Failure and Punishment

[Lush]

...and some just luck-Shelob could've stung him instead of Frodo.

You know, it very well may be luck, but I was under the impression that these dark creatures like Shelob (and the Watcher in the Water, etc.) were constantly drawn to the Ring. Perhaps Sam's luck has to do more with not being "chosen."

Note that his characters are usually at some point shown to have failings, even Aragorn displays arrogance at Edoras, Gandalf is sarcastic, Sam has a bad temper, Galadriel has a lust for power....

... Eowyn is suicidal, and even characters who are seemingly so simply drawn (well, in comparison to some of the other ones, I personally love our elf-boy, but I'm easy like that) i.e. Legolas and Gimli, have issues of prejudice they need to initially deal with.

So having Frodo 'fail' in fact elevates him.

You know, I never thought about it this way, but now that you mention it, it makes perfect sense. Stylistically, Frodo is a better character for this. Also, there is something about the proceedings at Mt. Doom that make me love him, really love him, in a way that the events leading up to the climax do not. It might have something to do with the fact that I've always taken issue with the way that Frodo and Sam speak to each other - and have been tempted to skim their storylines as the result. But Frodo's "failure" at Mt. Doom really casts their banter, their individual character quirks, in a whole new light.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

To treat them separately, to interpret one while disregarding the other, doesn't, Imo, do justice. We may be free to do so, but, at least nowadays, I believe it amounts to an argument from willful ignorance.

I don't think that anyone is seeking to argue that the events described in LotR should not be interpreted in the light of the history relayed in the Silmarillion (although there is, I suppose, an issue over the extent to which the published version reflects Tolkiens true intentions, but that's another debate). Even though I first read LotR without gaining (or needing to gain) any understanding of Eru and his role in the story, I fully accept, having read the Silmarillion, his place as the fictional God of a fictional world. But it does not follow from that that Hobbits were necessarily particularly religious beings, nor that they had any solid understanding, or awareness even, of this God.

However, going back to the original question, I don't see why the concept of "sin" should not exist in Middle-earth, simply because there was no formalised religion. In a world where good and evil exist not just as concepts, but as well delineated causes, it is perfectly possible for its inhabitants to act in a way which we would describe as "sinful", ie contrary to the cause of good. And it is equally possible for them to judge what is a "sin", whether or not they would use that precise word, and whether or not they have any conception of the deity who is the source of good.

So, yes, I would say that, regardless of their state of religious awareness, Hobbits would be able to perceive, and indeed commit, "sin". But, no, I would not say that Frodo "sinned". He may, as I have said, have acted in folly and displayed poor judgement at times (as do almost all of the characters), but he did not sin. Even at Sammath Naur, he had, as Tolkien makes clear in his Letters, achieved all that was, or could ever have been, expected of him. He was overwhelmed by an external, evil force which neither he nor anyone else in Middle-earth (Bombadil excepted) had the power to resist - even Gandalf feared succumbing to the Ring's evil. If it was a "failure", it was a blameless one, but it was not a "sin". Only a cruel, merciless and uncompassionate God could have considered it as such, and Eru is most certainly not portrayed in those terms.

It follows that Frodo deserved no punishment for his actions. Such folly as he may have committed is vastly outweighed by his achievement. And, quite rightly in my view, he received no punishment from those on the side of good, whether that be Eru or anyone else. He may have felt grief, regret and loss, but those feelings were self-imposed, and the only other torments that he suffered where inflicted on him by the agents of evil. From the good, he received only compassion and the opportunity to find healing in Aman - a just reward for his efforts.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by last section of The Council of Elrond

No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but the were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.

'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'

What a strange phrasing that bolded part is! Who or what is it in LotR that is said to use a dominating will?

As we read this passage, for just the slightest time, there is the possibility that the Ring has called to Frodo and prompted his offer. However much we come to understand that Frodo voluntarily took up the task that is appointed for [him]--as Elrond sententiously describes it--there is this frission of fear that the Ring has already begun to work its will upon Frodo.

To dismiss this potential guess and flat out say, no question, this is Eru here is to miss this subtle suggestion of the Ring's sway. It is no more than a passing possibility, but nonetheless it is a possibilty that increases the tension of the text.

One of the ways in which Evil is made so powerful and dominant in the story is by means such as this, where we do not always know at the time which way the moral balance falls.

btw, SpM, I did point out that philosophically 'sin' would fit. However, I still believe that in our primary world the word is freighted with such weight of, as I said, loathesome depravity and disgusting wickedness, that its tone is out of place in the sub-created world.

