LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 03 - Three Is Company

[Silmiel of Imladris]

I am a big supporter of symbolism as you will see when we get to later chapters but I think some of you are reading to deep into the "sirs". Remember this was writen in a different time when people respected eachother more I believe. You called your dad sir back then. Tolkien was just writing the 'sirs' for they were appropriate for the time. Frodo was Sam's boss and back when this was writen you didn't call your boss by there first name. That is my opinion of the subject.

[Boromir88]

I have recently returned from my business trip to Wisconsin for ten days, and it seems I have missed a lot. I will have to read this third chapter before I get more in depth, but here are some of my thoughts as well.

Tolkien definately makes a connection between Frodo and Bilbo, and also a difference. The connection being Frodo and Bilbo both got "adventurous" approaching their 50th birthday, and the fact that they also have the same birth date. Frodo through the beginning chapters also goes on a lot of advice from Bilbo (which I believe has been specifically pointed out). There is a quick distinction between Frodo and Bilbo I caught with a deeper reading. Bilbo is the only person to willingly give up the ring (with some help from Gandalf). Bilbo had carried this ring for what, some 60 years and he gave up the ring fairly easily. Frodo has the ring for a lesser 17 years, as far as we know barely ever uses it (if he even does) and is already reluctant on "destroying" it. Instead of throwing it into the fire like he wants to, he puts it in his pocket. I'm sure 17 years of this ring would already have a hold on people but seems like Bilbo was able to last out longer then Frodo, and resist longer then Frodo.

Aiwendil posted

Gandalf is the archetypal wise, dependable mentor; his presence tends to impart a sense of security - he may not be infallible, we realize, but as long as he's there, we know that our heroes will have the best chance of success.

This is quite true, with an example right of the top of my head, it was stated in the Siege of Gondor, whenever Gandalf was around the hearts of men rose, but when he left they sunk again. Gandalf is definately a mentor, leader, and one of the more powerful people in Middle-Earth. Thing is if Gandalf isn't there leading the men or people they quickly sink back to their old low morale. As I read one I will probably find out examples but this is one off the top of my head.

and...

the reader must at this point try to imagine what sort of thing might prevent even Gandalf from showing up when he says he will.

Not only that, but also what events happen when Gandalf, or atleast a mentor (for example Aragorn) aren't around. You have the troubles with old man willow, the black riders, and the barrow wright (which if it wasn't for Bombadil who knows what could have happened). This is an early stage of the hobbits where they aren't used to the world out there and they have a lot of growing up to do.

You finish the book with Gandalf not going to the shire, telling the hobbits they must do this alone, and they succeed, because through their journey they have grown, to the point where they don't need someone like a Gandalf around (although it's always good to have a Gandalf around).

[Kuruharan]

I'm sure 17 years of this ring would already have a hold on people but seems like Bilbo was able to last out longer then Frodo, and resist longer then Frodo.

Bilbo never tried to destroy the Ring. That would have caused Bilbo to have a different experience with it.

[Boromir88]

Bilbo never tried to destroy the Ring. That would have caused Bilbo to have a different experience with it.

I ment the 17 years when Frodo possessed it before he even decided to go destroy the ring. Of course, Frodo making the complete journey is a whole different experience with the ring. I was talking about the 17 years from Frodo first possessing it after Bilbo's party to Gandalf's last arrival in the Shire.

[Kuruharan]

I ment the 17 years when Frodo possessed it before he even decided to go destroy the ring. Of course, Frodo making the complete journey is a whole different experience with the ring. I was talking about the 17 years from Frodo first possessing it after Bilbo's party to Gandalf's last arrival in the Shire.

Okay. But I suspect that the Ring had gained a similar hold over Bilbo in seventeen years time. Remember that the only measure we have of the hold that the Ring had over Frodo at the end of the seventeen years was that he suddenly put the Ring back in his pocket when he tried to throw it in the fire. So far as we know Bilbo never tried to do anything like that. Bilbo used the Ring when he felt like it. Frodo said that he did not, although he seems to have kept it on his person. I think that there might be a reasonable case to be made that the Ring might have had a stronger hold over Bilbo after seventeen years than it did over Frodo, although that would not be provable.

