LotR -- Book 4 - Chapter 10 - The Choices of Master Samwise

[Estelyn Telcontar]

We’ve reached the last chapter of Book 4, which is also the last chapter of The Two Towers – congratulations and a big thanks to all who are still with us! It begins and ends in great suspense with Frodo’s desperate fate, though he himself remains passive throughout it, first presumed dead and then known to be only unconscious. As the title reveals, this is Sam’s chapter, showing his courage and determination, but also his limits.

Sam accomplishes something that no great warrior has ever done, wounding Shelob! He takes up the tokens of Frodo’s quest – first the sword, then uses the phial which he already carries, and finally the ring. Is there any significance to the fact that he did not attempt to take the mithril vest off his master?

Again Galadriel is invoked – one of Tolkien’s Catholic revisions, perhaps, giving her more of the Virgin Mary’s function? In song, it is Varda who is called upon – both female – yet another indication of the importance of Mary in the Catholic church? I always find it interesting that a book normally thought to be rather patriarchal has its characters praying to females, rather than their male consorts/counterparts.

It’s also interesting to see that the Phial is “interactive”, apparently responding to the person or situation in which it is used.

What additional details do we learn about Shelob here, especially her weak spots?

Sam reacts with grief, then anger, then despair. Then he makes his decision – was it the right one? Later on, he doesn’t think so, but what would have been different had he stayed with Frodo? Would he have been able to save him from captivity? He shows the truth in Gandalf’s words that there’s more to a hobbit than one first thinks, rising to greatness yet remaining humble.

But you haven’t put yourself forward; you’ve been put forward… They didn’t choose themselves.

And he grows with his new task, gaining strength enough to carry the weight of the Ring.

What more do we notice about the effect of the Ring when he puts it on?

We are introduced to two orc leaders, Gorbag and Shagrat – let’s discuss their conversations and what we deduce about orcs from them.

Isn’t it funny that Gollum gets the same nickname from orcs that Sam gave him – Sneak?!

The chapter (and book) ends with the ultimate cliff-hanger, a sentence that has become one of the best-known:

Frodo was alive but taken by the Enemy.

What a brilliant closing! Can you imagine how torturous it must have been for the first readers to wait so long for the next book?!

[Celuien]

This is one of my favorite chapters.

Following up on the discussion of Shelob's fear of the Phial as opposed to Ungoliant's hunger for the Silmarils, I wonder if this reflects the continued fall of Middle Earth; even evil beings sought light in the beginning. Now they have fallen further and no longer seek it. I also find it interesting that she is vulnerable through the eye, aka the window of the soul - not sure how to follow up on this just yet.

Sam's reactions make some of the most moving portions in the book. I still find myself growing misty-eyed when I read this passage:

And for a moment he lifted up the Phial and looked down at his master, and the light burned gently now with the soft radiance of the evening-star in summer, and in that light Frodo's face was fair of hue again, pale but beautiful with an elvish beauty, as of one who has long passed the shadows. And with the bitter comfort of that last sight Sam turned and hid the light and stumbled on into the growing dark.

Gorbag and Shagrat certainly don't seem to be mindless orcs. The fact that they question the actions of the Tower would suggest to me that they are more than simply extensions of Sauron's will. I also find it interesting that while they seem to have a code of "moral" behavior, deriding the "regular elvish trick" of leaving Frodo in the pass, they don't show loyalty to Ufthak. It's as if they have an idea of right and wrong, but disregard it.

Finally, I had the cliffhanger experience when I first read this chapter. I had to take the books out of the library one at a time and The Return of the King was checked out when I was ready to pick it up! The few days I had to wait before finding out what happened next were indeed torturous. I can't imagine waiting longer.

I hope this is coherent. I'm running on sleep-deprivation mode with lots of caffeine right now. That's never a good thing...

[Kuruharan]

What additional details do we learn about Shelob here, especially her weak spots?

Apparently the best way to deal with her is to trick her into jumping onto your sword.

We are introduced to two orc leaders, Gorbag and Shagrat – let’s discuss their conversations and what we deduce about orcs from them.

One gets the idea that these two had known each other for quite some time. (Of course, this prompts one to wonder how they managed to survive the acquaintance for so long...)

Even Mordorian orcs dislike being around the Nazgul. In fact, I detect some traces of Nazgul envy. The orcs don't like serving Sauron, but they are afraid of the Free Peoples as well. Gorbag also does not believe that Sauron pays enough attention to what his orcs try to tell him. Gorbag also wants to run off somewhere and Shagrat seems to have fond memories of the past when he was out on his own. One wonders if Sauron instituted an orcish draft of some sort...

