Failure and Punishment

[doug*platypus]

I found the following, interesting perspective in Tolkien: A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings by Lin Carter (a fairly short treatise, full of unfortunate mistakes of fact, which deals mainly with listing the various epics and fantasies thorughout history which paved the way for LOTR):

Frodo learns, slowly and painfully, how to become a hero. Nor is he perfect and pure: in fact, he is guilty of three foolish mistakes and is punished for each by a wound from which he is never to completely recover. His first error is folly, and his punishment is the knife wound he suffers on Weathertop; his second, overconfidence, for which his punishment is to taste the sting of Shelob; his third is weakness itself when, at the brink of the Crack of Doom, he does not prove strong enough to hurl the Ring away. His punishment for that greatest of his three sins is the most gruesome of all - the loss of his ring finger when Gollum bites it off to get the Ring from him.

Although I have long known that Frodo was the punching bag of the quest, and that he suffered greatly in striving to achieve the ultimate goal, I had never before considered that some at least of his misfortunes were, in part at least, his own fault.

What do you think of Carter's assertion that Frodo's wounds were inflicted as a sort of punishment for his failures? An argument could be made that his knife wound was only minor because of his bravery in attacking the Witch King, but perhaps he would not have been pinpointed and wounded at all if he had not put the Ring on.

Are there any examples in Tolkien's work where others are hurt as a result of some failing of their own? Boromir perhaps is killed while atoning for his assault on Frodo, protecting the hobbit's kinsmen. Fëanor on his return to Middle Earth arrogantly pressed on towards Angband and was destroyed. His sons all come to grisly ends, some as a direct result of the Oath. Saruman and Wormtongue both find their commeupance in the Shire. Thingol is slain by the dwarves when he refuses to pay them their dues. Are there any others?

What do you think of this device, which seems ultimately to be the (sometimes capital) punishment of sinners by fate?

In contrast to the wounds of Frodo, which Carter seems to indicate are in part deserved, other members of the Fellowship are wounded as a result of bravery, and bear their scars as a token of honour. Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gimli and Gandalf are all wounded in combat. Also, many of the heroes of the Eldar and Edain in the First Age are killed fighting against Morgoth; their deaths are most often heroic and win them great renown.

Is this contrast the reason why Frodo is not held in higher esteem among the hobbits on his return to the Shire? Rather than being wounded in victorious combat, he is struck down as a result of "folly, overconfidence and weakness" (to use Carter's words).

Your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated!

[Raynor]

I don't buy it; he was the chief hero of the quest, he received the "highest honours" from the king; his quest itself has sparked in hobbits a strong interest in their history. In a world where even the valar are subject to errors (letter #212), I doubt that we can ascribe faults to someone carrying the ring, since all his judgement will be bent to a certain extent by the evil power. I take his wounds to mean sacrifice rather than punishment; his merit is even higher considering that he actually fulfilled his mandate:

Originally Posted by Letter #246

His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that.

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps the difference arises from the contrast between that old warrior code of honour and battle and glory and the code which Tolkien also upholds here, that even the very small and weak can make a significant difference. While it is true that Frodo has to experience the full significance of being a ring-bearer, I don't think it can be said that Frodo is guilty of trespass, violation, or transgression.

Besides, does the word 'sinner' really belong in LotR?

[mark12_30]

A wild set of assumptions, presumptions, and blind leaps:

If you asked Tokien whether Frodo was guilty of those things-- folly, overconfidence and weakness-- I doubt he would disagree. Gandalf used some of the same words in various places and I think Tolkien also used them in his letters. Consequences happen, and consequences for folly, overconfidence and weakness happen.

However, I also doubt that TOlkien would have attatched any emotional, judgemental, or condemnatory importance to them. For Tolkien, Frodo's virtuies so outshone his weaknesses that Frodo's weaknesses are negligible. Consider the phrasing in Tolkien's letter (191) regarding Mount Doom, in which he implies, "judge not":

No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistable by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

[Macalaure]

I don't buy it either.
Why was it folly that led to Frodo being stabbed on Weathertop? I doubt he could have escaped the Witch-King even if he hadn't used the ring. On the other hand, his behaviour in the Prancing Pony was folly and all the punishments he received for that were some harsh words by Strider.
The sting was clearly Frodo's fault, though I'm not sure if overconfidence is the right term.
And, as has been stated before, on Orodruin he did all he could, but failed in the end.

