Gollum and Eagles: Deux ex machina?

[Essex]

Squatter gets it right for me here:

In the case of Frodo, we do actually have Tolkien's word for it that he could never have resisted the temptation of the Ring in the final crisis. Thus the conclusion of his quest presents a moral lesson about his tolerance and mercy toward Gollum. If Frodo and Sam had killed him, as it was only logical and sensible to do, then he would have been unable through his final treachery to save Frodo from the domination of the Ring. Essentially, Frodo has the opportunity to decide whether he is to destroy the Ring and complete his mission or to claim it as his own and be destroyed, but his will has been overcome. He is no longer able to make the decision for himself, but the outcome of his earlier decisions has been to bring the means of his salvation with him.

In other words, Middle Earth was saved because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. He had the chance a number of times to rid the world of Gollum, but did not do so. In the end, this is what the whole of Lord of the Rings is about to me. REDEMPTION. ME was redeemed from falling into Sauron's hands because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. without this, ME would fall.

A couple of things. On these threads it has been mentioned that Frodo failed at the Sammath Naur and there were no 'heroes' at this point. In my point of view Frodo SUCEEDED. Did he physically throw the Ring into the Fire? NO. But what was the Quest? To destroy the One Ring. Was the One Ring destroyed? YES. Was it destroyed because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum? YES.

Therefore to me, Gollum is about as far away from a D E M as you can get. He is integral to the whole of the LOTR.

Regarding the Eagles. They were servants of Manwe, right? So giving them the Ring to fly into Mordor gives us these problems:

1/ Gwahair could well have kept the Ring for himself, just like Gandalf would have - the temptation would have been too great. These birds aren't the normal flap your wings, eat food, and die variety - They are sentient beings. So, they couldn't give the Ring to the Eagles.

2/ It would have set alarm bells ringing throughout Mordor if they attempted to fly into Mordor and Mount Doom WHILST SAURON WAS ALIVE AND THE RING NOT DESTROYED. So they couldn't do that either.

3/ Did the Eagles really save the day at the Morannon? I can't see where it says this. They assisted, no doubt, but once the Ring was cast into the Fire (which happened fairly quickly after they arrived, I surmise), then the forces of Sauron at the Black Gates did a runner anyway, didn't they?

4/ Therefore why are the Eagles a D E M? Why aren't they entitled to fight against Sauron. They faught in the battle of the 5 armies? - were they seen as a D E M there? I admit they were a way of retrieving Frodo and Sam quickly from Mount Doom. But the Eagles here are a veichle to quickly move the characters back to their friends, rather than having to have Gandalf srping after them on Shadowfax (for example) - they were a handy veichle for Tolkien to use to get his heroes back ASAP and keep the story moving.

5/ Gwahair has already been in the LOTR assisting Gandalf a couple of times, as was his wont. Again, this seems to disprove the theory that the Eagles were a D E M.

anyway, that's my 2 cents worth....

[Raynor]

These birds aren't the normal flap your wings, eat food, and die variety - They are sentient beings.

I disagree:

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed, HoME X

I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fea. The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted / converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellious critical words — he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots), in The Lord of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them.

The same sort of thing may be said of Huan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no fear.

[Essex]

fair point (haven't read that book yet, so not sure if it's tolkien's point or his son Christopher - if its the latter it's just another opinion....)

but it adds to my point that you definately don't give them the eagles the Ring then!

PS Gwahair sounded like a pretty sentient being to me......

[Raynor]

not sure if it's tolkien's point or his son Christopher - if its the latter it's just another opinion.

It is made by Tolkien, in the Orcs essay of the Myths.

Gwahair sounded like a pretty sentient being to me

Yeah, what about a soulless dog bringing Sauron down, or a soulles eagle marring Melkor's face... can't argue with the professor though

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Raynor

can't argue with the professor though

Except that you can, Raynor.

In the time that you've been on the 'Downs, it has become immediately clear that you know your Letters and HoME backwards and forwards. You ought, however, realize better than most the flip-flopping of opinion that Tolkien experienced on many, many of his topics.

