Did Frodo REALLY volunteer to Bear the Ring?

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

You have "quotes n evidence" that Frodo was planning a double-cross at that time?
Really?

I'd certainly be intererested to hear what they are, but I will say now that- as with the "Arkensil" case, I believe this come under the "extraordinary claims" principle. That is, your evidence had better be *good*.

hahaha erm, maybe from the Black Silmarilian (if I can find an English version anywhere - know one?). Otherwise, all my materials are inferential, context-dependent analyses of the mythology, with some juxtapositioning. There are facets from the mythology, all the way through, in fact of characters I can integrate into prose to elucidate the point.

the basic point: Frodo was "...lying even unto himself..." at The Council of Elrond, and that by the time the 'Precious' word or actual conscious manifestations of Sauronic perversion had begun to express themselves (certainly, by the time we're at the Emyn Muil), already, significant changes had occurred....

[Ivriniel]

It was well already "too late" for Frodo, by Rivendell. Without Cosmic Intervention (Deus Ex Machina) he was already corrupted and Sauronic purpose fulfilled.

The outcome of TA was an Intervention-Eru that saved Middle Earth, vanquished Sauron (are we sure that Palanir got wrecked at Barad Dur?) and all would have been lost-WITHOUT Eru intervening. Frodo failed by Rivendell

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

hahaha erm, maybe from the Black Silmarilian (if I can find an English version anywhere - know one?). Otherwise, all my materials are inferential, context-dependent analyses of the mythology, with some juxtapositioning. There are facets from the mythology, all the way through, in fact of characters I can integrate into prose to elucidate the point.

the basic point: Frodo was "...lying even unto himself..." at The Council of Elrond, and that by the time the 'Precious' word or actual conscious manifestations of Sauronic had begun to express themselves (certainly, by the time we're at the Emyn Muil), already, significant changes had occurred....

But, hang on, are you putting this forward as an actual theory, or just your own personal "head-canon"? Because what you're describing here certainly sounds more like what I would call head-canon-level "evidence".

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But, hang-on, are you putting this forward as a actual theory, or just your own personal "head-canon"? Because what you're describing here certainly sounds more like what I would call head-canon-level "evidence".

Well-canon will certainly contribute direct matters and particular features. There are, for example, exact quotations, dialogues, and characterisations as Tolkien or his son has put them. And certainly 'letters' from Tolkien, and of course, the other Tomes, and I find that it's the mismatch in materials that sometimes means there's room to extend canon - only by inference - and certainly never 'in concrete'.

As for the basic theme - it certainly is Canon, I'd have thought, to quote Sauron as having '...lied even unto himself...' before The Herald of Manwe at the start of the TA. This, of course, must mean that Sauron has insight about how the Mind (with a Fea) can deceive, conceal, equivocate, and veil inner motivations. I'd have imagined that he crafted the Rings with that exact knowledge, in part to guide.

After all, Ash Nagz Durbataluk - and even Celebrimbor was deceived. We see a strong theme in the narrative about Noldorin Vanity (and indeed, the more I ponder the works, the greater is it apparent to me that Vanity of Elves, of Maia, of Men, of Valar, was always the confounding and ruin of Works of Arda. For example, consider Aule and his fashioning of the Dwarves, an act of Conceit (Vanity) (upper case), only in part, as was both the Making and Coveting of the Silmarils. Yet, Eru (as I've said in another post) spares even craftings borne of Vanity. Where Love guides - and Aule certainly did misconceive of Eru's intentions for the Firstborn, yet his creations were spared, and imbued with Fea (or the Dwarvish equivalent. Do they go to Mandos?)

And so - we see the paradox of Vanity again and again. The Vanity of devising even things that Preserve (Narya Nenya Vilya), tho for Love, were yet governed by Sauronic expansion, and territoriality over the Metaphysical...

Frodo's claim at Rivendell stank of Vanity-greatly.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Frodo's claim at Rivendell stank of Vanity-greatly.

Really Frodo? You reckon you can march on into Mordor, and chuck the thing away, when you couldn't keep it off your finger on Amon Sul, and look at you with Bilbo, ready to gore the guy who took you in, for asking just to look at your pretty 'Precious'. You reckon you can just blare out at Council and stomp your foot and stake your claim--even amongst The Last High King (ish) of the Noldor in Middle Earth!

V-A-N-I-T-Y

Seriously, Frodo. You're "...lying even unto himself...". Very quick was he to 'spot' avarice in others, such as in Boromir. Very much the 'who wants My Precious' don't you think. And poor Sam in Cirith Ungol. Seriously Frodo, that was beyond mean, beyond creepy, and cruel. Sauronically cruel, indeed.

"...lying even unto himself..." were I sam, by then I'd have been absolutely terrified for it was very clear Frodo had failed.

The only exception I can see in the narrative, is his attempt to Gift the Ring to Galadriel. I'm not sure what to make of that.

[Nerwen]

But so far this has all been about your feelings and subjective impressions. If you can make a proper case, again I'd be interested to hear it.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But so far this has all been about your feelings and subjective impressions. If you can make a proper case, again I'd be interested to hear it.

The Quest (as we all well do know) was only ever to get the Ring to Orodruin. Gandalf and several have conceded that. I'm sure you're familiar with the text and citations, and I'm sure you are also familiar with Silmarillion's take on Vanity and how it implicate Morgoth's judgment, Feanor's and implications for Noldoring Vanity in the Kinslaying. The Doom of Mandos in its Decree exiles the Noldor for their....Vanity.