[Farael]

Well, here are my two cents.

I was going to write something about my perspective on Christianity on LoTR, but it was leaning my whole post far from what I actually wanted to say.

It has been proposed so far that Frodo was punished by his shortcomings, that he was punished by his sins, but the way I see it, he was not punished at all. What happened to Frodo IMO (and I think Bethberry has hinted at it already) is not punishment but rather he was marred by his confrontation with evil (Is marred the proper word to use? please someone get back to me on that). That is a common theme that we see all through The Si-il and LoTR. Those who stand up to face evil, come out unharmed. Even when in the end they have grown "greater" and "wiser" it is so through much pain and peril, and I think none of the characters is wholly unmarred after the experience.

So, I have to agree with SpM. Frodo's change is not due to the powers of "good"... it is because of the powers of "evil", and their skill to corrupt all that they come in contact with. Even if this 'contact' is fighting against them.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

btw, SpM, I did point out that philosophically 'sin' would fit. However, I still believe that in our primary world the word is freighted with such weight of, as I said, loathesome depravity and disgusting wickedness, that its tone is out of place in the sub-created world.

Actually, I would hold to the opposite view. In Middle-earth, good and evil are pretty well-defined. In almost every situation which Tolkien portrays, the good guys are opposed to the evil guys, and there is generally little difficulty in identifying which side any particular individual falls on. Anything that is done to further the cause of the good guys may be categorised as good, and therefore virtuous. Anything done to further the cause of the evil guys is evil, a transgression of good and so a sin. For the reader, at least, it is generally fairly easy to tell which is which.

Not so in the real world, at least to one such as I with no strong religious conviction. Transgressions, such as theft and even murder, are not necessarily attributable to evil, but have circumstantial causes or contributing factors – poverty, addiction, childhood abuse etc. Although they may be crimes in the legal sense, there may be said to be mitigating factors, from both a legal and a moral perspective. Those who were at one time considered terrorists latterly become labelled as freedom-fighters, world statesman or founding fathers. I therefore, would find it much easier to categorise a transgression as a “sin” in Middle-earth than I would in the real world.

That said, acts do occur in Tolkien’s tales which might be regarded as transgressions, but which are committed with good intentions or have a good outcome. I have in mind, for example, Bilbo’s “theft” of the Arkenstone and Eowyn’s disobedience to Theoden. Both of these acts have good, indeed essential, outcomes, yet they might strictly be regarded as “sins”. Both Bilbo and Eowyn are wounded for their troubles (Eowyn almost fatally so). Does this represent “punishment” for their “sins”? If so, it is fleeting, since ultimately, both are rewarded. Bilbo is forgiven by Thorin and gains his fair share of Smaug’s horde. Eowyn’s feelings for Aragorn are replaced with stronger feelings for Faramir, whom she meets while healing from her wound. I am sure that there are a number of other, similar examples.

Are these transgressions against “absolute moral truths” or exceptions to them? If the former, do they deserve greater punishment or are the outcomes just? If the latter, how are the peoples of Middle-earth to judge what is acceptable and what is not? By the intentions of those committing them? By the outcome? Or does this introduce an element of moral relativity to Middle-earth?

And where does this leave poor old Turin, whose intentions throughout were mostly good, but whose acts generally led only to doom and disaster, both for himself and for any others whose paths he crossed?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I therefore, would find it much easier to categorise a transgression as a “sin” in Middle-earth than I would in the real world.

You obviously do more loyering in Britain-land than watching American televangelists. And it is the appalling, abject, humiliating contemptibleness which they apply to the word 'sin' which is/would be so out of place in Middle-earth, despite as you say the moral universe it entails. Despite his characters' errors and mistakes, Tolkien never denies them dignity. Not even poor old Lobelia. Or, I would even argue, pathetic Wormtongue and Saruman himself.

Originally Posted by SpM

And where does this leave poor old Turin, whose intentions throughout were mostly good, but whose acts generally led only to doom and disaster, both for himself and for any others whose paths he crossed?

Well, where does it leave one of the prime tragic heroes he ressembles, Oedipus?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by SpM

Are these transgressions against “absolute moral truths” or exceptions to them?