Sauron also apparently had his own version of the NKVD.

Gorbag, at any rate, does not have much trust in the word of his superiors. Gorbag also seems to have a more talkative personality than Shagrat. He also seems the more intelligent of the two. He's the one who voices many of the ideas early in the dialogue and Shagrat just makes ambiguous remarks that seem to tend toward agreement. However, Shagrat is clearly no dummy. He is observant and knowledgeable, at least as far as the area of his own command is concerned. He seems to possess a rather practical mind. Shagrat is also rather prickly about his command, a trait he shares with Ugluk. Shagrat also may have what might be a rather sunny personality for an orc (har har). Notice how he accuses Gorbag of excessive pessimism and is determined to deal with what is under his control before he starts worrying about something else.

Also note...

He sends or comes Himself

Sauron had a physical body.

[bilbo_baggins]

A single thought from one who hasn't posted on these threads before:

Isn't it a little interesting to note that even though Ungoliant and her descendants (Shelob) devour the light, that they must recoil at such baubles as the phial of Galadriel? Why do you suppose that happens?

And I really do like the occurences that happen with the orcs. Not only as Kuruharan pointed out, Sauron has a physical body, Sauron doesn't have mind-boggling powers over all his orcs, because they don't all know what he knows and don't work together completely as a team (The conversations between Shagrat and Gorbag).

bilbo_baggins

[davem]

SHELOB

Shelob is a chip off the old block in many ways: ancient, insatiable, opportunistic, loyal only to herself (though she may inadvertently aid and abet the likes of Sauron and Gollum), unrepentant and fertile. JUSt as her mother made fleeting common cause with Melkor, Sauron's master, so does Shelob's hunger inadvertently serve Sauron's ends insofar as she provi des "a more sure watch upon that ancient path into his land than any other that his skill could have provided..." (17' 424). . Shelob is as fecund as Ungoliant, breeding and then cannibalizing her broods, her appetites unchecked, her matemal instincts non-existent. Her power is made explicit: "none could rival her, Shelob the Great" (TT 423), and Gollum is drawn into worshipping her and acting as procurer for her. His plan, of course, is to feed the hobbits to Shelob in the hopes that he can retrieve the ring and ..then we'll pay Her back" (IT 423). GolIum plans to wreak revenge on the bloated matriarch. Unlike her mother, however, Shelob is speechless: we never hear her speak, though Ungoliant converses briefly with Melkor at one point in the Silmarillion . Also unlike her mother (who ..sucked up all light that she could find...until no more light could come to her abode; and she was famished" [881]), Shelob is afraid of light: the light from the Phial of Galadriel makes her feel exposed rather than hungry: Finally, unlike her mother, Shelob is oblivious to the lure of jewels or rings. Ungoliant might have swallowed the ring, but Shelob is o~livious to history and culture and to the power of the Ring, oblivious to everything but her own primal hunger "Little she knew or cared for towers, or rings, or anything devised by mind or hand, who only desired death for all others, mind and body, and for herself a glut of life, alone, swollen till the mind or hand, who only desired death for all others, mind and body, and for herself a glut of life, alone, swollen till the all hunger, with no ability to speak or reason and no transcendent values: a deliciously misogynistic conception. After Shelob emerges as a set of eyes, Frodo summons his courage and pursues Shelob, with the Phial in one hand and the spiderstabbing Sting in the other. Shelob backs doWn momentarily, allowing the hobbits to discover a "vast web." They try to hack at the web, realizing that it is their Phial that keeps Shelob at bay. They make a rent in the web and, prematurely, unag they are free.