So - bearing that in mind. I'll inquire - what was it, that was withheld from the reader, that, obviously, Galadriel, Gandalf, Elrond, and I will add Elessar knew. Each have given their Foresight about the Quest and Frodo's plight. What was it they expected to Intercede to assist, given Frodo had been subverted by the Ring a very long time ago.

We have precedent.--by juxtaposition.

Cirdan challenged Annatar in Lindon. He was one of the Eldar yet with the power of Discernment that somehow exceeded that of Galadriel, Elrond and Celebrimbor. For Lindon was the last.....realm, SA to stand of the Elves (and Imladris). It would have fallen, but for timely arrival of the Numenoreans.

There is a 'blinding' of Foresight that Tolkien builds into ***ALL*** his characters, by measure. Only some (e.g. Aragorn's Mother, what's her name) was nigh free, as was Gandalf (who saw Frodo getting 'invisible' at Elrond's house of healing). And Aragorn. Mostly. Sort of. Or rather, 'I own mine and name it and so, doubt'.

It was this that, I would argue, saved Aragorn from himself. Doubt.

--THEY ALL KNEW--Frodo was creepi-fying. They let it go ahead. Why?

[Nerwen]

That's all very interesting, but no, I don't see that it constitutes that "proper case" or "good evidence" that I was talking about.

Again, is all this just meant as your own alternative-reading/head-canon, or are you serious?

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That's all very interesting, but no, I don't see that it constitutes that "proper case" or "good evidence" that I was talking about.

Again, is all this just meant as your own alternative-reading/head-canon, or are you serious?

What's your position on Frodo's psychological constitution, it's degree of failure by Rivendell, and its capacity to self-reflect honestly, given what he did to Bilbo?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

How was his failure addressed, I wonder? By what intervention or on what Terms?

Tolkien writes redressed, not addressed. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redressed for what the word means. Read the following two paragraphs to answer your question.

I'm wondering about a little something else as well. The 'white robes' effect on Orodruin - could equally have a 'line of effect' to Elrond (did Elrond 'imbue' just a wee little Elvish-ness INTO Frodo as a final added deterrent to wraith-isation. Yes, Frodo was getting pretty creepy at times and 'white' can also be either of Spectral White of the Necromantic --OR-- Valinorean kind. Random thought

So, tell us what this means. How does the white robe seen by Sam have any ‘line of effect’ to Elrond’s surgery? Your random thought seems to me not worth considering.

IOne of the reasons I was wary of Frodo, at Elrond's was because Frodo spoke as though it were 'not' him. That was a dissociation of will, I often wondered, an unconscious motivation to keep the Ring.

It may have been an unconscious motivation, or maybe not. Nerwen, in particular, was at you in more than one post to reveal your sources. But you didn’t. I guess because you can’t. You only babbled about the Banning of the Noldor and other tales supposed to have mostly occurred thousands of years before the War of the Ring, and used terms like precedent and juxtaposition which don’t prove anything. By your methods you could equally prove that since Jack the Ripper was a murderer in Victorian London that almost all his contemporaries in London were murderers.

I wonder for this debate, if it's always 'two truths' point to the same ali.gnment, somehow in argument. If one accepts that the Ring creates a 'split' in the Mind's Eye or a Splinter (ergo Star Wars Splinter of the Mind's Eye), then, of course, we are always going to have dual motivational systems at work for any bearer.

If “we are always going to have dual motivational systems at work for any bearer”, then show where Sam is badly affected. Sam, in the book, has only a brief temptation to use the Ring for Power, but quickly shakes it off.

So - the presence of concurrent motivations - to Vanity/Greed/Lust - and to Duty/Valour/Self-Sacrifice/Love and Preservation of Others seems entirely possible.

Yes, of course. But seems entirely possible is a rather weak conclusion. It also seems entirely possible that Frodo, until the end, was mostly faithful to the quest he had undertaken. True, when Frodo offers to give the Ring up to Galadriel he fails his quest, or would have done so, if Galadriel had accepted his offer and Frodo had then been able to carry it out.

[Nerwen]

jallanite, I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down the (seeming) hostility. It's only a discussion thread, in the end. That said, I do share many of your concerns, especially this-

Originally Posted by jallanite

It may have been an unconscious motivation, or maybe not. Nerwen, in particular, was at you in more than one post to reveal your sources. But you didn’t. I guess because you can’t. You only babbled about the Banning of the Noldor and other tales supposed to have mostly occurred thousands of years before the War of the Ring, and used terms like precedent and juxtaposition which don’t prove anything. By your methods you could equally prove that since Jack the Ripper was a murderer in Victorian London that almost all his contemporaries in London were murderers.

Indeed. Look, Ivriniel, this was a very interesting thread, and I certainly don't wish to discourage you from raising discussion topics. It's just that I want to say now that I'm really not terribly keen on the way you went about it this time. If you were falsely claiming to have a "truck load" of evidence you didn't really have, just to get us going or something, well, I honestly think that's a bit much. And if, on the other hand, the talk of "stenches" and "foot-stomping" and word-associations and the "precedent" set by other incidents in the "Legendarium", and so forth *was* your evidence, then we've got a real problem, because- to put it bluntly- as an argument most of that simply fails to make sense on a basic level.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm picking on you. Well, I am, actually, but I'd do it to anyone. It's nothing personal.