LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 02 - The Shadow of the Past

[davem]

Heren-Istarion

I.e. Gandalf may have said 'good morning, dear fellow councillors', but if it were to be said in Black Speech, he would have got the same scolding.

I think we're also dealing with the Light/Dark symbolism here - Languages in Middle Earth form a continuum - from Quenya, the language of the Calaquendi, the 'Light' speakers,the returning Noldor, on through Sindarin which replaces Quenya as the language of everyday speech in Beleriand, which is then replaced in Numenor by Adunaic, & finally by the Westron. In the continuum the Black speech is the language which is 'furthest' from the 'Light' or 'wisdom' of the West. Its a kind of 'negative' speech, & the 'reality' it attempts to communicate is the opposite of Elven reality.

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.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

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.

Which is precisely why Tolkien shows us through Gandalf's words that moral choices do make a difference. Because Bilbo comes into possession of the Ring with pity, he suffers much less from his possession than does Sméagol, who obtains it by murdering a friend. Essentially the Ring becomes more difficult to resist the longer one has it and uses it, but initially it offers a temptation such as that which Mephistopheles offers to Dr. Faustus. It makes promises that are related to the innate strength and goodness of its target. With Sméagol it was enough that the Ring was a beautiful item; with Sam it was the opportunity to turn the Plateau of Gorgoroth into a flowering garden; with Gandalf it would be the opportunity to remove the Dark Lord and bring peace and freedom. If the target rejects this and refuses to possess the Ring, they have made their moral choice, but if they decide to own it anyway it will gradually wear away at them until it conquers their will.

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.

[Orofaniel]

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.

Just a comment on Davem's 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

[davem]

Squatter

it will gradually wear away at them until it conquers their will. ...That this object can take over the will of its owners is reason enough to destroy it

But this is the central thing - can the Ring actually overcome the individual's will, or is it always the case that the individual must surrender to the Ring? Is Tolkien's philosophical position Manichaean or Boethian? My own feeling is that it is Boethian, & that the Ring cannot overcome & enslave an individual's will if the individual does not willingly surrender to it. Of course, the longer an individual possesees the Ring the more it will grow on their mind & the greater the temptation will be to surrender, but it must always be an act of surrender, otherwise we are dealing with an objective force of evil, which can overcome the individual & may ultimately overcome Illuvatar Himself - or if Illuvatar wins in the end it will simply be because He is stronger - & that ultimate victory would not be a moral victory. If the Ring has taken over Gollum's will, then he is not responsible for his actions - but then what has he got to repent for - why does he 'deserve death'? 'Smeagol' is innocent, but to all intents & purposes, by the time of LotR, has no real , willed. existence, & 'Gollum' is a body driven by the will of the Ring, & therefore cannot be saved, no matter how much mercy he is shown, & despite any opportunities for repentance which may arise. But I don't think Tolkien is saying that Gollum's will is completely gone - Gandalf still hopes for his cure - there is still the possibility of repentance on Gollum's part - ie there is still the opportunity for him to reject the Ring's dominance. So Tolkien is saying that 'Smeagol's will can still reassert itself over that of the Ring - he's surrendered to it, but he can still change his mind & reject it's control.

Of course, this question becomes really significant at the Sammath Naur, so we shouldn't really pursue it here.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

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)

[Frodo] unfastened [the Ring] and handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.

In this quote, I think we have both possibilities that you suggest davem put side by side and held in some kind of difficult and tense balance -- perhaps suspended is a better way of putting it. The text is uncertain about what's going on here: is the Ring reluctant (and thus 'in charge,' plunging us into a Manichean world of Good vs Evil, in which the individual will is merely the battleground upon which these large forces confront one another), or is Frodo reluctant (and thus still possessing his will, moving us into a world of good or evil choices)?

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. . .)

[davem]

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:

..The defeat of the forces of evil should ideally appear, not as a lucky accident, or as a punishment inflicted from outside by a superior power (which deprives the actual process of defeat of any moral significance), but as the practical consequence of wickedness itself: Evil must appear as intrinsically self defeating in the long run. Sauron & his servants, despite their steadily growing superiiority in crude strength & terror, are hindered by weaknesses which are themselves vices: their lack of imagination, the irrational cruelty which denies them the option of voluntary assistance (the victim must be made to act against his own will), & the selfishness which disables their alliances.

This is the great denial of Manicheanism. For the victory of Good to have 'moral significance ', evil must be self defeating. This cannot be the case if it has the power to overwhelm the weak & innocent, & force them to do its will. Evil corrupts through temptation, by offering the individual the power to do as he will - it exploits the individual's desires, convincing them that what they want is right. But the individual must have the choice to go along with that, or reject it.

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:

'The contrast between Faramir and his brother Boromir also portrays the duality of man in The Lord of the Rings. At the end of Fellowship, Boromir succumbs to the temptation of the Ring and attempts to seize it from Frodo. However, when confronted with the Ring, Faramir brashly tells Frodo that, "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway" (Two Towers 330). Philippa Boyens, an influential writer in the film project, immediately dismisses Faramir's rejection of the ring as "death on film" because of their attempt to portray the Ring as "one of the most evil things ever created" (LotR: Two Towers). He is, simply put, too good: an idea that Tolkien fan and film student Elicia Donze agrees with when she writes, "[In a] film…you simply cannot have FLAT characters" (Donze). It is true that Jackson's Faramir is much more complicated and dynamic than Tolkien's original character. Indeed, it may be difficult for an audience to comprehend how Faramir might dismiss the Ring out of hand. And yet, it would be simplistic to say that no one can outright resist the temptation embodied in the ring; doing so would take away Faramir's free will to reject evil; and Tolkien is very insistent upon the choice we all have do good.

The significance of Faramir's rejection of evil can be explored further by examining Michael Swanick's essay on his personal experience with Tolkien's work. Here, Swanick introduces the idea of the Ring as a "God-sent integrity test… to test all of creation and decide whether it is worthy of continuance" we can begin to understand the moral significance of Faramir's decision (Swanick 42). While Swanick exaggerates with this claim, since the Ring is definitely not God-sent, it is clearly true that the Quest is a test with the most dire consequences for failure. Throughout the story, the characters that resist the Ring's temptation--Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Sam and even Aragorn--are more than simply human. Gandalf is an angelic spirit, Elrond and Galadriel are elves and Sam is a hobbit. Aragorn, while a man, is descended from the lords of Númenor and is blessed with both inner strength and longevity that far exceeds other men(King 389). The Fourth Age that begins at the end of the novels is the Age of Men and so it is of the utmost importance that men, too, pass the test of the Ring. This is why Faramir must have the choice to derail the quest and it is why he does not fail. As we have seen, Tolkien shows us that we always have the choice to resist temptation and evil. Jackson and Boyens, in order to produce a film, have lost this pivotal triumph of human will--I hesitate to say "good" --over evil. They posit the Ring as a Manichaean source of evil that can create ill will within others, rather than simply magnify the desire for dominance that is already there. While it initially appears as if the movie has an added element of depth lacking in the novels, it is this depth that actually polarizes the concepts of good and evil.

Hope, in the sense of 'estel - faith - as opposed to amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat. So the manichaean view must ultimately be false, because otherwise there will always remain the possibility that it could in some way become powerful enough to overcome in the end, or at the very least, as I said, that it will only lose because its not strong enough.

I just can't see Tolkien putting out that message.