I think that the quote I gave previously on post #6 applies in these cases; a deed is not a sin, depending on the intention of the doer. While the case of Eowyn, as depicted in LotR, may seem a little morally ambiguous, or at least more so than Bilbo's, in the HoME XII version of the Tale of Years, credit is given too to her love of her father:

Originally Posted by 3018

She for love of the King rode in disguise with the Rohirrim and was with him when he fell.

Originally Posted by Beth

And it is the appalling, abject, humiliating contemptibleness which they apply to the word 'sin' which is/would be so out of place in Middle-earth, despite as you say the moral universe it entails.

Then again, even in LotR we have Frodo all to eager to deal death to Gollum for his wicked deeds, something which Gandalf thoroughly disapproves. Although Frodo is far more likeable than his real world counterparts, in both realms we find opinions which are extremely ..."unchristian", if I may say so; good enough that there are other points of referrence - Gandalf in the books, and true (as in positive) spiritual teachings, in our world. And may I note that Frodo changed deeply from the time of the "Shadow of the Past "to the time when it became crystal clear that Gollum will rob him (about "Mount Doom"); he spared Gollum's life, against what would seem better judgement, which defines true pity.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Lal

Note that his characters are usually at some point shown to have failings . . . Gandalf is sarcastic . . .

So sarcasm is a fault? I'd rather see it as a nautral thing, just one type of humour. (Disclaimer: That was not sarcasm... and this is not either... nor this...nor that... and so on... )

I previously thought the word "sin" should not be applied to ME, since it's so strongly tied with Christianity and the Christian God. But, yesterday, while reading, I came across this (and I swear it was pure chance): Sam says: "It's a sin to wake you, Mr Frodo." (The Great River, FotR) Now, there's the tiny chance I'm mistaken since my copy was in Finnish and I forgot to check from the English one, but I don't see why any other word than "sin" should have been translated as "synti" (the Finnish word), since "synti" is as biblical as "sin".

Now, if the characters in the LotR use the word "sin", is there any reason for us not to use it when describing them and their actions? Yet, I interpret Sam's words not as "it's against God/Eru to wake you" but as "it's a horrible deed to wake you" where the word "sin" is used as a synonym of "horrible deed" rather than as a biblical term.

So, what was my point? I'm not sure anymore.

[Raynor]

My english version reads "it's a shame to wake you"; but even if it were sin, I don't think it would have been relevant to our discussion in this context, as you have pointed out.

[littlemanpoet]

from the last section of The Council of Elrond

No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but the were not turned to him. All the Council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell on him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.

'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What a strange phrasing that bolded part is! Who or what is it in LotR that is said to use a dominating will?

As we read this passage, for just the slightest time, there is the possibility that the Ring has called to Frodo and prompted his offer. However much we come to understand that Frodo voluntarily took up the task that is appointed for [him]--as Elrond sententiously describes it--there is this frission of fear that the Ring has already begun to work its will upon Frodo.

To dismiss this potential guess and flat out say, no question, this is Eru here is to miss this subtle suggestion of the Ring's sway. It is no more than a passing possibility, but nonetheless it is a possibilty that increases the tension of the text.

One of the ways in which Evil is made so powerful and dominant in the story is by means such as this, where we do not always know at the time which way the moral balance falls.

Hmm.... Hmmmm....! Well now.... Hroom hoom, even...! It's just that the Ring is not in the habit of 'pronouncing some doom long foreseen'. It's not just a "dominating will", but one that rules; for it is a ruler that pronounces dooms, not a lord of rings. And sententious or not, Elrond is one of Tolkien's "truth speakers" in LotR. So there is a real appointing going on, and not by any Elves, not even by Gandalf.

The passage has the character of a hard task appointed being reluctantly accepted. In fact, Frodo wishes with all his might to stay at Rivendell, the implication being that someone else can take the Ring to Mount Doom. So no, I don't dismiss your potential reading, Bêthberry; rather, considering the way the context of the passage reads, I just don't buy it. The passage shows that this is not the Ring at all, which, if it could speak, would most likely be trying to get Frodo to flee with the Ring from all these VIPs. The only possibility is that the Ring is, perhaps, trying to get the weak Frodo to go in the general direction of where the Lord is. But that's at the most. And even if one allows for that, there's still the greater will that is pronouncing a doom, appointing a ringbearer, and Frodo is both bound by destiny and free to accept that destiny, and does so. So in my opinion it doesn't so much increase the tension of the text as flout the context. Sorry.

