's part, I would suggest. . .) |
|
06-29-2004, 01:14 PM | #22 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
But if we are dealing with a conflict of 'external' powers (which Ainulindale denies, I would say - as there is no equal but opposite force to Eru - there is only the 'void' in which Melkor seeks, but fails to find, the Secret Fire, - 'because it is with Eru), then an individual's moral choices can only affect themselves, unless 'luck' plays a part, or strength.
A moral victory requires that 'good' wins because it is good, & evil loses because it is evil. If good wins because it happens to be stronger than evil, then its a victory of the strong over the weak, & it will be able to claim the title of 'good' for itself because history is written by the winners. I come back to the quote from Brian Rosebury's 'Tolkien: A Cultural Phenmomenon, which I gave in a previous thread: Quote:
Or to quote from an essay by Michael Posa on the portrayal of evil in the movies, which I referred to in the 'Just say no, Faramir' thread: Quote:
I just can't see Tolkien putting out that message. |
||
06-29-2004, 01:53 PM | #23 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
The arrival & reign of Scyld Scefing (Bilbo's backstory early in chapter one) The generous ring-giving, partying, etc, and overlordship of Hrothgar in Heorot (Bilbo's party, generosity and gift-giving, down to a ring, even...) and The Grendel Backstory (Gandalf's narrative, ch2.) Seems reasonable that Tolkien preferred Beowulf-form over more modern ideas.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 06-29-2004 at 06:16 PM. |
|
06-29-2004, 06:52 PM | #24 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Quote:
It is essential, from the perspective of the reader too, that the possibility remains that evil will prevail. Otherwise, why bother reading the book? Of course, we hope that good will defeat evil, because we want a "happy ending", and so we trust that the characters will make the choices necessary to bring this about ("estel"?). Davem, to go back to your question concerning the portrayal of Gollum in this chapter, there is, as you point out, a tension between Gandalf's comment that "he [Gollum] had no will left in the matter", and his assertion that there remains a (slight) chance of him "being cured before he dies". But I think that this tension can be resolved by taking the comments as referring to Gollum with the Ring and without it. Gollum with the Ring represents the triumph of evil (the Ring) over the will. He had a choice not to seize it, but he failed to make that choice (murdering his best friend into the bargain). He may even have had a shot at freeing himself of the Ring in the early days, although Frodo's failure to do precisely that in this chapter suggests that he was unlikely to have been able to do so. But, after so many years of possessing it, his will was utterly mastered. He did indeed have no will left in the matter while under its dominion. However, his will, while mastered, was not wholly destroyed, since Gandalf is suggesting that, once "free" of the Ring, he does have another shot at redemption. He may remain "bound by the desire of it", but there nevertheless is hope that he will overcome that desire. And, viewed in this way, this seems to me to be consistent with the approach that it is the characters' moral choices, rather than any external conflict between good and evil, that determine which will ultimately prevail. Gollum's ability to make a moral choice is suspended while he is in possession of the Ring and under its dominion, much as it would be if he were incarcerated by Sauron, but it surfaces again (as a possibility) once he is "set free". Aiwendil Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 06-30-2004 at 02:26 AM. |
|||
06-30-2004, 02:06 AM | #25 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Shadow (!) of the Past
Selection of recent posts, as far as I can understand them, deals with perception of evil with Tolkien. Is it Manichaean, or Boethian, is the main question, it seems.
