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

[Durelin]

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.

I really was actually not implying that, so, once again, we agree. I was simply elaborating upon the Ring's ability to use the inherent evils that exist, and often to turn a desire/thought of good into one of evil.

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.

[Kuruharan]

Maédhros

How do one makes good seem evil?

Just as an example…

“You can’t have any doughnuts, they're not healthy!!”

“No more cookies or ice cream either!!”

“…and Kuruharan, no more driving 15 MPH in excess of the posted limit!!!”

[davem]

Mark

Well, Tolkien does say the Elves 'flirted with Sauron' - in the same letter as he refers to them as 'embalmers'. Celebrimbor's intention is to create Rings which will effectively stop change - actually they are intended to give the wearer the power to 're-make the world in their own image' - make it as they feel it 'should' be - & then embalm it. And this is what the One is intended to do. This, it seems to me, is what it offers all its bearers - actually, its what all the Rings are intended, & used, to do - offer the power to change reality until it suits the bearer.

So, it plays on their desires, uses them to wheedle its way into their consciousness. So in answer to Firefoot, i think if Sauron was destroyed & the ring survived, it would continue doing that - not that is possible, as they are one. Sauron & the ring are both about the manifestation of desire. If 'Sauron', as an intelligence, ceased to be, there would still exist the will to dominate - so whoever took it would be tempted by the desire to remake the world as they believed it should be. This is the temptation of the Ring to my mind - it convinces the unwary that the world is wrong - 'What you want is right, & I can help you make it the way you know it should be'.

But there always has to be a surrender to it. You can choose estel - faith, trust & let go of your desires - or put them in the hands of Eru & let him weigh them & decide whether they are worthy. Its simply lack of estel that leads to the victory of the Ring over your will.

So, the temptation is greater for the powerful - those who are used to wielding power & ordering things - Sam gives up the Ring with almost no struggle, because he has never had any real power, nor desired any.

All the magical objects can corrupt those who wield them, but only if their bearers choose to be corrupted, by giving in to their desires. So, in effect, as all are potentially corruptible, all are in danger, & the Ring works on that. But they cannot automatically corrupt anyone, overriding their will, or there would be no real hope.

The hope that runs through the whole Legendarium is simply, & only, that - you cannot be forced to surrender, you have to choose it.

[HerenIstarion]

All the magical objects can corrupt those who wield them, but only if their bearers choose to be corrupted

Well, that being generally true, there is a minor, but significant, deviation. The choice of not being corrupted is expressed by giving the ring away. One can not eat the cake and have it. That is, as the Ring is not only the 'booster' of wielder's weaknesses, but some kind of focus of 'Evil As Outside Force' too, and as it is flatly stated (for the first time in the very chapter we are discussing now) to be able to overcome even the most 'good' intentions (with wich, as is well known, the road to hell is paved ), the only way not to fall is to let it fall, if you follow my meaning

[davem]

H-I

Well, that being generally true, there is a minor, but significant, deviation. The choice of not being corrupted is expressed by giving the ring away. One can not eat the cake and have it. That is, as the Ring is not only the 'booster' of wielder's weaknesses, but some kind of focus of 'Evil As Outside Force' too, and as it is flatly stated (for the first time in the very chapter we are discussing now) to be able to overcome even the most 'good' intentions (with wich, as is well known, the road to hell is paved ), the only way not to fall is to let it fall, if you follow my meaning

I agree - but only because we are all corruptible - if we weren't the Ring could not exert any influence on its bearer.

But the other thing that interests me is that in the final version Tolkien has the Elves making the Rings. In the early versions it is Sauron himself who makes & distributes them

‘In the ancient days the dark master made many Rings, & he dealt them out lavishly, so that they might be spread abroad to ensnare folk. the elves had many, & there are now many elf-wraiths in the world; the goblins had some & their wraiths are very evil & under the command of the Lord. The dwarves had seven, but nothing could make them invisible. In them it only kindled to flames the fire of their greed...In this way the master controlled them. Men had three rings, & others they found in secret places cast away by the elf-wraiths: the men-wraiths are servants of the Lord, & they brought all their rings back to him; till at last he had gathered all into his hands again that had not been destroyed by fire - all save one.