Rowling's Aragog can be read as a revision of Tolkein's SheIob in a number of ways. One of the ways in which the gender of the authors manifests itself can be found in the differences between their most vividly portrayed arachno-monsters. Rowling transforms the dreaded monster from a female into a male; Rowling gives her spider the power of speech and logic (Aragog is not just a blind and malevolent appetite); Rowling de_eroticizes the scene of confrontation between Ihero(s) and spider; Rowling humanizes Aragog slightly by making him the patriarch of a family; most important, Rowling makes Aragog a grateful being-grateful for the empathy once shown to him by Hagrid. Whereas Shelob is able to enter into a legalistic, quid pro quo relationship with Gollum, Aragog, because of his gratitude for Hagrid's care and protectiveness toward him, has transcended his carnivorous spider's instinct and resolved never to eat Hagrid-nor to let his children eat Hagrid. Aragog is clearly Shelob's moral superior. Moreover, Aragog explains to Harry what happened fifty years ago when the Chamber of Secrets was last opened, offering a corrective to Voldemort's self-serving account of events and clearing Hagrid's name in the process. When Aragog finally gives his children permission to devour Harry and Ron, he is only acting as any conscientious parent would: prioritizing his children's best interests. But Harry and Ron never resolve to kill nrim; they seem to accept him as a denizen of the Forbidden Forest, while Tolkiel1 suggests that Shelob has been either killed by or seriously wounded in her confrontation with Frodo and Sam. ..
The spiders of Mirkwood help Bilbo conceive of himself as a worthy burglar, Shelob enables us as readers to see Frodo and Sam as independent fighters, and Harry's strength of will in the duel with Voldemort proves that Harry is an extraordinary boy. Tolkien's matrilineal family of spiders is clearly identitied as evil, although the intensity of the evil seems to attenuate with time, so that the spiders of Mirkwood are fairly tame IOmpared to their foremother Ungoliant. Juxtaposing Tolkien's she-spiders with Rowling's he-spider Aragog enables one to appreciate just bow deliciously mIsogynistic the conceptions ofUngoliant and Shelob are and just how ambivalent Tolkien is about the female body. Ungoliant and Shelob represent the dangers of unrestrained female appetites.Tolkien suggests that fecund females like Shelo't and Ungoliant are traitorous swallowers of everything from orcs to jewels to light to themselves. Rowling, by contrast, implies that actual spiders like Aragog fulfill certain positive long-term functions and simply need to be avoided if Harry Ron are to survive. The figurative spider Voldemort is Rowling's equivalent of Sauron: the ineluctable evil that both threatens the hero and enables the hero to define himself.

"Clicking its pincers menacingly": Arachnophobia, Gender, and the Transformation of the Hero in the Work of Rowling and Tolkien: ELLEN ARGYROS, (Concerning Hobbits & Other Matters)

She is, in fact, almost a parody of Sauron in certain of His aspects. Though Shelob, unlike Sauron, has no desire for slaves, willing or otherwise, and though there are hints of sexual appetite in Tolkien's presentation of Shelob, hints that appear in no other character, nonetheless the Dark lord and Shelob both serve to represent the far extreme of a single negative. The swollen, engulfing existence that Shelob desires is little different from the expanding reaches of Mordor' that the Dark Lord's destruction creates. Each brings darknch brings death. Each wishes for no other power than his or hers alone. Each is an example of appetite run amok:. "All living things" are Shelob's "food" (Tolkien, 1965aJ, and Sauron, we are told, "would devour all." What is emphasized by such statements is the sheer extent of Shelob's and Sauron's appetites, the insatiability each exemplifies. But in Tolkien's world it is not simply appetite that so moral gauge. Virtue or corruption can also be measured through the particulars of diet alone. To put it simply: baddies eat bad and the goodies eat good.
‘Eating, Devouring, Sacrifice & Ultimate Just Deserts’ Marjorie Burns. (Proceedings of the 1992 Centenery Conference)

Of course, these ideas have been discussed before - what did Shelob symbolise for Tolkien himself? Was she some kind of comment on his feelings about the ‘feminine’ - or simply about women? Or was she simply a horrific childhood memory ‘mythologised’ (‘seen through enchanted eyes’ as John Garth put it)?

Tolkien makes it clear that Shelob is not simply a big spider - she is ‘an evil thing in spider form’. In an early draft for the story we find an interesting statement:

The account of UngoIiant's retreat is largely illegible, but phra', can be read: 'She seemed... to crumple like a vast bag', 'her legs sagged, and slowly, painfully, she backed from the light away in the opening in the wall', 'gathering her strength she turned and with a last ..... Jump and a foul but already pitiable... she slipped into the hole’

CT comments:

The words 'foul but already pitiable' are read from a subsequent gloss of my father's. He gave up on the next word and wrote a q.uery about it; it may perhaps be 'scuttle'. The words 'but aIready pitiable' are notable. In TT there is no trace of the thought that Sheiob, entirely hateful and evil, denier of light and life, could ever be 'pitiable' even when defeated and hideously wounded.

