Is Sauron Frodo's shadow?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm...offhand, I would say that Frodo did not spend his time becoming Sauron; on the contrary, he did not possess the will or need to dominate.

I agree - and also with Boromir's point about Smeagol better fitting the role of Frodo's shadow. Sauron doesn't even come into Lord of the Rings as a proper character, and therefore cannot really fit into such a scheme, in my opinion.

It seems as if this isn't the first critic I've seen focus too intently on Sauron's role as the personification of evil in LOTR. He is such a distant and undeveloped figure, and there are so many more fleshed out, less absolute ones: Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, Grima, etc.

[Boromir88]

It seems as if this isn't the first critic I've seen focus too intently on Sauron's role as the personification of evil in LOTR. He is such a distant and undeveloped figure, and there are so many more fleshed out, less absolute ones: Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, Grima, etc.~Rikae

True and the reason I like Gollum better, also, is because there actually is the external battle between Gollum and Frodo - there is none between Frodo and Sauron.

Even if someone argues that the Ring's will is Sauron's, therefor when Frodo battles with the Ring, he is battling Sauron. I don't agree with that, because there always appeared to be a certain sentience about the Ring. The Ring wasn't just an extension of Sauron's will, it was more than Sauron's will. Sauron created an object that was stronger than him...he couldn't destroy it. And the Ring could survive without Sauron, but Sauron could not survive without the Ring.

Also, if what Gandalf tells Frodo is true, this seems to apply to all the Ring's of Power:

"A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo."~The Shadow of the Past

This makes it sound like The One Ring (and all rings of power) have a seperate "will" than their bearers or creators.

I do agree with Pitchwife though, that just because on the surface there appears to be no relation to Sauron and Frodo, that doesn't mean there isn't anything. Generally Hobbits do not lust for power, and that would make them a good bearer for the One. However, don't forget, just how Hobbit-like was Frodo? I would not call Bilbo the stereotypical hobbit, other hobbits said he was strange, because Bilbo wanted adventure, he wanted to go beyond the borders of the Shire. Frodo, also shows signs of this, when he wants to leave the Shire and follow Bilbo. That doesn't make Frodo evil, but it certainly makes him different from our general assumptions about Hobbits. Also, during the Council of Elrond, Frodo was not forced to take the quest, he volunteered. Why?

[Pitchwife]

More nice comments by everybody. We certainly don't have to keep this focused on Sauron and Frodo exclusively, and I agree that Gollum makes a much better example for D's theory than Sauron - Frodo under the influence of the Ring is in serious danger of becoming Gollum, much more than he is of becoming Sauron; which is precisely what enables him to understand and pity Gollum.
About the character development thing - yes, I think D has a very strong point here. Generally, in the literature of adventure, characters are studied and developed through action rather than introspective analysis, but in fantasy, everything that happens, everything a character does or encounters is, or can become, characterization - even scenery: think of Aragorn under the Argonath, or Gimli and the Glittering Caves.
Boro does a nice job applying the theory to Boromir (as could be expected), and I'm sure this could be done for other characters as well.

Morth, while I agree that Frodo certainly didn't lust for power the way Sauron did, I'm not so sure he utterly lacked a will or need to dominate - nor the capacity, even though in him this was much more limited than in Sauron, or e.g. Gandalf or even Aragorn. There are a few interesting moments in Frodo's interaction with Gollum, starting in Book IV, The Taming of Sméagol:

For a moment it appeared to Sam that his master had grown and Gollum had shrunk: a tall stern shadow, a mighty lord who hid his brightness in grey cloud, and at his feet a little whining dog.

A little later (The Black Gate is Closed):

"In the last need, Sméagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care, Sméagol!"

And finally (Book VI, Mount Doom):

Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire, there spoke a commanding voice.
"Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."

I don't doubt that Frodo, wearing the Ring, could have dominated Gollum in the crucial moment, if he hadn't been taken by surprise. By the way, whose voice is speaking here, out of the fire - Frodo's or the Rings? They have become indistinguishable.

Morsul lays his finger on what I feel to be the main flaw with applying D's theory to LotR (literally, at least):

That is to say LOTR only happened in Frodo's head

This is true for D's Covenant, who is unconscious or dying in the 'real' world every time he's summoned to the Land, so everything that happens to him there may well be 'only in his head' (not that this makes a difference, as he finds out). In LotR, however, the division between a primary and secondary world doesn't enter into the story, so both Frodo and Sauron, as well as all the other characters, are on the same ontological level, denizens of the same world. But I think the theory can be modified to fit.