For example, with regards to this quotes on Eagles et al, Tolkien was looking for a viable way of explaining their apparent sentience. There is no conclusive proof (which I would define as multiple texts from later or contemporary dates giving the same opinion) that he ultimately decided that this new idea of his was correct. As I recall from that particular passage, there is a very clear air of SUGGESTION to all the texts in that section of Morgoth's Ring.

In other words, although Tolkien puts forward this as an idea, I would say that to quote it as definitively decided by him would be rather foolhardy.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

For example, with regards to this quotes on Eagles et al, Tolkien was looking for a viable way of explaining their apparent sentience. There is no conclusive proof (which I would define as multiple texts from later or contemporary dates giving the same opinion) that he ultimately decided that this new idea of his was correct. As I recall from that particular passage, there is a very clear air of SUGGESTION to all the texts in that section of Morgoth's Ring.

In other words, although Tolkien puts forward this as an idea, I would say that to quote it as definitively decided by him would be rather foolhardy.

We're clearly dealing with two Tolkiens - the 'translator' & the 'commentator'. The 'translator' gives us the texts, the 'commentator' attempts to understand them (for himself as much as for any potential readers). The texts are primary the comments are secondary.

Unfortunately, the 'texts' do contradict each other, so that doesn't take us much further forward.

CT comments (in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait) that towards the end of his life his father had become somewhat 'detatched' from the Legendarium & approached it in the same way as he would have approached any ancient mythology. It had taken on a life of its own & he was free to analyse it & attempt to understand its meaning & implications. He did this as an Orthodox Catholic & his analysis was not free from bias. In Catholicism animals do not have 'souls', they are not 'sentient' in the human sense. Hence Tolkien the commentator attempts to rationalise the Legendarium in line with his own worldview.

The next serious problem we have is that he still claimed ownership of the Legendarium. Eventually his 'analysis' confronted him with a major difficulty - it was not 'Catholic'. Or at least it was not sufficiently Catholic for his own comfort. One has only to read the letters from correspondents which question such things as the apparent display of pity on the part of the Trolls in TH. Tolkien's initial response was to claim it was only an 'impression' the reader had picked up & that the truth was different (he proceeds to construct a very convoluted & not very convincing theory as to how the reader is mistaken in this 'impression'). So far the translator & the commentator are obeying the rules & sticking to the strict dividing line between them. Then it all starts to go snafu. He starts his project of rewriting the Legendarium & we get the 'Myths Transformed' mess, which, if he'd pursued it, would have unravelled the whole thing. Luckily, he didn't get very far.

[Raynor]

Kelvars with souls presents a host of problems; their fea must come from Eru also (no vala is capable of creating spirits); now animals arrived in Arda before even the elves (creatures "old and strong") - so incarnate fear would be allowed to awaken before the elves, but dwarves can't? And we are also told the Children of Eru (men and elves) are the creator's own addition to the music - if animals have souls, then they too are an addition, but no one is looking forward to/over them (only poor Radagast ), no one is seeking rule over them and there is no mention of them in the Ainulindale.

Originally Posted by Letter #212

Elves and Men were called the 'children of God', because they were, so to speak, a private addition to the Design, by the Creator, and one in which the Valar had no part. (Their 'themes' were introduced into the Music by the One, when the discords of Melkor arose.)

Would these animals have free will? If so, why don't the valar marvel at them, as they to at the Eruhini? Where would their souls go, to Mandos or beyond the world? If they go beyond the world, that would mean that the valar and the elves should envy even the animals. Would the animals participate in the second Ainulindale?

It is worth noting that Elves differentiate between incarnates (beings with both fea and hrondo) and animals:

Originally Posted by Quendi and Eldar, appendix B, Elvish names for the dwarves

The Eldar did not at first recognize these [the petty dwarves] as Incarnates, for they seldom caught sight of them in clear light. They only became aware of their existence indeed when they attacked the Eldar by stealth at night, or if they caught them alone in wild places. The Eldar therefore thought that they were a kind of cunning two-legged animals living in caves, and they called them Levain tad-dail, or simply Tad-dail, and they hunted them.