- some elves are given them & become corrupted into 'elf-wraiths' - but (apart from asking why they would take them from him) the question remains - why would Tolkien choose to make the Elves responsible for the greatest threat to Middle Earth? And why the High Elves in particular? He has a perfectly good, & convincing, origin for the Rings - Sauron makes them & gives them away in order to corrupt the free races. But then, for some reason, he decides he wants to make the Elves responsible - so the High Elves are changed from heroes, & defenders of Middle Earth, to beings who have 'flirted with Sauron', into embalmers, who are, because of the desires which drive them, responsible for the mess in which Middle Earth finds itself at the end of the Third Age.

So, is this a case of Tolkien's attitude towards the Elves changing. They begin, in the Book of Lost Tales as a race of beautiful, perfect beings, almost incarnate Angels, & 'fall' further & further, until in the final version of LotR they are in the main, selfish, self obsessed fallen angels, unconcerned with the fate of the other races, wishing only to cut themselves off & let the rest of Middle Earth go hang.

Its interesting, comparing the early drafts of the chapter, to see how Tolkien still presents an idealised race of High Elves:

But the Elves resist his power more than all other races; & the high-elves of the West, of whom some still remain in the middle-world, percieve & dwell at once both [in] this world & the other side without the aid of rings.

By the final version the High Elves have become much less 'ideal'.

Same thing happens with Gollum, who begins as much less of a 'monster':

There was long ago living by the bank of a stream a wise, clever handed & quiet footed little family. I guess they were of hobbit-kind.....The most inquisitive & curious-minded of that family was called Digol...He found the ring in the mud of the river-bank under the roots of a thorn tree; & he oput it on, & when he returned home none of his family saw him while he wore it. He ws pleased with his discovery & concealed it, & he used it to discover secrets, & put his knowledge to malicious use, & became sharp-eyed & keen-eared for all that was unpleasant.

And finally:

He wanted to slip out & leave the mountains, & smell the open air even if it killed him...But that would have meant leaving the Ring. And that is not easy to do. The longer you have had one the harder it is.

Why Tolkien felt the need to 'darken' all his characters is an interesting question?

[HerenIstarion]

It seems that whatever accusations made by critics, JRRT is mostly modern writer. One of the issues, now, raised in modern writing is the problem of power, and its corruption (All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely). It would have been highly relevant issue to be addressed by the man of the last century, still more the participant of the WWI and witness of WWII, two 'wars to end all wars', started by power corrupted tyrants. That'd be the reason number one - to explore the impact of power on an individual.

Another reason, mentioned M/B confrontation - if it were Sauron who were entirely to blame, than, firstly, the hint of "Evil as Outside Force" would have been by way stronger than what Christian writer would have wished for, and another critique made by many critics of Tolkien's works - that they are black-n-white, without shades of grey, would have been true. But as it is, even the most 'good' heroes have something to repent of, it is better mirror of the things as they are.

Or, for short - reasons for that may be described as political and theological at the same time.

And all of the above, is of course, personal opinion.

[davem]

Hmm...

Still, what Tolkien seems to be doing is changing his presentation of evil - rather than a kind of 'demon-king' figure (as we have in Morgoth), with Sauron we seem to have something more akin to a nebulous, all pervading presence, which works by corrupting others, influencing them to its service by playing on their desires.

So, we almost get the sense that rather than 'Sauron the Dark Lord' being present himself - making the Rings & distributing them, as in the first versions -'he' is like a poisonous 'idea' or motivating 'force', pushing individuals in a particular direction. Perhaps that's what makes him so successful - he doesn't confront you as an external, physical presence, but as an idea that seems to arise within, so that it can seem, to the unwary at least, that the desires they feel are their own.

Does any of that make sense?

[Mirkgirl]

((Exuse my poor English.))