(as a side note - hope (in the sense of Estel - Faith) is clearly expression of Boethian view - the belief that whatever Creator does is for the good of his creatures, even when creatures themselves consider things done to them as undesirable(=evil)) First, it would be appropriate to consider the concept of 'shadow'. What is a shadow? My Merriam-Webster has a load of things to say about it, but I wll draw on enries I find relevant: 1: partial darkness or obscurity within a part of space from which rays from a source of light are cut off by an interposed opaque body 2 : a reflected image 4 a : an imperfect and faint representation b : an imitation of something All three definitions apply [to Sauron, and his Ring in particular) and both are expressions of Boethian view of Evil, which is absence of Good, and is flatly stated within Tolkien's works as unable to create, only to mock (that is, to reflect, or to imitate imperfectly) but there is, as well, such an entry in the dictionary for the word 'shadow' as: 10 a : an inseparable companion or follower Which moves us on to Manichaean view - as Good and Evil interbalanced forces, with equal opportunities. And now I'm forced to review the poem Sam recites in chapter 11: Gil-galad was an Elven-king. Of him the harpers sadly sing: the last whose realm was fair and free between the Mountains and the Sea. His sword was long, his lance was keen, his shining helm afar was seen; the countless stars of heaven's field were mirrored in his silver shield. But long ago he rode away, and where he dwelleth none can say; for into darkness fell his star in Mordor where the shadows are. So, shadows, be them absence or not, can be, that is, have an existence. They are in Mordor, at least. Which, as far as I can see, is Tolkien's effort to combine, conciliate those both views. For, indeed, if LoTR were totally Boethian, than there would be no need for Frodo to go anywhere at all - there would be nothing to confront, as Evil would be nothing - mere absence and would eliminate itself Now, the Ring is somehow an union of those two concepts of Evil. As indicated by Squatter above, it draws on bearer's inner weakness (Boethian), is a kind of booster for what lack of Goodness it finds inside. That is why it is often described as temptation - Frodo is tempted to put on the Ring, and has a fight with himself. But, it is mentioned several times, the Ring has the will of its own - that is, it is outside force as well (Manichaean). There are moments, contrary to mentioned when there is no temptation for Frodo (at the stairs to Cirith Ungol, per instance) - when there is no inner response, and his hand is moved to take the Ring by sheer outside force So it seems, that one can not take one or other side and define it clearly as falling into one category. Or, rather, Tolkien is mainly Boethian, but with shadows (in a sense 11 : a small degree or portion : TRACE) of Manichaeanism to him. PS Probably it would be of interest to consider, perhaps, the followng thread dealing with the subject (but mainly around Sammath Naur, so maybe it is a bit before its time, but nevertheless): Frodo or the Ring? PPS 1. Yes, I do miss Mithadan posting in The Books 2. Views expressed by yours truly back there are somehow modified and changed by now.
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! Last edited by HerenIstarion; 06-30-2004 at 02:14 AM. |
06-30-2004, 02:46 AM | #26 | |||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
SpM
Quote:
Quote:
So, even if the forces which fight for good were defeated, evil's victory would not last, because, being unable to create, only mar, it would turn on itself & so bring about its own destruction. It has no original source from which to draw power, or even existance- even the things which serve evil owe their existence to Illuvatar. If He were to withdraw his will for their existance, they would cease to be. H-I Quote:
Quote:
SpM Quote:
|
|||||
06-30-2004, 03:09 AM | #27 | |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
Words to live by
After these recent post excursions into the depths of philosophical thought, I'd like to get back to Tolkien's practical philosophy as he expressed it in this chapter. Rereading it made me realize just how many of the book's famous quotes are placed here! We not only have exposition here (the background of the Ring, history of Middle-earth's past ages, etc.), we have wonderful wisdom passed on to us. I'd like to mention just a few of the most important, not quoting them completely, since we all know them well and can reread them ourselves.
Quote:
There are other practical insights, less lofty, that make me stop to think on them: Frodo's age (parallel to Bilbo's) at the onset of the adventures, and his restlessness - "the old paths seemed too well-trodden." Mid-life crisis described at a time when no one had yet coined that term? The observation that immortality can be a curse "until at last every minute is a weariness." The description of the addictive influence of the Ring on Gollum, as Squatter already mentioned. The significance of roots - "I shall know that somewhere there is a firm foothold, even if my feet cannot stand there again." The importance of companions - "I don't think you need go alone." These thoughts are what make LotR more than just another story for me!
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
|
06-30-2004, 09:28 AM | #28 |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Thanks, Esty. I like the practical philosophy quite a bit. I think that's one reason (among many) that I'm so fond of the four war-hobbits; they have lots of gut-level relationship-oriented reactions. Frodo especially manages to express them eloquently; Sam in his simplicity attains an elegance all his own ("...and that's why I choked...")
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
06-30-2004, 09:30 AM | #29 | ||
The Kinslayer
|
The thing that to me amazes me most about this chapter is the Ring of course and the thinking of both Gandalf and Frodo.
