Did Frodo REALLY volunteer to Bear the Ring?

[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.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

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.

You flatter me, but I believe my own thoughts are largely irrelevant at present and should wait until you've had a chance to present this case and evidence of yours.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

You flatter me, but I believe my own thoughts are largely irrelevant at present and should wait until you've had a chance to present this case and evidence of yours.

It's not flattery, Nerwen, it's just wanting a conversation, actually.

I've put a lot of information out already. It's important to wait to let others speak, first, and enjoy having an opinion. It's certainly not all about me, and I'd value your input.

[Nerwen]

Okay, well then: I think the Ring had gained a measure of influence over him by that point; I do not think this means that he intended to betray the others or that he was only acting out of vanity.

That's about all I can say at this stage.

[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.

[jallanite]

Nerwen, I am indeed hostile to this thread, as defined by Ivriniel, and your post shows, to me, just as much hostility, though I greatly admire the manner in which you post. I wish I had your ability.

No one who has responded agrees with Ivriniel. And all the responses seem to me to be very reasonable. Yes, Frodo, in accepting the quest, could be unconscionably influenced by the Ring. Or he might not.

But where else does Frodo show concurrent motivations, if he does? That ought to be what Ivriniel tries to show, but Ivriniel does not. I had always assumed that Frodo’s almost transparency in Rivendell was a side-effect of the Morgul-knife fragment that Frodo had carried in his body so long, but Ivriniel imagines instead that it is a result of Elrond’s surgery, but does not explain what motivation Ivriniel attributes to Elrond if it was.

Is Ivriniel merely a poor arguer, or is Ivriniel a troll? It doesn’t matter to me as I am going to cease to feed Ivriniel.

[Mithadan]

Can we all please dial back on the negativity here, please?

The goal here is to encourage participation and discussion. Any aspersions cast upon a member, rather than discussion of the topic. is simply inappropriate.

Thank you.

[Nerwen]

Sure, Mithadan.. I just thought it needed saying. I'm not going to keep on about it.

Originally Posted by Pitch

Hm, I've got to confess I've never been never been too enthusiastic about the assumption that the finger of Eru pushed Gollum over the brink. It's just not necessary IMO - I mean, given all we know of Gollum's character it's natural he'd be so enraptured about regaining the Precious he wouldn't mind his steps and stumble.

Yes- I can't recall anything in that scene that would imply a sudden, direct intervention. Now, in "The Shadow of the Past" Gandalf talks about Frodo being "meant" to have the Ring and theorises that Gollum has "a part to play before the end" (or words to that effect- don't have the book to quote from), which I take to be hints of an underlying divine purpose to it all- but surely of the subtle "moving in mysterious ways" sort, as opposed to the "literally tripping people up" sort. I'm not sure how or why the idea has arisen, actually.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

The goal here is to encourage participation and discussion. Any aspersions cast upon a member, rather than discussion of the topic. is simply inappropriate.

My intent was not to cast aspersions on anyone, though I and others have purposely, and I think justly, cast aspersions on Ivrinel’s reasoning, or possibly lack thereof.

My intent was to withdraw from the discussion, not to indicate that Ivriniel was a troll or wasn’t. I think your statement, “Any aspersions cast upon a member, rather than discussion of the topic. is simply inappropriate.” If this was your understanding of my statement, “Is Ivriniel merely a poor arguer, or is Ivriniel a troll?”, then I apologize for posting something that could be so easily misunderstood without giving me the benefit of the doubt. Assume incompetence on my part, not malice.

Note that my final statement was, “It doesn’t matter to me as I am going to cease to feed Ivriniel.” The implied reference to the common internet advice, “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!” was intentional but, with hindsight, unfortunate.

Perhaps I should have posted instead, “It doesn’t matter to me because enough has been posted by others than myself all of which I agree with that I do not regret leaving.”

So, unexpectedly, I find myself back here again, I think, for the last time.