I wonder whether this is more important to an understanding of what happens in this chapter as regards Shelob. Shelob is not a giant female, ‘she’ is evil made physically manifest - back to the idea of ‘incarnation’. The Light of Earendel, a ‘myth’ becomes physically real & present in this chapter, as does (& perhaps as a direct result of) the darkness of Evil being equally physically manifest. A cosmic battle between ‘Powers & Principalities’ has entered into the everyday world of Middle earth. Shelob must be an all consuming monster, unspeaking, irrational, because Evil in Middle earth is that way:

Melkor is a brutal coward, not a darkly glamorous Miltonic Satan. The more his wickedness waxes, the more his innate powers wane. By the end. he can only huddle stupidly in the dungeon throne room of his iron fortress. (The Universe According to Tolkien, Sandra Miesel)

Evil cannot be other than this monstrous negativity & so cannot be pitiable. And It is hardly fair to single out Shelob’s femaleness to make a point about Tolkien’s attitude to women, as his greatest ‘monsters’ are the two Dark Lords. Certainly Sauron & Shelob make a ‘pair’, but she is no worse than he.

More, hopefully, later.

Finally for now though, a few things that struck me in my reading of HoME. First of all, there’s the interesting idea, which Tolkien rejected, of having Gollum lead the orcs to Frodo’s body, which made me think of the obvious parallell with Judas leading the soldiers to arrest Christ. I can’t help wondering to what extent, as the story became more ‘mythological’, as Good & evil became more & more ‘solidified’ & grounded in the story, whether Tolkien had increasingly to fight against it becoming ‘allegorical’. Would such a blatantly Judas-like role for Gollum have increased the Christ-like nature of Frodo?

And a couple of questions: first, when Sam finds Frodo ‘dead’ he wishes to make a cairn over him, but can’t find enough stones.

'There were no stones for a cairn, but he rolled the only two he could find of a wieldy size one to Frodo's head and another to his feet.

Is this a primary world tradition placed in Middle earth? And does it tell us something about Hobbit funerary practices?

Second: Have we here an early reference to Sanwe in the conversation between ‘Gorbag’ & ‘Shagrat’:

, The Lords of Dushgoi have some secret f quick messages and they will get the news to Lugburz quicker than anyone you can send direct.'
...'I tell you, nearly two days ago the Night Watcher smelt something, but will you believe me it was nearly another day before they started to send a message to Lugburz.' How do they do that?' said Shagrat. 'I've often wondered.' 'I don't know and I don't want to ...'

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

And a couple of questions: first, when Sam finds Frodo ‘dead’ he wishes to make a cairn over him, but can’t find enough stones.

Is this a primary world tradition placed in Middle earth? And does it tell us something about Hobbit funerary practices?

I think it has to do more with Sam have no digging implements (what? pans?), a general reluctance to burn him (if the Hobbits are like Numenoreans, then this would be a no-no; besides, Sam wants to come back and die by Frodo's body), as well as no fuel to do so. So a cairn would seem like the most available option. Or so I read it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Isn’t it funny that Gollum gets the same nickname from orcs that Sam gave him – Sneak?!

I wondered about that when I reread this chapter, and felt that it broke the enchantment of Secondary Belief for me: it would verge on authorial intrusion (both arbitrary and artificial) for both Sam and the Orcs to just happen to use the same derogatory nickname for Gollum. Yes, it's plausible, but still out on a limb. So I reread the last page of two chapters ago, and noticed that Sam does NOT give Gollum this nickname: he accuses him of sneaking and calls him "villain" instead. It's Gollum who gives himself the name of Sneak, throwing it in Sam's face; maybe Tolkien is intimating that Gollum was more aware of the Orcs' knowledge of his presence than we might have thought, even having overheard the Orcs referring to himself.....?

[davem]

Kuruharan, I see what you mean, & I may have overstated the case - though I think there is a case to be made. Remembering Frodo on Amon Hen, caught between the Eye & the Voice, & eventually breaking through & surfacing - & feeling himself to be 'neither the Eye nor the Voice' - or something like that, I wonder about his freedom once he had accepted the task, & whether the powers that be took that into account. Did he have any freedom as far as they were concerned. I suppose one could ask whether he became not only their 'pawn' but rather the victim of 'fate', to be used for the greater 'good'. I wonder what this tells us about Tolkien's own attitude to the life & purpose of the individual. Perhaps we see Frodo's ultimate 'failure' again foreshadowed here - finally he is overwhelmed by an external power too great to be withstood. His selfhood is gradually broken down by these external powers making use of him for this 'greater good'. Yes, he agreed to take the Ring to the Fire, but did he agree in full knowledge of what he would become? He agreed to be an actor in the cosmic drama, but not a pawn in the 'game'.

But to move on...