As Gandalf and Frodo now know, the ring must be destroy, yet is seems to me that neither of them can do it. As it has been quoted previously, Gandalf cannot be the guardian of the Ring, so therefore the keeper of the Ring must be Frodo, for the time being at least. Quote:
Concerning Gandalf and the Ring The following quotation has always interested me: From the Letters of JRRT: 246 Quote:
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy." |
||
06-30-2004, 09:37 AM | #30 | |||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Davem wrote:
Quote:
Mark12_30 wrote: Quote:
The Saucepan Man wrote: Quote:
Quote:
HerenIstarion wrote: Quote:
I think, incidentally, that "Manichean" is not the best name for the one sort of evil, for "Manichean" suggests not only the external existence of that evil but also a kind of dualism, in which good and evil are cosmologically equal. There is no question that, in Tolkien's universe, good is cosmologically dominant over evil. I think the more relevant question with regard to the Ring is simply whether the evil of the Ring is external - in the Ring itself - or internal - in the owner or desirer of the Ring. And I think that there is sufficient evidence in favor or each of these apparently contradictory claims that we must conclude that somehow both are simultaneously true. I don't think that broad cosmological/theological arguments have all that much point with regard to this ambiguity, either. For regardless of the ultimate nature of evil, it cannot be denied that Sauron is an external power. And there is no theological reason that he cannot have placed a part of that power in the Ring (as is indeed said), so that there is in fact an external evil will within the Ring. To try to simplify the picture and force all the evidence to fit either a Boethian or a Manichean view, or to force the smaller scale situation to match exactly with the cosmological, is to miss much of the subtlety of Tolkien's world. |
|||||
06-30-2004, 10:15 AM | #31 | ||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,994
|
Fascinating points and insights discussed here, and hard to find a way to introduce my thoughts into the discussion! I particularly liked Guinevere and Orofaniel's observations about the importance of younger friends to Bilbo and Frodo, and the suggestion (Fordim's or SpM's?) that the Ring is given characteristics of a character, acting as it does to influence events. I think davem's perception of certain negative qualities in Frodo touches a nerve with many because Tolkien's characterisation is so sharp: he does not idealise his hero or glorify the terrible task Frodo faces.
Yet it is Estelyn's post which I think allows us to understand another reason why this chapter resonates so much with many readers. It is not simply Tolkien's control over exposition, his sure judgement as a story-teller, but the style Tolkien chooses to express Gandalf's perspective. Gandalf speaks in the short, almost pithy form of ancient wisdom literature which uses proverbs exclusively. The structure of proverbs gives Gandalf's lines power. I can attest to Estelyn's idea about the force of the practical philosophy in these proverbial lines: Quote:
It is Gandalf's telling of Gollum's story that I think is so suggestive, for we 'see' Gandalf applying his own value of pity towards the most wretched creature; we understand how he applies what he has learnt. And it is this initial perspective of sympathy which I think makes Gollum's "almost conversion" so much more heart-breaking and poignant later, when Sam's good intentions in fact thwart Gollum. For me, the heart of LotR lies in Gandalf's point of view here. That said, I am intrigued by a couple of perhaps lesser points in this chapter. One is the offhand way that Tolkien incorporates vampires, creatures of dark mythology, into the story, with this brief comment: Quote:
Quote:
The last point I wonder about is Gandalf's comment to Frodo concerning how he wrung "the true story out of" Gollum. Quote:
Edit: cross posting with everyone after Esty's post!
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bêthberry; 06-30-2004 at 10:44 AM. Reason: changing a few e's for u's. Thanks Helen! |
||||
06-30-2004, 10:48 AM | #32 | |
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
|
Aiwendil wrote:
Quote:
Don't you guys think this was a rush reaction to what Gandalf had told him? I doubt that if Frodo had thought it "though", as gotten more time, he wouldn’t have said the same thing. Later in the book, we must remember that it was actually Frodo who prevented Sam from killing Gollum. Yet, I'm not sure that Sam really would have killed him, but that is another discussion. I may add, when I'm at it; that I do believe saying something or thinking something as "major" as this is very different from actually "doing it". When I read this chapter, hearing Frodo's frustration (yes, because I would call it that), I can understand it. After my opinion he hadn't gotten enough time to think everything through and digest the horrible tale that Gandalf brought with him. And about the "epic hero"; I would say that in a certain way he is. I don't know however what Tolkien's intension was. I would say that Frodo is indeed a small hero when he takes Ring. No one would have expected it; because he's only a small Hobbit who doesn't care for the outside world- (Like many if not all, Hobbits). Heroism can be a simple thing after my opinion - although the result of it may not be as comprehensive all the time. People can of course, interpret this exact quote in different ways, and therefore many conclusions and opinions regarding Frodo will occur. Cheers, Orofaniel
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_< .....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^ |
|
06-30-2004, 11:01 AM | #33 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Aiwendil
Quote:
Now, I know I'm risking Esty's wrath, As I've been asked to avoid 'falling into deep waters', but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your points, so, a short response only: Quote:
And now, having stated my position on that subject I'll not stray there again (at least as regards this chapter!). |
||
06-30-2004, 11:31 AM | #34 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,994
|
kicking around in a puddle as opposed to deep waters
Quote:
Perhaps the point lies in your statement about striking a chord? Think of Gandalf's comment about how Gollum was drawn in: Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
06-30-2004, 11:38 AM | #35 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Brilliant, Bb.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
06-30-2004, 12:59 PM | #36 | ||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Popping in...