Reading the thread (yeah it took a while) I feel the urge to jump into some thoughts that aren't exactly chapter based... but first I want to give Tolkien a credit for being a great author (:

What I really like about this chapter is how it shows the yearnings of both Frodo and Sam for something more. Frodo is almost ready to leave the "well-trodden" paths, while in Sam we only see some distant wish to meet the Fair Folk. Both seem not to find what they need in the Shire, both seem to feel surronded of people who just don't "get it" (that there's something more than just hobbits, that the world doesn't end with Bree). Both "pictures" of the unsatisfied hobbits are done almost poetically and touch us deeply. After this we expect these two to find an adventure and can forgive some long-ish explaining of the history of this little piece of metal. For a moment the mood gets really down with Frodo's understanding that the real journey won't be a jolly adventure, as Bilbo's were. At the end Tolkien again doesn't fail to reward us for the patience, with Sam's funny comments (eavesdropping, something unnatural) and at last his enthusiastic "Me go and see the Elves and all! Hooray!" After all can a journey not be jolly with hobbits in it?

On the nature of effects of the Ring, I have to agree with what you all (seem to) have agreed on. The Ring uses the bearer's desires and gives power enough to fulfil them. But the Ring is an entity of its own, it lets the bearer believe he/she is in command but actually the Ring leads him/her to its own aims. We should not forget that the Ring is nothing else but Sauron. The whole idea of Tolkien's world is that you CANNOT do good with evil means and the ring is simply an embodiement of this theorie.

So, the temptation is greater for the powerful - those who are used to wielding power & ordering things - Sam gives up the Ring with almost no struggle, because he has never had any real power, nor desired any.

I agree with this, but only up to a point. I believe that the main thing that made Sam so ringproof (well... not the best word) was that his deepest desire wasn't to turn the world into a garden but to help Master Frodo. And this is something which no ring, no matter how treacherous, can use. (:

While on this topic, we see Sam's self-denial in this chapter already:

Don't let him hurt me, sir! Don't let him turn me into anything unnatural! My old dad would take on so.

Facing the danger, he thinks of his dad and not of himself.

if Sauron were somehow destroyed and the Ring left, what would happen to it?

Is this possible? I thought it was impossible to destroy Sauron while the Ring exists, as the Ring is, in a way, part of him? Actually is it possible to destroy a Maia completely for that matter?

Why Tolkien felt the need to 'darken' all his characters is an interesting question?

Well for me, this is one of the things that made me love the books. There are no angels, no superheros. Everyone fails at times, fears failure at times, acts foolish or reacts (almost) too late. Everyone has flaws, but exactly fighting them, succeding despite them is what makes one a hero. Actually this is why I dislike most (not all!) RPGs and Fan-fics... they tend to have too flawless characters, elves before all. (:

Excellent post about the practical philosophy of the book... sometimes we forget what all this is about going too deep indeed (: the ancient chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" comes to mind.

One more thing on why the Ring doesn't seem to affect the hobbits that much. Undisputed it's their nature of keep-to-yourself, their apparant lack of wish to dominate... but is it all? This quote made me think about it

But there is only one Power in the world that knows all about the Rings and their effects; and as far as I know there is no Power in the world that knows all about hobbits.

The Ring's powers are given to him by his creator, but he didn't know much about the hobbits. Is it possible that it was a bit of a loophole? Not that it actually matters just some food for thought I guess (:

I'll shut up now... sorry for boring you to tears if you read all this (:

[davem]

Mirkgirl

Can't argue with anything you say - except:

Originally Posted by Mirkgirl

. Everyone has flaws, but exactly fighting them, succeding despite them is what makes one a hero. Actually this is why I dislike most (not all!) RPGs and Fan-fics... they tend to have too flawless characters, elves before all. (:

I recently wrote a 'fanfic' with a flawed Elf as a central character:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin...&f=29&t=000057

(in fact, some of the writing is pretty flawed too, but I did my best!)

