LotR -- Book 6 - Chapter 3 - Mount Doom

[Aiwendil]

I think there are two issues being confused here.

First, there is the question of what in fact happened. Did the Ring compel Frodo or did he choose?

Second, there is the moral question. Is Frodo to be blamed? Is he to be forgiven? Is he to be excused?

These are separate issues; and while a moral evaluation of Frodo certainly does depend on the facts of the situation, I think it is important to note that the facts of the situation do not depend on the moral evaluation. In other words, one cannot argue "Frodo is not to be blamed, therefore the Ring compelled him" - though one could of course argue the converse.

Personally, I see Frodo's actions at Mt. Doom as being the result of his own choice - and I see them as wrong, even "evil". However, I also see them as being entirely forgivable, or even excusable. I doubt that anyone short of a Vala would have succeeded where Frodo failed. That, in intra-Legendarium terms, is not because Frodo was constrained and therefore not responsible for his actions, but rather because Arda is a fallen world; because none of its inhabitants is perfect; because all the Children of Iluvatar have a certain inherent evil. The Ring worked upon this evil.

There is a wonderful ambiguity in the nature of the Ring and its power. Personally, I don't see the need to try to resolve this ambiguity by making a simple decision - "he was compelled; he should be excused" or "he chose; he should be blamed". If you ask me, the ambiguity is central to the Ring and indeed to the whole work.

[davem]

Did Frodo say 'Yes!' to the Ring? Did he affirm it, effectively declare 'I will the continued existence of this thing'?

Originally Posted by Mr U

And to say that Frodo needs to be forgiven is to imply that he could have --should have -- overcome the Ring and thrown it into the fire. Surely, Frodo feels that guilt -- both for craving the Ring even after its destruction and for not having the strength to throw it into the fire himself -- but in the end that'swhat he needs to be healed of.

No, it's not. Its to ackowledge that he was the one who failed. Of course, anyone would have failed, because the task was impossible, but it was Frodo specifically who failed, not anyone else. Hence the 'sin' was on his shoulders, & so the need for forgiveness was his. No-one is holding Frodo to a superhuman standard, merely acknowledging that at the point when Frodo had to choose between denying & affirming the Ring he affirmed it. He was the one who did that. Anyone in his position would have done the same, & whoever that was would also have 'sinned' in the same way & required forgiveness for the same reason.

I can't think of anything more repulsive or demeaning than Frodo having to be forgiven by his friends for his supposed moral failure. "Nice job saving the world... except for that part at the end where you claimed the Ring. Yeah. We're gonna have to think that one over and see if we can forgive you on that one. We'll get back to you."

No. That's not 'forgiveness' that's 'letting him off'. Its not what Frodo needed. He knew he had failed his friends, betrayed everything he had set out to defend, affirmed the one thing he had set himself against. I'd say he definitely needed to be told he was freely & fully forgiven for that, so that he could move on.

There's an interesting quote from Kathryn W Crabbe given in the new LotR: A Reader's Companion:

The insidiousness of evil makes Tolkien's versiion of the sacrificing hero even more poignant & moving thatn its archetype. Frodo's danger is not simply a danger to his physical life, with the assurance of a reward in another world; he risks his spiritual life as well, for the very proximity to the Ring that will allow him to save the world threatens to make of him the source of its destruction. That is, on the edges of the Cracks of Doom the Ring succeeds in making of Frodo a Hobbit Sauron. He claims the Ring, & it is taken from him as it was taken from Sauron at the end of the Second Age, by the severing of his finger.

This pairing of Frodo with Sauron not only suggests the dual nature of man, it also suggests just how close Frodo has come to becoming the enemy he has offered his life to defeat. The ultimate defeat, then, in the Lord of the Rings is not simply to lose the battle with evil, but to become incorporated into it. (Katharyn W Crabbe. JRR Tolkien: quoted in LotR: A Reader's Companion)

[Firefoot]

Apologies in advance for a muddled post...

1. No sinful being (i.e., no one in Arda) could have destroyed the Ring.
2. Frodo was doing the right thing by bearing the Ring to Mt. Doom.