Sam's relationship to Frodo is spelled out most strongly in this chapter. His defence of Frodo is likened to a creature defending its mate. He 'looks back' to where his life 'fell into ruin'. He desires, if he achieves the Quest, to return & die by his master. It seems Sam is like a lost soul once Frodo is gone & he has no thought of home, of Rosie, of the future. Frodo is the whole purpose of his existence & without him Sam feels life, existence, has no purpose. Even if he manages to destroy the Ring there will be no point in living.

What does this tell us about the difference between Sam & those 'powers' that are using him & Frodo? These Elves & Wizards seem to lack Sam's simple huma compassion. Perhaps this shows us why it is time for Men to take over & those powers to pass away. Yes, they will take the magic away with them, & everything will become mundane. The bright, sharp colours, tastes, smells, the extremes of light & dark, will pass from the world, but the simple love of one person for another will remain, even flourish, without all that. Sam is of the simple good green earth - its significant that he is a gardener not a 'wizard or a warrior'. He earths the Story & proclaims that simple humanity is superior to 'Fantasy'. Sam's simple love of his master is the higher virtue.

Finally, to your earlier jokey(?) comment:

Apparently the best way to deal with her is to trick her into jumping onto your sword.

Isn't that a theme that runs through the whole story - that evil si ultimately self defeating, & brings its destruction on itself. Good doesn't win out because its more powerful but because evil contains the seeds of its own destruction. Shelob defeats herself through her pride & fury. Sauron plants the seeds of his ultimate destruction by his creation of the Ring, etc....

[Kuruharan]

finally he is overwhelmed by an external power too great to be withstood. His selfhood is gradually broken down by these external powers making use of him for this 'greater good'. Yes, he agreed to take the Ring to the Fire, but did he agree in full knowledge of what he would become?

Hmm, well...that is a difficult question. Judging from some of the things Gandalf said it would appear that Frodo did not. However, Gandalf also gives the impression that Frodo would have carried on anyway.

Not all the powers working on him were working for the greater good. I still think that his acceptance of the Quest implies a degree of consent to being temporarily dominated by things like the Phial if his life and Quest were in jeopardy.

I sense much potential for discussion fodder in the Mount Doom chapter.

that evil si ultimately self defeating, & brings its destruction on itself. Good doesn't win out because its more powerful but because evil contains the seeds of its own destruction.

But since Good does not self-destruct, doesn't that make it more powerful?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Isn't that a theme that runs through the whole story - that evil si ultimately self defeating, & brings its destruction on itself. Good doesn't win out because its more powerful but because evil contains the seeds of its own destruction. Shelob defeats herself through her pride & fury. Sauron plants the seeds of his ultimate destruction by his creation of the Ring, etc....

Yes, and Melkor is ultimately defeated because he has fallen so far into his evil ways that by the end of it he cannot even leave his throne room. Thinking this way, you might soon start to wonder why anybody ever bothered challenging evil, if it was doomed to self destruct in any case. But it always needs a helping hand in order to be destroyed or defeated. Shelob does land on the point of the sword, but if Sam had not dared to place the sword there then she would have eaten him.

Frodo gazed in wonder at this marvellous gift that he had so long carried, not guessing its full worth and potency. Seldom had he remembered it on the road, until they came to Morgul Vale, and never had he used it for fear of its revealing light. Aiya Earendil Elenion Ancalima! he cried, and knew not what he had spoken; for it seemed that another voice spoke through his, clear, untroubled by the foul air of the pit.

But other potencies there are in Middle-earth, powers of night, and they are old and strong. And She that walked in the darkness had heard the Elves cry that cry far back in the deeps of time, and she had not heeded it, and it did not daunt her now.

I was interested how when Frodo speaks Shelob is not daunted. But when Sam speaks it seems to have more effect. What's the difference? Frodo appears to examine the Phial, even to use it with knowledge, as a weapon. But when Sam uses it, does he use it more innocently? It seems that the effect on Sam is to strengthen his own will, to make him more courageous; perhaps this hints at the fact that the Hobbits were not entirely under the control of another force. That would link to what I say above, that even though evil does sow the seeds of its own destruction, it still needs the courage of those who oppose it to destroy it.

As to how the Phial works, I have to admit I'm thinking along the lines of Sanwe again. The Phial is a device of Light primarily, but it is when holding it and thinking of Galadriel that the Hobbits utter their invocations. Galadriel has filled the Phial with water from her fountain, which holds the light of Earendil, and she is the bearer of the Ring of Water. If, as I have pondered on before, the Three (and the other rings too) are invested with powers of sanwe, then the Phial could also hold this power along with its powers of Light. I think that both Frodo and Sam open their minds out to the Elves/Galadriel and that she or they answer through them. Note also that the One has a reverse effect when worn, seeming to convey fear instead, the sense that the mind is open and naked.