I must admit that I haven't read the whole thread yet. But I would still like to comment one thing I found interesting...
Máedhros Wrote: Quote:
Quote:
But then, Gandalf denies the Ring, and says that only Frodo can take it. This, obviously, gives him confidence as he admires and respects Gandalf. This confidence gives him the will to take the Ring, right? If not, where does the sudden will come from? I will stalk off now, read the whole thread before I possibly post again. I hope I haven't taken the discussion far back, but you can always just not take heed to it. Cheers, Nova
__________________
Scully: Homer, we're going to ask you a few simple yes or no questions. Do you understand? Homer: Yes. (Lie dectector blows up) Last edited by Novnarwen; 06-30-2004 at 01:22 PM. |
||
06-30-2004, 01:25 PM | #37 | |||
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
Simply elaborating on points already made...
Quote:
Quote:
Although this choice is obviously contrary to the one he makes in this Chapter, Frodo must constantly remake his decision throughout the book. This makes the battle of good vs. evil even more realistic, as it is not made in one act. Referring to the belief in an apocalypse, it seems that this battle, in truth, rages on into eternity. Even the title of the Chapter brings this to attention. 'The Shadow of the Past' A shadow has fallen on the land, and the Wise are aware of Sauron's power growing. And now they discuss the Shadow that was in the past, and also the Shadow of the future (I'd love to add more to that part, but that will have to wait until we get to Lorien. ) Quote:
-Durelin EDIT: Cross-posted with Nova, otherwise I would have elaborated on some more points... A vicious circle, it is... Last edited by Durelin; 06-30-2004 at 01:29 PM. |
|||
06-30-2004, 01:42 PM | #38 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Tolkien makes the point that since Eru is a creator, and we are made in the image of Eru, then it is part of our nature to create-- and in order to glorify God, we should sub-create. I would argue that Tolkien does not consider the *desire* to subcreate a fallen desire. It is a desire, simply put. (It is like the plain and simple desire for food-- neither good nor bad; it is not yet gluttony. Gandalf's enjoyment of a good meal is not gluttony. ) Similarly, Celebrimbor had the desire to sub-create. He did so. I do not believe Tolkien considered that sinful. It was Sauron's creation of the One Ring to dominate that was sinful. Good desire (to subcreate) was turned to evil purposes (domination.) Incidentally I don't recall that Celebrimbor sinned in all this; he was duped, but I don't remember any outright rebellion. (Same thing with Feanor. I don't think there was anything wrong with his desire to sub-create; it was Feanor's reaction to his finished Silmarils that was sinful ("MINE").) This is not to imply that Celebrimbor (or Feanor) was without sin; just that his desire to sub-create was not in itself bad (remember that Tolkien endorses the desire to sub-create.) Back to your quote, Durelin; when you say that man's tendencies are toward evil, I find that an acceptable statement. But to imply that any desire that the Ring twisted for its own purposes was therefore an inherently evil desire: that I disagree with. Gandalf says he has the desire to do good, and to show pity. **That** is the desire that he fears will be twisted by the Ring. To do good is not something that I believe Tolkien would have called a fallen, perverted, twisted desire. It is a good desire. However, the Ring will twist it to evil. And fallen humanity has little capacity to resist that very twisting. If that is what you are referring to then we are on the same page. Another Edit: Durelin, are we cross-editing?
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 06-30-2004 at 01:51 PM. |
|
06-30-2004, 01:51 PM | #39 |
Illusionary Holbytla
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,547
|
On the Ring
It seems to me that this is the chapter where the Ring is introduced, not only as a focal object of the story, but also as a main 'character'. It is an inanimate object, and yet it also is not at the same time. It looks after itself, can slip off a finger, and wants to be found, according to Gandalf. Now we are bringing in some other points, which I agree with: the Ring turns a person's innate tendencies towards evil, can give people power according to their stature, and some others. Not exactly your typical inanimate object! The Ring seems to have an ability to understand its bearer, if it is able to give them power and use their strengths/weaknesses. Now, where I am going with this is this: just how much is the Ring able to do and what are its weaknesses? Obviously, it can't get up and walk or talk, etc, but it can certainly get around after its own fashion and if it can work on its bearer's mind in this way, is talking really necessary? If the nature of the Ring is to work Sauron's will, how much of the Ring's power over people comes from Sauron and how much is the Ring's nature? To clarify, (not saying this is possible, but...) if Sauron were somehow destroyed and the Ring left, what would happen to it? Would it still carry out Sauron's will?
|
06-30-2004, 01:59 PM | #40 | |
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
Quote:
I wonder if desire is the best word for all of this, though it does seem to fit well when you're talking about the Ring. |
|
|
|