A hundredth re-read of the LotR

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Perhaps Gollum's upper-class roots (if it could even be called such, given the state of the hobbitish civilization at that point) was intended as a sort of dark reflection of Frodo. Both came from better-off families and became caught up in the history of the Ring, but because of their differences of personality were very differently affected by it. There's the saying that if you can't be a good example, you may wind up being a horrible warning, and the image of Gollum -- what Frodo himself could become if he slipped down the path of selfishness and greed -- was, I suspect, a factor in keeping Frodo true to his mission, until the very end. In this chapter, Gandalf tells Frodo of Gollum's history and the fact that Bilbo's mercy toward him may one day rule all their fates. Frodo may not take to these things readily, but the seeds are planted here, and I think it is important that they have nearly the entire length of the book to take root and grow. I believe he needs to be able to see something of himself in Gollum in order to feel real pity toward him, the kind of compassion that will allow him to forgive Gollum at the end. And that depth of feeling does not come quickly or easily when one is considering a creature they have long regarded as an enemy.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Perhaps Gollum's upper-class roots (if it could even be called such, given the state of the hobbitish civilization at that point) was intended as a sort of dark reflection of Frodo. Both came from better-off families and became caught up in the history of the Ring, but because of their differences of personality were very differently affected by it.
......
I believe he needs to be able to see something of himself in Gollum in order to feel real pity toward him, the kind of compassion that will allow him to forgive Gollum at the end. And that depth of feeling does not come quickly or easily when one is considering a creature they have long regarded as an enemy.

That's a good point indeed! It's interesting to note on this that in Gandalf's story Sméagol is first described as "the most inquisitive and curious minded of that family" also "interested in roots and beginnings" and loving the nature. But on the next note of him (after requiring the Ring) he is already described as using the Ring "to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses... The Ring had given him power according to his stature"! So his inquisitiveness had turned into malice - but to say "according to his stature" is not to say according to his "newly found" or "changed" stature... So is his stature already crooked without the effect of the Ring even if it's first described pretty innocentishly? Or is it just the possibility rooted in the inquisitiveness or something? This I kind of wonder.

And still there is something like a general pity on his character in Gandalf's telling of the story all the time it goes on...

Interesting indeed.

[Nogrod]

So much for having more time today... but I'd like to say one thing which at the moment quite intrigues me.

For the story this really is quite an important chapter as it lays the ground for the story to take place but I'm beginning to wonder whether Tolkien also laid the basis of his metaphysical unverse here as well.

In the beginning of the chapter where Frodo asks why would Sauron wish for such slaves as Hobbits Gandalf tries to explain that terrible idea of someone just wishing harm to someone else with: "there is such a thing as malice and revenge".

So we have the evil principles of malice and revenge brought forth.

In the end of the chapter, after learning all the harm Gollum had caused and about the dire threat to himself Frodo curses why Bilbo didn't "stab the vile creature when he had a chance". And Gandalf answers with the two other basic principles of pity and mercy.

So: pity vs. malice and mercy vs. revenge.

Quite neat pairs indeed to run a universe.


And to top that we can find Gandalf telling Frodo how Bilbo was meant to have it and he succeeded with it, and so by that also Frodo was meant to have it and so on. So there is a benevolent whatever helping things turn out for the good - even if the living beings need to make their best effort and make the right choices if they are to succeed - "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us".

These principles indeed form the backbone of the whole story one might say and the universe in which all our heroes (not just Frodo and Sam) have their trials and tribulations and in where they have to make their choises.

[Boromir88]

Hey, Nogrod, thanks for letting me know about this re-read. I've mostly gotten caught up, so I just wanted to point out several things.

If I may, start back with a Long-Expected Party. Two things that spring to mind here.