What I don't understand is how one makes sins out of these. Folly sure isn't a good thing, but a sin? I think that takes it to far. And failing a task that goes beyond one's abilities while giving every effort is a sin? How do you get such an idea?

Also, there are faults and misjudgements in LotR that are not punished. (Pippin in Moria f.ex.)

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Besides, does the word 'sinner' really belong in LotR?

I agree. I don't recall having read the words 'sin' or 'sinner' in both LotR and Silmarillion. They always seems alien to me when they are used in the context of Tolkien's works.

[Raynor]

There is only one referrence in Tolkien's works on sins, that I know of, and even that favors Frodo:

Originally Posted by Footnote to Melkor / Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

[Lotrelf]

Frodo, punchbag of the quest? I do not feel he was a punchbag because he was attacked by his enemies, for anyone else bearing the One Ring would be worse. As for Mr. Carter's statement(s), I disagree with him. I had heard somewhere else too that "Frodo's Weathertop wound was kinda his fault," and that he deserved it. His wound on Weathertop, more than a punishment, to me, is a process of him and his companions becoming something else. Yes, he was weak, and not strong enough to resist the Evil; but without that "folly" would the quest have been achieved? I doubt very much. After this wound he resisted all Nine alone and proved himself to be the best Ring-bearer. This also helped his friends to understand the real weight of the quest.
Shelob thingy-- how is that over-confidence? His trust in Gollum is what Mr. Carter considers his over-confidence? Or his decision to go into her lair? If I remember correctly, Gollum had told them there was no other way, did the hobbits have to go another way without knowing anything and getting lost in the Enemy's land? How?
His failure on Mount Doom and later his suffering is a punishment? I always saw it differently. I felt Frodo was rewarded with the most precious gift by going into the West. Souron and Gollum suffer terribly because of the Ring, unlike Frodo who suffered least as compared to the other two. If he were weak, he'd be punished, not rewarded. Reward and punishment is respective thing. What I see as reward, in this case, someone else may see as punishment. His wounds and sufferings, like everyone else's were the sign of his bravery and self-sacrifice, instead of deserving.

[Galadriel55]

I was almost finished typing my awesome post when the computer decided to delete it. ><

Firstly, I want to say that I did not read all the posts, but I agree with Lotrelf. I say that there's a huge difference between a punishment and a consequence. Even on a basic level - a punishment is done purposefully (!) by someone or something (who? Eru? fate? some little angel on your shoulder with a checklist of sins?) with the intention to either restore justice (BS) or teach a lesson (like Frodo doesn't actually know). Secondly, one is punished for something wrong. What has Frodo done wrong? What is he punished for? For being a human being? His faults are not sins. His faults are not even faults.

For one thing, folly was never one of his qualities. Ever. It was not folly ("let's put on the Ring and see what happens! Oooh, shiny!") that made him put on the Ring, but a lack of wisdom and experience. The act could be considered folly from an objective or retrospective point of view, but not the same folly as that which drives Pippin to throw the rock in Moria. It it a fault to be susceptible to the Ring? It wouldn't be the Ring if it was. Frodo putting on the Ring was a consequence of universal susceptibility to the Ring and the pressure of being surrounded by the Nazgul. Being stabbed was a consequence of that. I see no fault and no punishment. Considering that he was the strongest person in ME in terms of resisting the Ring (the discussion about Gollum aside), the whole of Middle-earth would have to be punished.

Since when is being overjoyed to see an opening out of Shelob's lair and rushing to get out a sin? If you think it is, I dare you to spend a day or two wandering in sme pitch-black musky caves, and se if you don't rush for the first opening or light that you see. And overconfidence? "I can openly run all the way thrugh Mordor completely unharmed!" was the last thing one could expect to be in Frodo's mind at that time. He was blinded by the joy of getting out of Shelob's lair - a completely normal and human emtion. As a consequence he did not look behind him, and as a consequence was stabbed by Shelob. The whole reasoning of Lin Carter is flawed from the start: there is no fault, there is no overconfidence, there is no punishment.