I don't think that anyone would disagree with either of these statements. The former is a well-established fact; the latter, a logical statement. Frodo would have certainly been doing the wrong thing if he had decided to lay the Ring aside, or to give up and die somewhere along the way, or even decide just to remain in the Shire or Rivendell or Lorien, choosing his own comfort over what needed to be done. Taking the Ring to Mordor was the right thing to do, and he performed the deed with all of his strength and will, figuring he would be lost in the end.

This is the problem I have with the statement that Frodo failed and sinned. If he took the Ring all the way to Mt. Doom, coming as far as anyone could, then saying it was sinning and failing to claim the Ring, it's saying that failing is a "required" part of the job - the job of doing the right thing. He has no choice other than to fail, due to the nature of the Ring and that of Arda Marred. It's saying he sinned by not doing a deed that couldn't be done, that even by doing the right thing, he had no choice but to do the wrong thing in the end, that failure is the only option. This seems so wrong.

And yet, I start to see where davem is coming from, because that's the way this world is, too, isn't it? At least, it is from a Christian worldview - mine, and that of Tolkien...

Frodo failed to destroy the Ring, yes. But he succeeded in doing the task as well as he could possibly do it; he succeeded in his mercy towards Gollum - the same mercy which ultimately allowed the Quest to succeed. Frodo's "failure" on Mt. Doom was not a moral one - he could not have behaved in any other way, so how can he be blamed? Saying he needs forgiveness is saying he can be blamed. If Gollum had not danced off the edge of the cliff and the Ring had not been destroyed, it would not have been Frodo's fault any more than it is his fault for living in an imperfect world. The failure Frodo needs forgiveness for comes afterwards, in thinking that he could have, should have, destroyed the Ring. This is what he needs to reconcile with himself.

*Retreats back into her barrow where she actually knows what she thinks.*

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

Frodo failed to destroy the Ring, yes. But he succeeded in doing the task as well as he could possibly do it; he succeeded in his mercy towards Gollum - the same mercy which ultimately allowed the Quest to succeed. Frodo's "failure" on Mt. Doom was not a moral one - he could not have behaved in any other way, so how can he be blamed? Saying he needs forgiveness is saying he can be blamed. If Gollum had not danced off the edge of the cliff and the Ring had not been destroyed, it would not have been Frodo's fault any more than it is his fault for living in an imperfect world. The failure Frodo needs forgiveness for comes afterwards, in thinking that he could have, should have, destroyed the Ring. This is what he needs to reconcile with himself.

An overall good theory there, but forgiveness doesn't just apply to moral failures, it doesn't just apply to sin.

Don't we usually want forgiveness for ANYTHING we've done wrong? Mistakes or accidents, in particular. These are errors, things done wrong, in which we are definitely culpable, things for which we often ask forgiveness. It's not really as if we are SINFUL in mistaking things, or making mistakes, or that an accident was sinful, but we are still the hand responsible, and we still seek forgiveness.

Can Frodo's "need for forgiveness" after Mt. Doom be likened to that?

[davem]

His 'sin' was not in failing to destroy the Ring, it was in affirming its existence - the existence of evil in the world.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Hmmmm.....it just occurs to me -- in reading the next chapter "The Field of Cormallen" -- if Frodo really was in need of forgiveness, then why did not Gandalf forgive him? One would think that the White Wizard, particularly now that Sauron is dead and he is free to reveal himself more fully as the Maia that he is, would be able to 'diagnose' Frodo's need for such absolution.

The obvious answer would be that true penance must be sought and asked for, and that Frodo never asks Gandalf to forgive him: but as it's so clear that Frodo is beating himself up for his failure (as the story goes on) and as Gandalf clearly wants to help 'heal' Frodo of his feelings, I would think that a quick conversation in the days after 25 March would have been called for: "I know your feelings, Frodo, but you must not blame yourself. Forgiveness is yours, but first you must learn to forgive yourself" -- or something like that.

I think the fact that Frodo meets -- and spends time with -- all of Middle-Earths real heavyweights without ANY OF THEM talking about forgiveness might be a clue of some kind. I mean, even if Gandalf has 'missed' something here, surely Aragorn, Arwen, Galadriel or Elrond would have picked up on it. The only solution they can arrive at is to send Frodo into the West -- so "I forgive you" is neither not enough or not appropriate...