First, the idea of having to earn your wealth. Bilbo is wealthy, but Bilbo worked for that wealth. In Gandalf's opinion, killing Smaug and returning the Dwarves to Erebor, was vital in the end victory against Sauron:

"Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador, night in Rivendell. There might be no Queen in Gondor. We might now hope to return from the victory here only to ruin and ash. But that has been averted - because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring in Bree. A chance-meeting, as we say in Middle-earth."~Appendix A: Durin's Folk

To which Bilbo played a part, so why shouldn't he get part of the spoils? Also, you can look at it, in a way, that Bilbo was taking the treasure from Smagu (Edit: Oops, bad typo, but I'll just leave it here...because I believe that Smagu was Smaug's identical twin dragon and thus Smaug was able to escape proving Dragon's still exist in Middle-earth.), who didn't deserve the wealth. What had Smaug done, besides eating and terrifying civilians, to deserve a pleasant retirement on a horde of cash? Plus, Smaug's hording of that wealth and Bilbo's redistribution of it (which I will get to in my next point).

Frodo inherits Bilbo's wealth, and as Nogrod points out for a while sits around and does (or has) nothing to do (afterall Gandalf did tell him to stay put). But we all know that Frodo doesn't do "nothing" through the rest of the story. As opposed to the Sackville-Bagginses, who believed they were entitled to Bilbo's wealth. However, what had they done to deserve Bilbo's inheritance, other than complain that they deserved it?

Secondly, along with being wealthy (also the same applied - at least for a time - noble) there was an expectation of giving back; or in some way, serving. Smaug hordes his wealth, and has no use for it other than to hold on to it, because he believes it's his. Bilbo gives back, and by gives back, it's pointed out that he doesn't "recycle" the mathoms that travel around, he always gives new presents. Despite the belief of the young treasure seekers, or the idea that Gandalf and Frodo designed a plan to run off with Bilbo's wealth, the reality is that doesn't happen.

Let's take the formation of Japan as an example. Merchants socially, and politically, were the scum of society, despite being some of the wealthiest people (at the start they were mostly small, family peddlers, but as Japan became united, we see this what you might call 'pre-capitalism' stage, and merchants began to become very wealthy). Anyway, merchants were below peasants on the social ladder in Japan. Because it was viewed that peasants provided a service to the "community." They were dirt poor, but they were the one's who providal a social need...food and labor. Merchants were viewed as the parasites of society, they lived off other people's wealth and didn't provide anything good for society. This was one big cause to the collapse of the Japanese Empire. As the merchants became wealthier, they still held no social power, and we all know you can't have your wealthiest families at the bottom of the social and political ladder.

Then I guess kind of the quick sum up is, with wealth (or royalty and nobility), comes:

1. The justification that you've earned it.
2. The expectation that you provide service/a giving back to your comminuty.

[Boromir88]

I assume this is going to be a double-post, but I just wanted to break up the two chapters. So...A Shadow of the Past:

So: pity vs. malice and mercy vs. revenge.

Quite neat pairs indeed to run a universe.~Nogrod

Ooh, me like it.

While, it is hard in circumstances to define "good and evil," I believe there are definite distinctions made. Tolkien writes that he doesn't believe in "absolute evil," there are several grey characters (Denethor, Saruman, Boromir, Gollum), and in writing to Christopher about WWII, making the remark that there are "orcs on both sides."

Nogrod, I really like the set up of pity vs. malice and mercy vs. revenge, and this chapter looks at the fundamental question of what is right and what is wrong?

I think what we see (and it starts in this chapter) is the reoccuring theme that is it not our place to decide someone's ultimate judgement. In Letter 181, Tolkien's straightforward, and says he does not care to inquire into Gollum's final judgement, it is not his place. He stops (and doesn't send) a letter out talking about orc redemption writing: "It seemed to be taking myself too importantly."

And that is Gandalf's message to Frodo:

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement..."

As we find out it was Bilbo's pity that made him relatively unscathed by the Ring, in contrast with Gollum's belief that the Ring was his and his strong desire for revenge against the thief Baggins.

Also, to point out here, Tolkien's idea of the #1 bad motive:

The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other ’free’ wills.~Letter 155

Thus, I think we can even put it in the broader terms of control vs. humility.