Is it good that Good forces have such an influence on mortals? Frodo and Sam have accepted the challenge of taking this burden to Mount Doom, and yet it is also semeingly fated that they should have to do this. I like to think of them as akin to Aragorn, who also is fated to take on a burden, and who like the Hobbits accepts his burden come what may. In fact, are many of the characters we meet in LotR truly free? Many of them seem to be fated to take their part in particular circumstances. Their freedom comes in with how they deal with the situations they are thrust into. Going back again to what I said about the destruction of evil, it cannot be defeated if it is just left alone, nor can any of the characters we meet play their parts if they refuse to take part in the first place.

I think that this is part of the nature of 'stories'. What would be the point of reading about an Eowyn who made the choice of stopping home in Edoras? Or a Sam who did not snoop at open windows?

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Also notice the, well, almost providential manner in which this whole business falls out. Frodo and Sam were trapped between two large parties of orcs in unfamiliar territory with little potential for cover. They had One Ring to split between them. Chances are, had Frodo escaped Shelob unscathed, one or the other of them would have been spotted (whichever didn’t have the Ring obviously) and the Quest would have been in deep doo-doo. Instead, Frodo is poisoned and taken prisoner and Sam escapes through use of the Ring. However, Frodo is taken in the direction he was intending to go, into Mordor. Through the loot the orcs find on his body, the garrison of Cirith Ungol is destroyed, which would have been a terribly difficult obstacle for Frodo and Sam to get past had things gone otherwise.

As Kuruharan says, what happens to Frodo is ultimately a great stroke of luck. It couldn't really be otherwise or the story would turn out differently. I think where I've got to in all that I've said here is that yes, the characters are subject to fate, and yes, they must also willingly choose to follow that fate rather than stay at home with their feet up, but at the root of everything, they are indeed pawns, but they are Tolkien's pawns. I shan't say any more because that's a big hole I've climbed into.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think where I've got to in all that I've said here is that yes, the characters are subject to fate, and yes, they must also willingly choose to follow that fate rather than stay at home with their feet up, but at the root of everything, they are indeed pawns, but they are Tolkien's pawns. I shan't say any more because that's a big hole I've climbed into.

Indeed.

Your post was cause for me to change my sig.

Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said, since Lal's is the last post I've read so far, but there is one way that Evil can win over Good, and that is for Good to succumb to such vices as cowardice, pride, vanity, chosen ignorance; in a phrase, to refuse to do what it should when called upon. Authorial sovereignty? Into the big hole we go....

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

...perhaps I have lobbed a few explosives...

ha ha! "lobbed"? Surely that was on purpose?

The sexual undertones of Shelob's defeat at Sam's hands was not lost on me this time around. I found it interesting that our little hero has not lost his "sting". But where is Gollum? Hiding? Fallen? Why is he not anywhere to be found at this point, considering that he shows up again later?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

But since Good does not self-destruct, doesn't that make it more powerful?

However, good is, by its very nature, forgiving and more naturally accepting of face value than evil. It might be more endurable, in the long run, but because of this inherent tendency to forgive rather than destroy, to accept rather than question, it is doomed to eternal conflict with evil.

And, to quote Gorbag in this chapter:

But they can make mistakes, even the Top Ones can.

A caution for both good and evil leaders.

[Kuruharan]

Good also has fewer tools at its disposal since deception and trickery are out of its arsenal. However, this may be only a short term disadvantage.

[Kuruharan]

'horn', 'the arches of her legs', the 'splaying legs'

Yeah, but how else would one describe a spider? I mean, legs are their most prominent feature (the awful, wretched things).

Why would both Tolkien and Lewis choose to depict a primeval force of evil as female?

Why not? They were equal opportunity villain creators. Besides, the White Witch was not the only baddie in the Narnian world. Tash was there. I wouldn't exactly say the White Witch lost her place to him.

[Celuien]

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but what about the Galadriel/Shelob opposite pairing? Galadriel, as the lady of light, can be taken as the exact opposite of Shelob and her darkness (both female!). That could shed some "light" on Shelob's fear of the Phial and Galadriel over Earendil - it brings the two opposite halves of the pair into direct conflict. In the same way, it puts another twist on the idea that Galadriel is working through Frodo and Sam when they break into Elvish - again, are we actually seeing the opposites thrown into direct contrast?