[Formendacil]

Hmmm... Interesting thoughts.

Maybe the fact of the matter is that Frodo needed to feel forgiveness from someone who he felt had the authority to forgive him. Maybe he didn't feel that forgiveness from a friend would do the job. "You're just saying that because you're my friend..."

Just a thought. I'm no psychologist.

[Kuruharan]

So Eru operates by different rules? There are two moral codes - the one Eru works by & the one He imposes on His children? Eru can kill whichever of His children he wishes & that is 'Good', but if His children kill each other that is 'bad'?

No two codes, the requirements of the roles are different. Eru is "the Authority" as Tolkien put it. Eru made everything and in a sense everything belongs to him. It is his position to ultimately direct the destiny of the world. It is the position of the created to fulfill their purpose or mar it as their choice leads them. In some respects, it is the resisting and marring of purpose that is Bad.

So, which moral code is objectively Right?

They are the same. It is the activities required by the different orders that are different.

However, I think there is some danger here toward viewing "The Moral Code" as being above Eru. I think that would be a mistake. He's the one who made it. In some ways it probably could be regarded as his personality.

There's a difference between creating beings who are mortal & who die as a consequence of being what they are, & deliberately taking the life of someone before their time.

This makes no sense. What is the difference between programming a natural death into somebody and tossing them into a volcano if the same being is responsible for both?

Another point, why aren't you up in arms about the slaughter of the Numenorians? That is explicitly presented by Tolkien as being an act of Eru. He was certainly a murderer then even if at no other time.

Besides, I don't think one could say that Eru had been hasty in executing judgment on Gollum. He gave Gollum an excellent chance to repent and aid Frodo in the destruction of the Ring. Gollum made a final rejection of this opportunity to fulfill a good purpose.

I'm sure at some point somebody has demanded an answer to the question of, "What took Eru so long to punish Gollum for his murder of Deagol and eating all those poor babies?!! How can Eru be good if he allows this sort of thing to go unpunished for so long?!"

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

...the happy ending, we've just witnessed involved the killing, by Eru himself, of His children...

Because the death for ME is [partially yes, but mainly] not punishment, as you yourself argue, but also a release (Gift of Eru). Gollum without the ring - the hope of revival, Gollum with the Ring - no hope left. To kill Gollum at the moment he gets the Ring is act of Mercy. All ends covered - the world saved, Gollum's spirit (what is left of it) released from the Ring - one act.

That Good Night - Gift or Punishment

Originally Posted by davem

The other interesting question, imo, is why do we feel that the way Eru did interevene, resulting in the deaths of Gollum & the Numenoreans, is more, what? fulfilling, 'right', convincing???? Why would Gollum being knocked out, or the Numenoreans being intimidated by Eru in His glory & going home & behaving themselves from then on, have felt like a cop out on Tolkien's part?

M-mm... the large scale answer is 'freedom'. From another angle, we do not see God Himself coming before us [in Person] however badly we apply our freedom. Eru acting in person would probably 'break the enchantment', the spell of likeness between ME and our world (even for those who hold no God exists on this side of the book? Indeed - tidal wave is explicable by other means than intervention of Higher Authority).

As for Gollum - 'knocked out by the rock' does not eliminate the problem of his healing - in case he seized the Ring as Frodo did (see Fordim's post above)- i.e. without actual 'Gollum-will' involved - it is impossible to heal him - no 'Gollum-will' left enough. If it was his conscious choice of 'ring is mine', again - no way to heal him, no 'Gollum-will' left enough

[Kuruharan]

Could He not have shown Himself in all His glory to the Numenoreans & intimidated them into returning to Numenor?

Honestly, I doubt this would have done any good. They were hardened Morgoth worshipers by that point. They would probably have seen a manifestation of Eru as something to try and fight against. The last test of their god before he rewarded them with immortality and new worlds to conquer.

