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

[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.

[Boromir88]

Random, but 2 major thoughts on this chapter:

The amount of times in this chapter Frodo, Sam and Pippin rest underneath or inside trees. Or the amount of times the hobbits use trees for protection when avoiding the Black Rider(s). It's really setting me up for the "when trees go bad" chapter of the books.

The amount of times Gandalf's disappearance, or Gandalf not leaving with Frodo is brought up. I'm thinking about the joke thread on Bombur's characterization in the Hobbit. It felt like every time Bombur got mentioned in the books it's with "fat." It's like "In case you didn't know, Bombur is fat." And this chapter it's "Hey did you hear? Gandalf is missing."

I'm not saying that as it's a bad thing though! I quite like it, because it's not like we are unfamiliar with Gandalf's disappearing acts. He does it quite randomly in The Hobbit, but I think the purpose for these constant reminders in Three is Company that Gandalf is indeed, not there is to reinforce Gandalf's not being with Frodo at this time is different then the handful of times he disappeared from Thorin's company.

Gandalf left Thorin's company, and they get into a sticky situation with trolls. Gandalf comes back in the nick of time to save them, and tells them he left to scout out their path ahead.

He makes a quick exit to avoid being captured by goblins and comes back to save the dwarves.

He leaves them before entering Mirkwood and tells the dwarves he'll meet them before entering the mountain and in this instance Gandalf is not there when he says he will be. So, we start to think alright something bad happened to Gandalf to not be there.

It's not Gandalf's disappearing, coming and going, that is troubling, because we should be aware that's what Gandalf "the wizard" does. The reminders that Gandalf is not there is meant to make us concerned this is more like his leaving the dwarves at Mirkwood and not being there to meet them before entering Erebor. Something has prevented Gandalf from being where he said he would be and we are meant to be worried about his disappearance this time! This is hammered home towards the end of the chapter when Gildor says: "I do not like this news,...That Gandalf should be late, does not bode well."

One thing for certain is when Gandalf is not there with our "green" adventurers, bad things happen. The question is, will Gandalf return in the nick of time to help our hobbits? And if not, who will?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It's not Gandalf's disappearing, coming and going, that is troubling, because we should be aware that's what Gandalf "the wizard" does. The reminders that Gandalf is not there is meant to make us concerned this is more like his leaving the dwarves at Mirkwood and not being there to meet them before entering Erebor. Something has prevented Gandalf from being where he said he would be and we are meant to be worried about his disappearance this time! This is hammered home towards the end of the chapter when Gildor says: "I do not like this news,...That Gandalf should be late, does not bode well."

This is a good point, and I think this actually shows that a line the movies invented and made popular was actually in keeping with the books: "A wizard is never late, nor is he early: he arrives precisely when he means to." At the very least, such a line could well-describe The Hobbit's version of Gandalf, and it is the contrast with this that is disquieting--because he does NOT arrive when he means to.

(Which, interestingly enough, actually doesn't really get any play in the movie--Gandalf is missing, but it's not something that is commented upon as the book comments, and the viewer of the movie knows where he went, the reader of the book is left with the same lack of knowledge as the Hobbits.)

[Marlowe221]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Random, but 2 major thoughts on this chapter:

The amount of times in this chapter Frodo, Sam and Pippin rest underneath or inside trees. Or the amount of times the hobbits use trees for protection when avoiding the Black Rider(s). It's really setting me up for the "when trees go bad" chapter of the books.

The amount of times Gandalf's disappearance, or Gandalf not leaving with Frodo is brought up. I'm thinking about the joke thread on Bombur's characterization in the Hobbit. It felt like every time Bombur got mentioned in the books it's with "fat." It's like "In case you didn't know, Bombur is fat." And this chapter it's "Hey did you hear? Gandalf is missing."

I'm not saying that as it's a bad thing though! I quite like it, because it's not like we are unfamiliar with Gandalf's disappearing acts. He does it quite randomly in The Hobbit, but I think the purpose for these constant reminders in Three is Company that Gandalf is indeed, not there is to reinforce Gandalf's not being with Frodo at this time is different then the handful of times he disappeared from Thorin's company.

Gandalf left Thorin's company, and they get into a sticky situation with trolls. Gandalf comes back in the nick of time to save them, and tells them he left to scout out their path ahead.

He makes a quick exit to avoid being captured by goblins and comes back to save the dwarves.

He leaves them before entering Mirkwood and tells the dwarves he'll meet them before entering the mountain and in this instance Gandalf is not there when he says he will be. So, we start to think alright something bad happened to Gandalf to not be there.

It's not Gandalf's disappearing, coming and going, that is troubling, because we should be aware that's what Gandalf "the wizard" does. The reminders that Gandalf is not there is meant to make us concerned this is more like his leaving the dwarves at Mirkwood and not being there to meet them before entering Erebor. Something has prevented Gandalf from being where he said he would be and we are meant to be worried about his disappearance this time! This is hammered home towards the end of the chapter when Gildor says: "I do not like this news,...That Gandalf should be late, does not bode well."

One thing for certain is when Gandalf is not there with our "green" adventurers, bad things happen. The question is, will Gandalf return in the nick of time to help our hobbits? And if not, who will?

I think Gandalf would have been too much of a distraction for this chapter.

As it stands, we get to see the Shire through the eyes of the hobbit characters alone. We also see the Black Riders from their perspective and feel the sense of mystery and dread that they feel. We feel the sense of wonder of the serendipitous appearance of the elves in the nick of time.

With Gandalf around, you don't get as much of that - he has all the answers! He knows what the Black Riders are and would likely be aware that they were very near to one of the elf roads that crossed the Shire. No mystery, no wonder, and no long farewell to the green, idyllic home that our primary heroes are leaving.

Don't get me wrong - I love Gandalf as much as any LoTR fan. But I think these early chapters of the journey are better off without him.

[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!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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?

Doesn't that reinforce my point? The first encounter (really, a close encounter) with the Black Rider is the most banal of all -- it's eerie and oddly disquieting for Frodo, but that's all. It's just a strange voice asking for him, it could easily be a Sackville-Baggins for all we know at that point. Closer to the end of the chapter though, we learn who the voice belonged to, so in that sense, there has been tremendous 'growth' in the evil and the terror, from the actual, banal experience to the chilling thrill of recognition of how close Frodo came to failing in his quest right outside his front door! And this chill only gets worse as the book goes on: for all that happens afterward, this moment is the closest Sauron gets to reclaiming the Ring!

So it just occured to me: Middle-Earth is saved by the Gaffer!

[The Saucepan Man]

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...

Well that just goes to show that you literary types have too much knowledge for your own good. I always though that it was simply credible characterisation.

Closer to the end of the chapter though, we learn who the voice belonged to, so in that sense, there has been tremendous 'growth' in the evil and the terror, from the actual, banal experience to the chilling thrill of recognition of how close Frodo came to failing in his quest right outside his front door!

Indeed. This ties in with the way that Tolkien develops our understanding of the Black Riders by adding additional details and signs of unease with each successive encounter: from mysterious (possibly Hobbit) visitor asking after Mr Baggins to large man in a black cloak sniffing out travellers on the road to shadowy figure crawling through the trees towards Frodo. Even when Sam makes the link between the Gaffer's visitor and the cloaked rider, we do not fully appreciate the danger that they are in. It is only in the closing passages, when the rider becomes the threatening shadow and Gildor then confirms that they are Servants of the Enemy that we can finally appreciate just how portentious the Gaffer's "misunderstanding" concerning the time of Frodo's departure was.