[Guinevere]

I can’t say anything to the discussion above (never having heard about Lilith) but in general I agree very much with what Lalwendë wrote:

„This is why I do not like much literary criticism or analysis, as it seems to me that the critic is simply pulling apart a text to find what they want to find. I want to know what the author intended, I don't want to reconstruct a text for myself, for my own meaning.“

For me, this is the most dramatic, moving, heart-wrenching chapter – I remember so well how I was in tears the first time I read it. I really believed Frodo had died and I felt so much with Sam – his despair, the terrible weight of the choice he had to make, his reluctance to make up his mind resonate deeply with me. And Sam’s faithful, undemanding love for his master affects me more than any lovestory I have ever read.!
Btw Tolkien wrote in a letter to Christopher 1944 (#72):

„ …I read the last two chapters (Shelob’s lair & the Choices of Master Samwise) to C.S.Lewis on Monday morning. He approved with unusual fervour, and was actually affected to tears by the last chapter, so it seems to be keeping up.“

Perhaps because I myself hate nothing as much as making decisions, I can relate so well to Sam in this situation.

„what shall I do, what shall I do?“ „Why am I left all alone to make up my mind?“

What also strikes me in Sam’s inner debates is how he is so humble and not sure of himself, always doubting his own abilities.
When he takes the starglass he says „It’s too good for me „ and when he finally makes up his mind:

„ But I’ll be sure to go wrong: that’d be Sam Gamgee all over.“

I wonder if that is because his father has called him too often a “ninnyhammer“ etc. in his childhood?

„You fool, he isn’t dead, and your heart knew it. Don’t trust your head, Samwise, it is not the best part of you.“

he says after the shock of hearing that Frodo is still alive.and

„I got it all wrong, I knew I would.“

But instinctively he always does the right thing!
As Faramir already told him :

„ If you seem to have stumbled, I think it was fated to be so. Your heart is shrewd as well as faithful, and saw clearer than your eyes.“

I was also very intrigued by the (untranslated) Elvish invocation Sam uttered. In time I found out the meaning, but it still is mysterious how this came to be.

About the Orcs: I noticed that their style of speaking seems quite modern , as opposed to the noble speech of the Gondorians and Rohirrim.

About spiders:

...Or was she (Shelob) simply a horrific childhood memory ‘mythologised’ (‘seen through enchanted eyes’ as John Garth put it)?

I don't think so, because Tolkien wrote in a letter that though he'd been bitten by a Tarantula when very small, he didn't remember it, and had only been told about it.

I do not dislike spiders particularly , and have no urge to kill them. I usually rescue those whom I find in the bath!

Isn't that nice! That’s what I do too!

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Loved your post, Guinevere! I agree. I also found it interesting what you posted about Tolkien and spiders. I've heard over and over that it was due to his own fear of spiders that Shelob became what she was...But I think I like knowing that he didn't hate them the way I had thought!

This is one of my favorite chapters in the whole of Lord of the Rings. I still cry every time I read it. I know Frodo is not dead, but Sam's heartbroken reaction just gets me. He has to be my favorite character in all of Lord of the Rings...or if not THE favorite, very close...and this chapter is, in my opinion, his finest hour.

I love that he moved from being a character who takes a mostly-secondary role to Frodo, into a leading role here. That's certainly not to slight Frodo, or to say that I was glad that he was hurt...but it gives Sam his chance to shine. I could relate to him somewhat because I always second-guess my decisions as he does:

"'I've made up my mind,' he kept saying to himself. But he had not...'Have I got it wrong?' he muttered. 'What ought I to have done?

It amazes me that he could manage to do something that was so against his nature and everything that he'd been at all: to leave Frodo behind and take up the quest himself. (and by "against his nature" I do not mean out of character...)The hobbit who was not meant fpr great things, as he keeps telling himself, had suddenly become a do-er of great things. That's true heroism.

...(I just realized how hard it is to post on this particular topic. There's so much I want to say, but it's difficult for me to find the words to say it, and it's very frustrating for me. I'm going to take some time to gather my thoughts and maybe continue again later...*sigh*)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

I can’t say anything to the discussion above (never having heard about Lilith) but in general I agree very much with what Lalwendë wrote:

Guinevere, I enjoyed your thoughts about this chapter very much, particularly your thoughtful comments on Sam. It doesn't really matter that you don't know anything about Lilith. You can enjoy the chapter very much as it is without that layering of possibilities; in fact, you provide other, equally rich possibilities.