The ultimate bad guys want to dominate over everyone, and everything, they want that power to "run the show." Sauron, Morgoth, and Saruman all display the need to be in control. These baddies are all eventually brought to 'justice,'...death.

The supreme good guys are rewarded for the recognition that they are not the one's calling the shots. They know it is not their place to decide who lives and who dies. For even the wisest don't know how everything will play out. Pity and Mercy are the keys, it is Gandalf's, Bilbo's, Frodo's (and so on), recognition they aren't the "deciders."

I don't know, but perhaps it would be good to make some boundaries. Obviously, if Gollum is freely running around and eating babies pity doesn't mean you're going to pretend there's nothing wrong with that. Pity doesn't mean you'll absolve Gollum, Saruman, or any of them of their own accountability. Gandalf is the first to say Gollum (and he also states it about Grima) deserve death, but Gandalf's pity is the acknowledgement that he doesn't decide whether Gollum would die or not. Wth pity, I think comes a hope that since evil is not absolute, than redemption is possible for anyone. Gandalf is the first to admit that Gollum being cured is almost impossible, but that doesn't mean it isn't impossible (it's not beyond hope at least):

"There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things.

"But that of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end - unless it could be conquered. Unless it could be cured." Gandalf sighed. "Alas! there is little hope of that for him. Yet not no hope..."

[Nogrod]

Nice to see you around Boro!

And this question of what is fair or justified is a most compelling one - and I just hope I can make this shortish...

Now after the time of Napoleon there has been this idea of meritocracy where every individual should get what they deserve. It's an idea that one earns the goods one gets and that's fair.

Bilbo is a case in point. He struggled and had dreadful adventures and thence it's only right he got what he got, as you say.

But how about Frodo's cousins? They were never given a chance to "show their qualities" as that eccentric Bilbo decided to pick Frodo as his heir. I mean isn't it in a way like Madonna adopting a baby from a third world country? Was it that youngster's merit as an individual that got him taken as an adoptee and to lift just him from poverty and suffering to the utmost luxury there is in this planet?

So was Frodo something like the one who should be immediately put in the front from all his cousins? If you say, yes he had some characteristics from his birth you at the same time rip Frodo's personal merit from the choice as it is something he already has from his birth and to no merit of his own... and if you say it was random then you agree that the opportunities are given randomly and thence are not based on merit...

I mean let's take a parallel. During the eighties, in the garages of the Silicon Valley, there were hundreds if not thousands of nerds creating operating systems for computers. Then this Bill G. just happened to meet the right people at the right time and his format actually got through the competition with the financial aid of corporate level top-guns (like with the old video-cassette formats where the far superior beta-system lost to the VHS with the aid of the porn industry). Now he's one of the richest people on earth. Now should we say that like Bilbo he has earned his fortunes- and that fact that he gives away a host of his treasury is the final justification of his astonishing wealth?

With Mr. Gates and Bilbo we find a shared trait: they got into where they are with chance - and they proved to be able to stand the challenge.

But how about the equality of chances then? As well as some other nerds might have produced us with far more flexible and working operating systems it might have been that Ted Sandyman, Fredegar Bolger, or any of the Frodo's un-named cousins might have been even more succesful ringbearers? I mean in the way of making it with less casualties and with more efficiency...

So is the meritocratic way the way one should look at the justice or fairness? How about the disabled people - are they worth less? Those coming from broken families with alcohol-problems? If they take pains is it their fault? According to the newest studies - those people with less space in their working memory? Are they poor at school because of a dismerit of their own, like because they somehow have earned their position? And those with a large working-memory have earned their good results in learning? Now that is genetic, not earned... and the former case is forced and not chosen...

So can you say that it's up to you what you earn - like what you can merit - and still retain the idea that we are talking about justice or fairness?

[Nogrod]

Thank's for the appreciation Boro. That kind of assures me there's something interesting in there...