[Raynor]

I agree with lmp's interpretation. In the Shadow of the Past, Gandalf says that:

I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_to find the Ring, and _not_ by its maker. In which case you also were _meant_to have it.

So someone else was at work, meaning for Bilbo to find the ring and Frodo to have it; I think it is only natural to presume that this someone (who is not the ring maker, directly or indirectly I might add) also wanted Frodo to carry the ring to Mount Doom. If so many people were strangely summoned to the Council, how come no other stood up to carry the ring? It seems to me that all of them where searching inside, but none found the calling - save Frodo. Not even Boromir, who was probably the most susceptible to the ring's corruption, is not enticed, for better or for worse, to take it at that moment.

[Lush]

In Middle-earth, good and evil are pretty well-defined. In almost every situation which Tolkien portrays, the good guys are opposed to the evil guys, and there is generally little difficulty in identifying which side any particular individual falls on. Anything that is done to further the cause of the good guys may be categorised as good, and therefore virtuous. Anything done to further the cause of the evil guys is evil, a transgression of good and so a sin. For the reader, at least, it is generally fairly easy to tell which is which.

But this is why I like Gollum; because his character challenges and complicates this structure. In my opinion, he does this more so than Bilbo and Eowyn. Of course, he's never really as "good" as either of the two, but there are moments that disclose his capacity for being good. And whether or not he is punished when he dies in the end is also something worth pondering...

[Aiwendil]

Lush wrote:

But this is why I like Gollum; because his character challenges and complicates this structure. In my opinion, he does this more so than Bilbo and Eowyn. Of course, he's never really as "good" as either of the two, but there are moments that disclose his capacity for being good. And whether or not he is punished when he dies in the end is also something worth pondering...

This is true; I also like Gollum for this reason. And another example of a morally ambiguous Tolkien character is my personal favourite - Turin.

But, to utter my catch phrase, there's a distinction we ought to make. To say that Tolkien's characters are often morally ambiguous is a very different thing from saying that Tolkien's world is morally ambiguous. Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct. There is never any question of what ends should, morally speaking, be sought, though there is often some question concerning, first, how best to go about achieving those ends, and, second, whether a particular character will in the event seek that end or not.

[Raynor]

Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct.

If I may be so bold to say, they are mixed in all people:

Originally Posted by Letter #212

The Fall or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. Trees may 'go bad' as in the Old Forest; Elves may turn into Orcs, and if this required the special perversive malice of Morgoth, still Elves themselves could do evil deeds. Even the 'good' Valar as inhabiting the World could at least err

Originally Posted by Letter #183

I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.

[Thinlómien]

Morally ambiguous? What about one of my favourites, Maedhros? When you think of it, there are actually more of these characters than you first think there are.

Originally Posted by Raynor

My english version reads "it's a shame to wake you"

So maybe the Finnish translator is trying to promote Christian agenda?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

To say that Tolkien's characters are often morally ambiguous is a very different thing from saying that Tolkien's world is morally ambiguous. Good and evil may be mixed in certain people, but good and evil themselves are always well-defined and distinct. There is never any question of what ends should, morally speaking, be sought, though there is often some question concerning, first, how best to go about achieving those ends, and, second, whether a particular character will in the event seek that end or not.

This is a very good point, and it elaborates on what I was trying to say in my previous post. While there are morally ambiguous characters in Tolkien’s world, the world itself is not morally ambiguous. It is generally fairly straightforward to tell when a character is acting in the cause of good and when he or she is acting in the cause of evil. Boromir, for example, acts in the cause of good by joining the Fellowship and contributing towards its goal, yet acts in the cause of evil (assisted by the seductive wiles of the Ring) when he assaults Frodo. Subsequently, he redeems himself by acting again in the cause of good, when he gives his life attempting to protect Merry and Pippin and makes his deathbed confession to Aragorn.

Gollum is an interesting case in point, since his motives are mixed at one and the same time. He acts both in the cause of good (by guiding Frodo and Sam towards Mordor) and in the cause of evil (by luring them to Shelob’s lair). His intentions are both good (he willingly serves Frodo) and evil (he wants the Ring for himself). He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions? It was, of course, his final act which brought about the destruction of the Ring, albeit unwittingly so.

In my earlier post, however, I was particularly interested in the actions of those characters who are not generally considered to be morally ambiguous. Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good. Where do these acts fit within the moral framework of Tolkien’s world?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I think that the quote I gave previously on post #6 applies in these cases; a deed is not a sin, depending on the intention of the doer.