Would all living beings have a soul? Even the tinniest? And if not, where is the line drawn? If the animals do have souls, I am sure that there should have been a lot about them in the elvish lore, seeing how eager the elves were to learn as much as they could about their place in the world, and their relation to the valar and Men.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Essex

In other words, Middle Earth was saved because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. He had the chance a number of times to rid the world of Gollum, but did not do so. In the end, this is what the whole of Lord of the Rings is about to me. REDEMPTION. ME was redeemed from falling into Sauron's hands because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum. without this, ME would fall.

A couple of things. On these threads it has been mentioned that Frodo failed at the Sammath Naur and there were no 'heroes' at this point. In my point of view Frodo SUCEEDED. Did he physically throw the Ring into the Fire? NO. But what was the Quest? To destroy the One Ring. Was the One Ring destroyed? YES. Was it destroyed because of Frodo's compassion towards Gollum? YES.

Therefore to me, Gollum is about as far away from a D E M as you can get. He is integral to the whole of the LOTR.

This is very interesting. My usual take on Frodo's heroism is always that it was the getting to Mount Doom that was the truly heroic part, but I think that we might often overlook his heroism in offering compassion to Gollum. I'm not sure at what point he decides in his heart not to hurt or kill Gollum, but at some stage an 'epiphany' of understanding takes place within Frodo.

This may be what Gandalf was hinting at all the way way back in Bag End when he asked Frdod if he really could kill a creature such as Gollum. I think Gandalf too may have had this moment of realisation, or even had it from the beginning. It may have taken deep understanding of the true nature of The Ring to appreciate what Gollum was and what he was motivated by, something Gandalf would perhaps have known, but maybe only another Ring Bearer could truly understand? Even so, Sam, despite being a Ring Bearer, still does not appreciate Gollum in the same way that Frodo does.

If Frodo's compassion was leading up to the moment of confrontation at the Sammath Naur then this makes this different take on Frodo's heroism all the more interesting; it is only at the point where possession of The Ring is truly at stake that compassion turns to anger. Gollum of course has been almost (but not necessarily completely) possessed by The Ring, whereas Frodo has to this point remained relatively unpossessed. Right at the end, both are suddenly utterly possessed and the compassion that has got them there flies out of the window as they fight for The Ring. So it's fascinating that at this point Sauron's influence is so strong and yet it is overcome, by fate or just chance?

To me the fact that Gollum came back at this stage is not only integral to the story, but perfectly fits with Gollum's character and personality, and I agree, Gollum cannot be called a Deus ex machina.

Originally Posted by Essex

1/ Gwahair could well have kept the Ring for himself, just like Gandalf would have - the temptation would have been too great. These birds aren't the normal flap your wings, eat food, and die variety - They are sentient beings. So, they couldn't give the Ring to the Eagles.

This is another very interesting idea worth exploring. I suppose it depends upon whether the Eagles are sentient or even if they can be counted as Maiar. Either way, I think it's right that for them to take The Ring would have been incredibly risky. Could we imagine Gandalf marching into Mordor with The Ring? Not only would that have attracted attention and all hell would have been unleashed, but for him to have the Ring would have been almost as bad as Saruman or Sauron having it. I honestly think that the only way to get The Ring there was to have it sneaked in.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Essex

Gwahair sounded like a pretty sentient being to me......

But so do Shagrat and Gorbag. And Ugluk. And Grishnakh.

I can't agree with Tolkien about his own work here, if it's actually his idea. It doesn't seem to fit his understanding of evil. Beasts raised to a higher level? Maybe. But the language of the above named orcs strike me as being more akin to human sentience that has become extremely evil and cunning, especially in the case of Grishnakh (best orc Tolkien ever wrote!).

[Celuien]

Agree with you about the Orcs, lmp. Shagrat and Gorbag do seem far more than beasts. Maybe the non-sentient Orcs of Myths Transformed (something I have yet to read) are a later modification. Heren Istarion's article does an excellent job attempting to reconcile the differences, I think.

Back to Deux ex Machina...