Finally, the last scene she addresses, when Frodo does not throw the Ring away at Sammath Naur. Number one. It is not weakness that makes him hesitate. If he was weak, he would not have been on this quest, or he would have given in a long time ago. He is not weak, he is just not strong enough, and no one in Middle-earth is. Number two. The fight between him and Gollum is a climax of the whole story, and the climax of their relationship. Both begin with greed and desire for the Ring, but when Frodo snaps out of his trance does he only fight for the Ring's sake? or maybe he recalls his greater purpose and fights for ME? or he remembers his former connection with Gollum, and fights for Gollum's sake as well? Whatever you think the significance of the scene is, it is not a punishment. It does not happen because it is willed by someone due to Frodo's hesitation. Yes, it comes about as a consequence of his hesitation - Gollum has time to catch up - but not as a punishment. The build up to this scene from all perspectives begins back in the Shire, when Frodo learns of both the Ring and of Gollum. How can it be a punishment of something that occurs much later? Number three. The loss of a finger is only Frodo's most gruesome consequence in physical terms. If Lin Carter thinks this is his most severe wound, she's missed the whole point of the book. Nuff said.

I don't see any of these as a punishment, and I don't see any of these as a fault. The whole concept implies that either Frodo is expected to turn into a saint, or everyone in ME is watched over constantly and punished for stepping out of line even in the slightest. Moreover, things do not happen because they come about, but because some omnipotent creature (Eru) or concept (fate) sits up there somewhere and makes them happen. By that logic, Saruman gets killed necessarily, as a punishment and not a consequence of his deeds, and Wormtongue is killed necessarily for the same reason. Boromir dies necessarily and purposefully. Everything loses its beauty and its meaning - all the subtle but overwhelming emotions in all these people, and their choice to act the way they did that lead up to their end. I prefer to think that Saruman dies as a consequence of his cruelty, not as a punishment for it. I prefer to think that Wormtongue dies as a consequence of the war-like attitude of the hobbits, who unlike Frodo do not have as much empahy or pity for "enemies". I prefer to think that Boromir sacrifices himself to absolve his guilt. What is the point of all of this, and so many other beautiful stories, with Lin Carter's philosophy? I just can't accept it.

[Belegorn]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I was almost finished typing my awesome post when the computer decided to delete it. ><

Man it sucks when that happens.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by doug*platypus

I found the following, interesting perspective in Tolkien: A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings by Lin Carter (a fairly short treatise, full of unfortunate mistakes of fact, which deals mainly with listing the various epics and fantasies thorughout history which paved the way for LOTR):

Although I have long known that Frodo was the punching bag of the quest, and that he suffered greatly in striving to achieve the ultimate goal, I had never before considered that some at least of his misfortunes were, in part at least, his own fault.

What do you think of Carter's assertion that Frodo's wounds were inflicted as a sort of punishment for his failures? An argument could be made that his knife wound was only minor because of his bravery in attacking the Witch King, but perhaps he would not have been pinpointed and wounded at all if he had not put the Ring on.

Are there any examples in Tolkien's work where others are hurt as a result of some failing of their own? Boromir perhaps is killed while atoning for his assault on Frodo, protecting the hobbit's kinsmen. Fëanor on his return to Middle Earth arrogantly pressed on towards Angband and was destroyed. His sons all come to grisly ends, some as a direct result of the Oath. Saruman and Wormtongue both find their commeupance in the Shire. Thingol is slain by the dwarves when he refuses to pay them their dues. Are there any others?

What do you think of this device, which seems ultimately to be the (sometimes capital) punishment of sinners by fate?

In contrast to the wounds of Frodo, which Carter seems to indicate are in part deserved, other members of the Fellowship are wounded as a result of bravery, and bear their scars as a token of honour. Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gimli and Gandalf are all wounded in combat. Also, many of the heroes of the Eldar and Edain in the First Age are killed fighting against Morgoth; their deaths are most often heroic and win them great renown.

Is this contrast the reason why Frodo is not held in higher esteem among the hobbits on his return to the Shire? Rather than being wounded in victorious combat, he is struck down as a result of "folly, overconfidence and weakness" (to use Carter's words).

Your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated!

Hyperbolic literary abstraction founded on a rather troubled imagination.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

A sort of mechanistic hyper-Calvinism Tolkien would never have considered. So, was Theodred a bad man? Were all those soldiers of Gondor and Rohan and Lorien and Mirkwood and Erebor who died in the war sinners, while their sinless companions survived? Ah doan thank so.