Yes, because Death was not a punishment, but an entirely natural thing (even unnatural deaths - as a result of violence, disease, suicide, etc could come under the heading of 'natural' as they are a consequence of events happening within the created world. We could even say that deaths caused by the Valar are 'natural' because once they entered into Arda they became a part of its nature, unable to leave it of their own accord).

With Gollum (& the Numenoreans) it is a case of unnatural (ie supernatural) death, because the cause of their death is brought about from beyond the Circles of the World. It is a Divine intervention which causes them to die, a breaking in of the supernatural into nature.

(There seems to be something of a wall here.)

Let's try look at this from Eru's perspective (again). As I said above, "death" is not an ending for him. (Actually it is not an ending for anybody.) The end for mortals is the same. He knows where to find them.

In both of these cases Eru acts at the last to defend the creation from the massive havoc and/or domination of rogue, misguided elements that have revolted from him. He has given everybody involved plenty of opportunity to turn from their wicked ways and delivered warnings to that end. Would you prefer that he just stay out of it?

Do you not think that Eru has the right (some might say responsibility) to intervene in his own creation? He made it, after all. It would not exist without him. There is ultimately some sort of plan at work for how he wants it to turn out in the end.

I don't think that any activities he undertakes like this could be considered as having two moral codes, but rather different roles within one code (remembering that the moral code is part of Eru.)

[davem]

Well, not having proved that Eru is exactly the same as the loving God portrayed by Christianity, we cannot assume that He was acting out of mercy when He caused Gollum's death - He may have acted out of vengeance & consigned him to 'Hell' - same with the Numenoreans. Or simply caused them to cease to exist.

To me this is the central issue. If we just take the statements we have about Eru in the text, do we find a loving merciful Creator or something else entirely? His behaviour & actions must be judged on what we know of Eru Himself, not on what we know/believe about the Christian God.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, not having proved that Eru is exactly the same as the loving God portrayed by Christianity, we cannot assume that He was acting out of mercy when He caused Gollum's death - He may have acted out of vengeance & consigned him to 'Hell' - same with the Numenoreans. Or simply caused them to cease to exist.

Um, I thought that we don't know what happens to Men when they die in Middle earth, that Tolkien merely adumbrated an eschatology for his Legendarium. Of course, I haven't read all of HoMe or even all of UT, so I could well be missing something. Did he envison Hell or a hell-like place or even a heaven-like place? Or do we just read the Crack of Doom as a gehenna-like place of fitting "Doom"?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Um, I thought that we don't know what happens to Men when they die in Middle earth, that Tolkien merely adumbrated an eschatology for his Legendarium. Of course, I haven't read all of HoMe or even all of UT, so I could well be missing something. Did he envison Hell or a hell-like place or even a heaven-like place? Or do we just read the Crack of Doom as a gehenna-like place of fitting "Doom"?

We aren't told what happens to Men after death - which is the point I was making. If we confuse Eru with the Christian God we can attribute all kinds of things to Him which may not be valid.

Incidentally, I notice that in terms of number of posts this one is the third most popular, after the Foreword & Prologue. I also noticed that the one we're supposed to be discussing this week - The Field of Cormallen - has had just five responses, as opposed to eighty-two for this one. I wonder what that tells us about us Downers &/or about the nature of story & our response to it. Why is a chapter about death & destruction more interesting to us than one about victory & celebration?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

We aren't told what happens to Men after death - which is the point I was making.

hmm. No, I don't think you did make that point. Your point was rather to uphold a textually-based reading of Eru which does not bring in Primary World comparisons. You didn't say anything about Eru's eschatology or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by davem

To me this is the central issue. If we just take the statements we have about Eru in the text, do we find a loving merciful Creator or something else entirely? His behaviour & actions must be judged on what we know of Eru Himself, not on what we know/believe about the Christian God.

And to a second point:

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder what that tells us about us Downers &/or about the nature of story & our response to it. Why is a chapter about death & destruction more interesting to us than one about victory & celebration?

Speaking for myself, it merely demonstrates the fact that I have not kept up with the current reading--have not yet reread "The Field of Cormellan". I am simply following Estelyn's recommendation that we post on previous threads as our reading allows. No profound meaning of readerly psychology involved at all. Sorry to disappoint!