[Mirkgirl]

That's why I said "most (not all!)"... I know there are some good ones
Well what's left for me after this shameless plug *goes to read*

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Goodness – I get distracted for a few days by an RPG and look what happens in this thread! So much to catch up on *goes back to read and read and read; returns exhausted *

Whew! OK, a lot of work but well worth it. I have my own tuppence worth on a couple point points:

Desire vs pity – Durelin, you were the first to, quite wisely I think, introduce the idea that the more effective way to talk about this chapter (and the Ring?) is in terms of desire versus pity rather than good versus evil. I think that much of what this chapter turns on is the sense that Frodo and Gandalf do not know fully what is going on, what the Ring is about, and what is going to happen (“even the very wise cannot see all ends”). To that end, the chapter (and I think the book) quite carefully steers clear of the thorny and impossible issue of good and evil, choosing instead to tackle the more manageable (mortal? practical?) issues of lived experience/existence (thank you Esty for pointing out the proverbial almost folkloric wisdom of this chapter!).

I think that the conversation between Frodo and Gandalf takes place against the rather certain backdrop that good and evil exist, that they are different things, but that their true nature cannot be grasped or understood by limited beings such as themselves. Gandalf has a better understanding of good and evil, but not an absolute understanding. (Whenever I hear someone claim that they know for a certainty what good is, I shiver and head the other way; ditto for someone who claims to know with absolute certainty the nature of evil.) The Ring is evil, but what that means is entirely secondary to the question of what are they to do with it (the former being unknowable, the latter being a lived-question that needs to be addressed by mortal/human action) – that is, they do not sit around debating what is Right, but attempt to arrive at an idea of what is the right thing to do.

One thing they do decide is that contrary to the desires that the Ring both prompts and responds to is pity, the OED definition of which I provide here to make a point:

A feeling or emotion of tenderness aroused by the suffering, distress, or misfortune of another, and prompting a desire for its relief; compassion, sympathy.

The key thing about pity is that it is a feeling that is prompted by or in response to another person (not the self) that engenders the “desire” to aid the other. The Ring is all about fulfilling self-ish desire; pity is all about directing desire outward from the self and to the other. It’s a lovely idea that once more shows the symmetry of Tolkien’s views.

To go a bit further – if we ‘recover’ the sense of pity (as Professor Tolkien always liked to do) the root of pity is the Latin pietas, from which we now have “piety” and whichmeant, in part, “dutifulness; affectionate loyalty and respect.” In other words, the recovered meaning of pity stressed the obligations of the self to the other, which again is the exact opposite of what is entailed by the Ring (thinking of oneself above all others).

Sam – Mark 12_30, I too have always fallen in love with Sam every time he shouts “Hooray” and then bursts into tears; but your bringing it out here has cast a fuller light on that moment, for something very much like it occurs at least twice more: first, when the bard of Gondor steps forth at the end and sings the Lay of Frodo of the Nine Fingers (Sam cries aloud with joy and then bursts into tears – that moment always gets me misty, and is doing so now); and second in the very last line of the book, when Sam provides the moment in which we as readers both smile and weep (at least I do, “Well, I’m back” – misty again).

We’ve already noted the foreshadowing in the first couple of chapters in relation to Gandalf and Frodo, and the foreshadowing is almost uniformly of bad things (the pain of the journey, the price that Frodo will have to pay for his quest). But with this moment, Sam is foreshadowing the joy that will come with the fall of Sauron – he is expressing for us that joy that cuts so deep that it moves us to tears (dare I say “eucatastrophe”?) This is only fitting and right, as that joy will be most fully felt by Sam and – on his behalf – by the reader, and not Frodo or Gandalf (who will be happy, but who will leave Middle-Earth to the care and love of Sam).

“The Shadow of the Past” – Last point! H-I, way back in post #25 had some wonderful thoughts on the nature of shadows, to which I would like to add just a couple more ideas. The title of this chapter is full of a rich ambiguity. Does it mean the shadow cast by the past on the present (shadow-as-absence)? Or does it mean the return of the Shadow that is from the past (shadow-as-presence)? Or does it, and I prefer this option, mean both at the same time?