Tolkien is unambiguous (in his Letters) that Gollum's fall into the Fire was the finger of God, a divine intervention which could be seen as a "reward" for Frodo's total sacrifice. But he's also clear that this is a singular exception - a miracle, if you will - and not the sort of thing that happens except in matters of great Doom (cf. Beren & Luthien)

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

A sort of mechanistic hyper-Calvinism Tolkien would never have considered. So, was Theodred a bad man? Were all those soldiers of Gondor and Rohan and Lorien and Mirkwood and Erebor who died in the war sinners, while their sinless companions survived? Ah doan thank so.


Tolkien is unambiguous (in his Letters) that Gollum's fall into the Fire was the finger of God, a divine intervention which could be seen as a "reward" for Frodo's total sacrifice. But he's also clear that this is a singular exception - a miracle, if you will - and not the sort of thing that happens except in matters of great Doom (cf. Beren & Luthien)

Actually, what Carter said is that those people other than Frodo, who were scarred or died in the battles were heroes. Their wounds (or deaths) were the proof of their bravery while Frodo's wounds were deserving, i.e. he deserved them because of folly,over-confidence and weakness rather than bravery. An inherently flawed theory this is!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Actually, what Carter said is that those people other than Frodo, who were scarred or died in the battles were heroes. Their wounds (or deaths) were the proof of their bravery while Frodo's wounds were deserving, i.e. he deserved them because of folly,over-confidence and weakness rather than bravery. An inherently flawed theory this is!

The idea of Frodo deserving his pains and misfortunes derived from his experience with the Ring is rubbish.
It was a burden too great for him, as indeed for any in Middle-earth, or any whose innate spiritual power was inferior to Sauron's. Frodo's "failure" was really in his own mind, and no guilt was ever laid on him by anyone in the books: least of all Gandalf, surely the spokesman for for the Valar (and by proxy, the One). Gandalf, in Rivendell, did not judge Frodo for using the Ring on Weathertop, and nothing was ever said about his refusal to throw away the Ring into the Fire. Gandalf understood. If Frodo's "failure" really was due to his own moral weakness, and he had not utterly expended his body and will in resisting the Ring's power, then surely his sojourn into the West would have been disallowed.

[Faramir Jones]

The Saucepan Man earlier talked about Bilbo's theft of the Arkenstone. One could strongly argue that he did not steal it; he was just taking his promised reward.

In the original contact with Thorin and Company, Bilbo was promised one fourteenth share of the profits, in return for his services. Later, after surviving a second encounter with Smaug, he was given the option of picking his own fourteenth share. Therefore, Bilbo, having fulfilled his part of the contract, picked his reward by taking the Arkenstone as his fourteenth. When discussing matters with Bard and the Elvenking, he showed them his copy of the contract before handing over the Arkenstone, making it clear that he was entitled to it, and therefore entitled to give it away as he saw fit.

Later, once Thorin found out, and was persuaded not to kill Bilbo, he publicly accepted this state of affairs, saying that he would, for the Arkenstone's return, give a fourteenth share of the silver and gold part of the treasure.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The idea of Frodo deserving his pains and misfortunes derived from his experience with the Ring is rubbish.
It was a burden too great for him, as indeed for any in Middle-earth, or any whose innate spiritual power was inferior to Sauron's. Frodo's "failure" was really in his own mind, and no guilt was ever laid on him by anyone in the books: least of all Gandalf, surely the spokesman for for the Valar (and by proxy, the One). Gandalf, in Rivendell, did not judge Frodo for using the Ring on Weathertop, and nothing was ever said about his refusal to throw away the Ring into the Fire. Gandalf understood. If Frodo's "failure" really was due to his own moral weakness, and he had not utterly expended his body and will in resisting the Ring's power, then surely his sojourn into the West would have been disallowed.

I agree completely and it's sad that Frodo was never given the respect he deserved by the other Hobbits. They sadly could not see the bigger picture and what Frodo had sacrificed and done for not only the Shire, but the world. I do find it terribly ironic that the films also don't give Frodo the credit he deserves, and casual fans of the movies regard him as a failure and weak.