[The Saucepan Man]

To defer to your 'betters' is to take part in a very subtle self-characterisation which can suggest not simply humility and humbleness but also inferiority. It is this aspect I hear Sam teetering around. He overcomes it gloriously and supremely of course, but this negative aspect of the class system is a tone or perspective which I think might be absent from the relationships of retainers and lords in, say, medieval literature, where deference is not depicted by constant "Yes sir," "no,Sir' "Right, sir" The lord in medieval literature knew he was the lord. He didn't need constant reminders of his status, although he did demand fealty.

Ah, I see your point now Bb. Thanks for explaining. But I would maintain that, since the Shire is based very much on Edwardian England, it makes sense for Sam, as a batman/servant to address his officer/master in the terms that an Edwardian batman/servant would use. The book starts with the comfortable and familiar (the Shire) and moves into the epic (Rohan and Gondor). So doesn’t it make sense that the characterisation of the characters in these different settings should alter accordingly?

As Aiwendil said:

Obviously it's a completely different sort of cultural interaction than what you'd find in Rohan or Gondor; but then, why should it not be?

Boromir88 said:

Bilbo had carried this ring for what, some 60 years and he gave up the ring fairly easily.

In fact, as was noted in the discussion of the previous chapter, Bilbo has some difficulty in giving up the Ring. But for Gandalf’s intervention, he would have taken it with him despite his intention to the contrary.

[Boromir88]

Bilbo is the only person to willingly give up the ring (with some help from Gandalf).

Saucepan, yes I agree, and I did also give credit to Gandalf, if it wasn't for him Bilbo would have kept it.

[Bêthberry]

I think it is Fordim who has cottoned on to what was bothering me about Servant Sam and Flip Pip--Fordim with his literary eye. I shall have to work harder to reach you literalists who love to quote the Letters! Sauce and Aiwendil and Silmiel, it is how the Edwardian structures were presented by Tolkien which drew my questions, not simply the purported historical references to the social organisation of the time. Remember, in On Fairey Stories Tolkien suggested that stuff gets into the Cauldron of Story not because it is historicallly true and verifiable(which it may be), but because the story demands it.

As the book goes on, of course, we move into an older and more fuller and richer form of the master-servant relationship: lord and vassal; leige and thane; King and subject. Tolkien wishes in the book to recover (and I'm using this word in his sense of it) that older form of bonds between socially differentiated people. These bonds were (ideally, at least) based on love and respect, mutual regard and a two-way recognition of the duty each owed the other (the King owes the subject protection and guidance, the subject owes the King obedience). It's precisely this kind of relationship that Aragorn forges with the people who come to love him.

So perhaps we are meant to be disturbed by Sam's fawning and Pippin's callow mindedness, for these are things that are going to be transformed by a better and fuller form of relationship by the end of the book?

Exactly! It is the reciprocity of the relationships among all the orders which I think is missing here. In, as you say, its ideal form. This was Tolkien's point about overmod in Beorhtnoth's folly at Maldon. He acted out of personal challenge--chivalry--and forgot the heroic ideal, what he owed his people. As did Beowulf. Squatter has made this point so much better than I. I shall return later to add the link to his very fine essay.

Seen from this perspective, I think it is quite right that we are made uneasy (or at least I am) by all this 'sirring'. It 'sirs' the pot for later...

But about this evolution of evil, Fordim, well, I don't want to get mixed up with your Monster thread. But Frodo's first 'meeting' with the Black Rider, when he overhears the Gaffer's conversation, well, we don't really get the full significance of that until later when Sam repeats the Gaffer's story to Frodo, after the two other near meetings the Rider, do we? To me, that is one of the finest parts of this chapter: only at the end does the reader begin to understand that overheard scene. Or upon rereading. Tolkien, a brilliant bit of story structuring!