(This is going on really nicely, thanks to everybody for contributing!)

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Me

Well I think it's a great exaggeration to say that Frodo spends the novel becoming like Sauron, seduced by power.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

My sentiments exactly. However, I think there's a grain of truth in this exaggeration, if you dig deep enough - which is the purpose of this thread.

By saying "a great exaggeration" that grain of truth is implied, of course. But this definition of fantasy, while perhaps accurate to D's own work, which I'm not familiar with, can hardly be said to be a close fit for LotR. I also think Morsul hit the nail on the head. I certainly don't think it was Tolkien's conscious or unconscious intention for it to be read this way in any case, but one of the tell-tale signs of a great work of literature are the many possible ways of finding different meanings to it.

Off the top of my head, the Túrin saga would be a better example to use for D. Here you really can see how Morgoth and his curse are as real inside of Túrin's mind, as the Dark Lord is real sitting on his throne in Angband. We readers are never sure whether Morgoth really can change the fate of Túrin for afar, or if his own poor decisions are the real cause of his tragedy. But this story plays out much like a Greek drama where fate's seemingly inevitable, and few would argue that fex. Oedipus belongs to the fantasy genre.

Here's a thread that touches on this:
The curse of Morgoth

[Pitchwife]

few would argue that fex. Oedipus belongs to the fantasy genre.

No, Oedipus was the first whodunit - only the detective discovered himself to be the murderer; quite innovative for the time.

I like your thoughts about Túrin, skip - and they demonstrate that the exteriorization theory (henceforth, for convenience's sake, abbreviated e.th.) can be applied beyond the two-worlds-format. It isn't all in Túrin's head, Morgoth is as real as T. himself, yet at the same time he and his curse serve as an 'objective correlative' to Túrin's hybris, rash temper and bad decision-making. - What part, would you say, does Glaurung play in this scheme (apart from being Morgoth's malice incarnate)?
And thanks for the link to your last year thread on the curse. Interesting read!

[Morthoron]

Having read Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Convenant series, I believe he's mistaking his character's internalizations with Tolkien's externalization. Covenant believes he's dreaming for most of the first book, and that the Land is fictional, brought about by a bump on the noggin in a car accident. In the case of Frodo, the nightmare he experiences is tangible, and he is part of Middle-earth, not a foreigner dropped in from the 'real world' like Covenant. Donaldson is, for the most part, 'externalizing his internalizing', as it were.

[Pitchwife]

Dismantling my own hobby-horse...

The more I think about this matter, and everything that has been said in this thread, the clearer I see the limitations of the e.th. as far as LotR is concerned. Unlike D's own books, LotR is not what me might call a 'character-driven' novel - i.e. it's not about Frodo's (or anybody else's) needs/problems/exigencies the way the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are about TC's. This becomes rather evident when we consider another passage from D's essay:

A somewhat oversimplified way to make the same point is by comparing fantasy to realistic, mainstream fiction. In realistic fiction, the characters are expressions of their world, whereas in fantasy the world is an expression of the characters[emphasis mine, Pw]. Even if you argue that realistic fiction is about the characters, and that the world they live in is just one tool to express them, it remains true that the details which make up their world come from a recognized body of reality – tables, chairs, jobs, stresses which we all acknowledge as being external and real, forceful on their own terms. In fantasy, however, the ultimate justification for all the external details arises from the characters themselves. The characters confer reality on their surroundings.

I think we can all see that this doesn't do justice to Tolkien's subcreation, as Middle-Earth and its history existed (if not in all details) long before Frodo and his companions appeared on the scene. Unlike D, who has insisted time and again that he only invents what he needs for the story (and very probably wouldn't have bothered to invent a back-story for Queen Berúthiel and her cats), Tolkien invented Middle-Earth for its own sake and as a setting for the Elven languages, not as an expression of his characters. In this respect, LotR is more like realistic fiction than fantasy as D defines it - the setting (including its history) confers reality on the characters, not the other way round.
Unfortunately, this deals a heavy blow to the e.th. as applied to LotR. Things may be different with e.g. Children of Húrin (as skip has demonstrated), which is rather more character-driven, though the point about the relation between characters and setting is, of course, valid for the entire Legendarium.

(Morth: The question whether the Land is inside or outside of Covenant's head may be something like Donaldson fandom's version of the Balrog wings debate. IMO, the only valid answer is the one TC himself found at the end of the First Chronicles: it doesn't matter - because, to adapt Aragorn's words to Éomer, good and evil are the same in a dream as in waking.)