Originally Posted by Raynor quoting 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.

I am not sure that Bilbo was consciously serving Eru when he stole the Arkenstone, nor that Eowyn was doing so when she disobeyed Theoden. Might it not better be said that acts are not sinful when committed with good intentions? Given that Eru is the source of good, it has much the same meaning, but admits scope for good acts by those who are broadly unaware of the existence of Eru.

However, there is a problem. If wrongful acts may be committed, provided that they are committed with the intention of furthering the cause of good, does this not open up the scope for a philosophy whereby the end may be seen as justifying the means? And is that not how Saruman started off down his wrongful path? He genuinely considered what he was doing was for the greater good and that that end was justified by the means that he used. It might even be said that he did his best as he saw it with the conscious intent of fulfilling his mission to defeat Sauron and thereby serving Eru. Yet, he was misguided.

[Raynor]

He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions?

Apparently, Tolkien too can't clame ultimate insight:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good.

I don't think that anyone can judge with "horse spectacles". What is good and evil certainly has a bit of flexibility and it depends, as I quoted above, on the level we consider things. Anyway, we certainly have to make a decision between two evils at a certain time, and chose the lesser one, sort of speaking; and refusing to chose in such a situation would probably be the greater evil of all. Bilbo had to choose between letting things move their way or trying to improve the situation as he best saw fit, in the name of what he genuinely believe was a general good - and he did so with an amount of positive, self sacrifice, which I believe is an ultimate redemption on his part. In the case of Eowyn I don't know how much we can enquire; her desire to die is somewhat more evident in LotR than her love for her father (as said in HoME).

If wrongful acts may be committed, provided that they are committed with the intention of furthering the cause of good, does this not open up the scope for a philosophy whereby the end may be seen as justifying the means?

Now, while end justifying the means is one of the main pillars of consequentialism, I don't think that this is what I initially argued for. On earth, each and every possible law can be interpreted in more than one way - depending on the interpreter. But I believe that the only valid judgement on sin resides with God (or well, Eru in our debate), and he will take into consideration the true intention of the doer, regardless of what the doer might argue he was working for.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

In my earlier post, however, I was particularly interested in the actions of those characters who are not generally considered to be morally ambiguous. Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good. Where do these acts fit within the moral framework of Tolkien’s world?

Perhaps it is helpful to consider that the moral framework of Tolkien's world partakes of Northern sensibilities every bit as much as Catholic. By that I mean that loyalty, even in secret disobedience of a positive command, is considered to be truer than the obedience of remaining at home and not with one's lord. This would be the case of Eowyn. I'm not sure that I have sufficiently described in what way this is particularly Northern, as I'm floating a conjecture, but it seems to best fit the situation.

Bilbo's case could be considered equivalent to a small army at war in which a spy or burglar is considered to be held to his contract to the side he is allied with rather than to the moral code that war sets aside by virtue of its nature.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

This is a phenomenal discussion, among the best I've seen on the Downs, which is saying a lot.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Gollum is an interesting case in point, since his motives are mixed at one and the same time. He acts both in the cause of good (by guiding Frodo and Sam towards Mordor) and in the cause of evil (by luring them to Shelob’s lair). His intentions are both good (he willingly serves Frodo) and evil (he wants the Ring for himself). He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions? It was, of course, his final act which brought about the destruction of the Ring, albeit unwittingly so.

Well, Gollum does have mixed motives at times, but the evil wins out over the good, certainly in his conversation with himself, and also in Sam's roughness outside Torech Ungol. I don't think we can say he deserves to be rewarded because the good sometimes fought with the bad within him. When he leads Frodo and Sam to Mordor, he accomplishes a good deed, but he does it with the wrong motives. Same thing with the destruction of the Ring at Sammath Naur, though there obviously wasn't much of a moral conflict by that point. And as the quote above shows, Tolkien makes it abundantly clear that Gollum's being the agent of divine providence does not make him innocent.

[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.

[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.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

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.

Movies focus on him in the end only. On not getting credit in the Shire, you can consider it another way too: He had grown beyond any Hobbit/Human stature and become something like Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond. Shire-folk kind of detested Gandalf and didn't care much of the Elves. They didn't realize the big picture, this was better for them. Frodo's fading from the mortal world made him more susceptible to the spiritual world. That, IMHO, isn't a punishment, but a reward.

[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.