Adding that Gollum is too integral to the story as a character to fit the definition. His death and simultaneous destruction of the Ring fit with the tale. It feels natural, almost, for the character that became so consumed by the Ring to fall with it in the end, both figuratively and literally.

As for the Eagles, their appearance is more troublesome. Although if taken in context with The Hobbit, not enirely unexpected. The birds seem to have a penchant for appearing out of nowhere and saving the day.

Throwing out some more ideas, how about Tom Bombadil as an example? Granted, he isn't at the end of the book but his only appearance is in the Old Forest to save the hobbits from the clutches of Old Man Willow/The Barrow-Wight. His arrival is certainly unexpected, then he vanishes from the plot forever, other than a few references.

EDIT: just perused the old thread and saw that the Tom Bombadil = deus ex machina idea was previously put forth by none other than The Saucepan Man. Interesting...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Celuien

Agree with you about the Orcs, lmp. Shagrat and Gorbag do seem far more than beasts. Maybe the non-sentient Orcs of Myths Transformed (something I have yet to read) are a later modification. Heren Istarion's article does an excellent job attempting to reconcile the differences, I think.

Is it that the Third Age orcs and other ilk have fallen from their original automaton evil prototype and, like men and elves, are lesser than like what came before? Men slowly became less long-lived and embued with special powers; orcs slowly decide that cannon fodder is a poor life. Isn't that the idea hinted at behind the 'fourth age snippet', that men and orcs were converging, so that by the present neither race is clearly distinguishable?

Adding that Gollum is too integral to the story as a character to fit the definition. His death and simultaneous destruction of the Ring fit with the tale. It feels natural, almost, for the character that became so consumed by the Ring to fall with it in the end, both figuratively and literally.

Gollum I have no problem with, it's just that it is too convenient to have him fall just after he reclaims the Ring. Tolkien, assumedly in control of the situation, could have had Smeagol claim the Ring with Frodo between him and the Crack of Doom, and so his death (and consequent destruction of the Ring) could have taken more effort by Frodo and/or Sam, who could have given the wretched thing a bump into the lava.

As for the Eagles, their appearance is more troublesome. Although if taken in context with The Hobbit, not enirely unexpected. The birds seem to have a penchant for appearing out of nowhere and saving the day.

That they do, though it's less apparent (at least to me) in the Hobbit, where Gandalf and a bunch of dwarves and Bilbo sitting in a tree throwing burning pine cones at the orcs and wargs below surely would have attracted their attention. And, after having saved Gandalf and the others, they may have seen that something interesting was going to come of the campaign, and so paid it more attention.

The eagles at the Black Gate is another matter, as they could have shown up an hour of two earlier and just made it known that the new Ringlord, as played by Aragorn, also had close air support.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it that the Third Age orcs and other ilk have fallen from their original automaton evil prototype and, like men and elves, are lesser than like what came before? Men slowly became less long-lived and embued with special powers; orcs slowly decide that cannon fodder is a poor life. Isn't that the idea hinted at behind the 'fourth age snippet', that men and orcs were converging, so that by the present neither race is clearly distinguishable?

You consider this a fall by orcs?

Gollum I have no problem with, it's just that it is too convenient to have him fall just after he reclaims the Ring. Tolkien, assumedly in control of the situation, could have had Smeagol claim the Ring with Frodo between him and the Crack of Doom, and so his death (and consequent destruction of the Ring) could have taken more effort by Frodo and/or Sam, who could have given the wretched thing a bump into the lava.

But that would render Frodo a killer, which would drastically change the kind of character he had become. Not even Peter Jackson for an action oriented modern flick, could stoop that low.

That they do, though it's less apparent (at least to me) in the Hobbit, where Gandalf and a bunch of dwarves and Bilbo sitting in a tree throwing burning pine cones at the orcs and wargs below surely would have attracted their attention. And, after having saved Gandalf and the others, they may have seen that something interesting was going to come of the campaign, and so paid it more attention.

What's the difference between an deus ex machinum(a?) and a eucatastrophe, anyway? Or are you implying that there isn't one?