I mean yes, there are a host of speculation of things between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis and their different views on allegory and parable, on symbolic and mythic tales etc. The prof's uneasiness with things Lewis exploited in the Narnia chronicles come to mind once again.

But also it seems to me it's clear Tolkien is a catholic writer, not a protestant one.

Avoiding the pure Good vs. Evil as too Manichean thought-lines in the world of ours he goes to pity vs. malice and mercy vs. revenge (so central to the teachings of Jesus!), and adds there the benevolent "something" many Christians call providence... and with the famous line of "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" he then relies on the basic concept of the choice and what will come out of it so central to catholicism compared to protestant churches where according to Luther "nothing we do will make us dearer to God" (that's not a quote but a principle).

[Boromir88]

So can you say that it's up to you what you earn - like what you can merit - and still retain the idea that we are talking about justice or fairness?~Nogrod

There are other standards of merit besides wealth, or family birth. Those are two of the more noticeable ones, but I would also argue beauty, intelligence, humor, fame, public service are other standards (and probably more I haven't mentioned). Wealth is probably the easiest way to have 'merit', but depending upon how a society (and each individual) weighs each of those standards would ultimately decide one's merit.

Bilbo being wealthy certainly didn't bring him respect amongst his fellow hobbits. He was queer and a mad man. But when I read his tale and his sacrifices, I think he deserves to receive a nice retirement package. With merit comes the tremendous pressure of responsibility. As one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away. The Sackville-Baggins may begrudingly think Frodo got lucky being Bilbo's heir, but I doubt Frodo would think himself lucky, with the extreme burden he is given. Would you accept Bilbo's inheritance if you were aware of the responsibility (and pains) that lie ahead?

Some people value the simple life, the Gaffer's life, Sam's life; take Frodo's own words:

"All the same," said Frodo, "even if Bilbo could not kill Gollum, I wish he had not kept the Ring. I wish he had never found it, and that I had not got it! Why did you let me keep it? Why didn't you make me throw it away, or, or destroy it?"~The Shadow of the Past

Or maybe taking Tolkien's idea of the complimentary balance between the "high and noble" and the "simple and vulgar":

A moral of the whole is the obvious one that without the high and noble, the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless.~Letter 131

We need our Bill Gates' of the world just as much as we need our garbagemen. We need our Frodos' and our Sams'. Same can actually be said about "evil," a Dark Lord needs his servants, and the servants need a Dark Lord.

Edit: For some reason I think I accidentally hit "enter" and posted before I wanted to.

So, let's have a little discussion on justice and fairness. I'm glad you brought it up Nogrod, for that has been a central philisophical question since the beginning of philosophers. What is justice? What is fairness? And our un-ending search for the Truth.

I won't get into justice, simply because I really wouldn't know where to begin, but it would be great to see some ideas about justice. Anyway, I find fairness interesting.

Richard Lavoie runs a wonderful program about the learning disabled student. One of his topics is about fairness, and I absolutely love the way he puts it. There seems to be the common understanding that "fair" means everyone gets treated the same. Lavoie points out that's not the case (and since it is specifically an education workshop), he believes that fairness is giving each student what they need in order to succeed. When asking teachers if they would give an LD child an outline of notes to help them focus, he said the teacher's response most likely was "That wouldn't be fair to the other students." He quickly would come back arguing it's not about the others, if you were having a heart attack should I refuse to give you CPR, because I couldn't possibly do it for everyone in this room, thus it wouldn't be fair to them?" Of course not, his stance then is, if you're having a heart attack, you need CPR and therefor it's only fair that you receive it.

The question is then would you agree with that definition? And perhaps to apply it to the Lord of the Rings. Frodo gets an oppurtunity, he is faced with a choice. Is it fair that his cousins, because they were not chosen by Bilbo, don't get that oppurtunity? I don't know, it would depend upon your definition of what is fair. However, I would agree with Rick Lavoie's point, it would only be fair to Frodo if he received some kind of "treasure" for his sacrifices. And at the end of things, how much consolation was all that wealth to Frodo?