[Lhunardawen]

*catches breath* Here I am, late again.

As usual, I haven't the time to read everyone's posts, as much as I desire. But I was able to pick up a little in the discussion.

For some reason I have always loathed Gollum. Maybe it is basically because of how he looks, the way he speaks, to something deeper like his treachery. But reading the chapter again, I have finally felt the pity that Bilbo felt for him, the reason why he stayed his hand and did not kill him.

He could be hated for killing Deagol, but the Ring is the only thing to blame, for its beauty has blinded him to murder. The following line, especially, almost brought me to tears in pity for Gollum:

So they called him Gollum, and cursed him, and told him to go far away; and his grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole.
He wandered in loneliness, weeping a little for the hardness of the world,...

Doubtless he would have done something to prevent this disowning, if only the power of the Ring had not subdued him.

I was also amazed by Frodo's intense love for the Shire and its inhabitants, allowing himself to be exiled to save it.

Finally, mark12_30, I feel the same way as you do about Sam's devotion for Frodo. Although, frankly, at first I laughed out loud, thinking that Sam's initial reason for coming with Frodo is to see the Elves. But even if that is true, it wouldn't hurt, because eventually he has shown what he can do in his loyalty to Frodo.

[HerenIstarion]

Mark, I would be glad to be of service

Here is the quote:

Letter #192 to Amy Ronald, 27 July 1956

Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'

cheers

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

For some reason I have always loathed Gollum. Maybe it is basically because of how he looks, the way he speaks, to something deeper like his treachery. But reading the chapter again, I have finally felt the pity that Bilbo felt for him, the reason why he stayed his hand and did not kill him.

He could be hated for killing Deagol, but the Ring is the only thing to blame, for its beauty has blinded him to murder. The following line, especially, almost brought me to tears in pity for Gollum

I think the strangest change Tolkien makes in the drafts of this chapter is how he makes Gollum more & more of a monster. In the first drafts he's not a murderer- there's only Digol, who finds the Ring, makes a nuisance of himself, & gets exiled for it. By the end he's the murderer of his best friend & a canibal (eating babies! ).

Is it a case of as Frodo becomes more 'saintly' his 'shadow', Gollum, must become darker - another 'shadow' there. Or perhaps Tolkien felt that Gollum must be made as monstrous as possible in order to emphasise the necessity for, & value of, pity, by requiring us to pity a true 'monster'. We are presented with someone for whom there is absolutely no reason to feel pity. But Tolkien seems to be saying that we should feel pity. So, it doesn't matter what an individual does, its somehow 'obligatory', according to the 'Wise' to feel pity for them, & to show mercy. Why? Simply because that is the opposite of what the Enemy would do? We establish our allegiance to the 'Good' by such things - not by fighting the 'bad' guys, using force of arms to defeat them - but by our moral choices - pity, compassion, mercy, forgiveness - even if those things are not deserved?

(Oh, finally, as no-one's mentioned him :'Mad Baggins' -

The second disappearance of Mr. Bilbo Baggins was discussed in Hobbiton, and indeed all over the Shire, for a year and a day, and was remembered much longer than that. It became a fireside-story for young hobbits; and eventually Mad Baggins, who used to vanish with a bang and a flash and reappear with bags of jewels and gold, became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after the true events were forgotten.

I just find it fascinating how Tolkien is depicting the way folklore is created. And its totally believable. It also makes you wonder how other 'legends' arose, & how much basis they have in fact. I'm also struck by the statement that Mad Baggins 'became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after the true events were forgotten'. Strange to think that for ordinary Hobbits their only memory of the events of the end of the Third Age was this strange character & his adventures. As a side issue, I also find myself wondering about the characters in poems like the Stone Troll, & the others in the Red Book (well, the ones in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil ). Is it possible that some of these characters & events have a similar origin to the character of 'Mad Baggins'?