However, in case you are interested in other fantasy writers and in the legend of Lilith, you might want to take a look at George MacDonald's book, Lilith. MacDonald was a powerful influence on C.S. Lewis, less so on Tolkien himself, although Tolkien acknowledged him. MacDonald's interest in the imagination and fantasy anticipates that of Tolkien and Lewis. In many ways, he was a precursor. Readers don't have to know MacDonald's ideas to appreciate Tolkien's, but knowing MacDonald's thoughts on how our imagination creates meaning provides a wonderful context in which to consider Tolkien.

Tolkien mentions both MacDonald and Lilith in his famous essay, "On Fairy-Stories".

Even fairy-stories as a whole have three faces: the Mystical towards the Supernatural; the Magical towards Nature; and the Mirror of scorn and pity towards Man. The essential face of Faërie is the middle one, the Magical. But the degree in which the others appear (if at all) is variable, and may be decided by the individual story-teller. The Magical, the fairy-story, may be used as a Mirour de l'Ommen; and it may (but not so easily) be made a vehicle of Mystery. This at least is what George MacDonald attempted, achieving stories of power and beauty when he succeeded; as in The Golden Kay (which he called a fairy-tale); and even when he partly failed, as in Lilith (which he called a romance).

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, Tolkien also refers to MacDonald in his Letters. The first is in Tolkien's reply to a Letter published in the Observer and signed by "Habit".

Letter #25

As for the rest of the tale, it is, as the Habit suggests, derived from (previously digested) epic, mythology, and fairy-story -- not, however, Victorian in authorship, as a rule to which George MacDonald is the chief exception. Beowulf is among my most valued sources; though it was not consciously present to the mind in the process of writing, ....

The second is from Tolkien's long letter to Naomi Mitchison who had sent him questions as she read over page-proofs of LotR.

Letter #144

Orcs (the word is as far as I am concerned actually derived from Old English orc 'demon', but only because of its phonetic suitability) are nowhere clearly stated to be of any particular origin. But since they are servants of the Dark Power, and later of Sauron, neither of whom could, or would, produce living things, they must be 'corruptions'. They are not based on direct experience of mine; but owe, I suppose, a good deal to the goblin tradition (goblin is used as a translation in The Hobbit, where orc only occurs once, I think), especially as it appears in George MacDonald, except for the soft feet which I never believed in.

So there is Tolkien's statement on one of the imaginative influences of MacDonald, which Tolkien was later to repeat in Letter #151 to Hugh Brogan.

Your preference of goblins to orcs involves a large question and a matter of taste, and perhaps historical pedantry on my part. Personally I prefer Orcs (since these creatures are not 'goblins', not even the goblins of George MacDonald, which they do to some extent resemble).

Later, Tolkien was asked by Pantheon Books to write a preface to their edition of MacDonald's The Golden Key. According to Carpenter, Tolkien never did write the preface but "the result of his beginning work on the preface was the composition of Smith of Wootton Major, which began as a very short story to be contained within the preface". Now, there's a very tantalising bit of imaginative stimulation, particularly since it involves the question of why Tolkien wrote an allegory, a genre he did not like!

Letter #262

I should like to write a short preface to a separate edition of The Golden Key. I am not as warm an admirer of George MacDonald as C.S. Lewis was; but I do think well of this story of his. I mentioned it in my essay On Fairy-Stories...

I am not at all confident that I can produce anything worthy of the honorarium that you offer. I am not naturally attracted (in fact much the reverse) by allegory, mystical or moral. But I will do my best...

This is all by way of preface to my thoughts about Shelob. I think these passages from the Letters show that MacDonald was for Tolkien some kind of imaginative spice that went into Tolkien's own cauldron of story-soup. And that Tolkien was at least familiar with the Lilith legend as MacDonald had explored it.

I will begin by pointing out that dragons are absent from LotR, but that for Tolkien, dragons were formidable creatures of great evil. In fact, Tolkien's ground-breaking essay on Beowulf owed much to his insistence upon the profound importance of dragons in our imaginative lives. Here's a passage that bears some thinking about in terms of Shelob.

Beowulf's dragon, if one wishes really to criticize, is not to be blamed for being a dragon, but rather for not being dragon enough, plain pure fairy-story dragon. There are in the poem some vivid touches of the right kind... in which the dragon is the real worm, with a bestial life and thought of his own, but the conception, none the less, approaches draconitas rather than draco: a personification of malice, greed, destruction (the evil side of heroic life), ... Something more significant than a standard hero, a man faced with a foe more evil than any human enemy of house or realm, is before us, ...

Tolkien even reminds us of Shelob's difference from dragons and of his earlier tales of dragons, that she is even more terrible and less vulnerable than they were. Only by herself can she be beaten--as, in fact, is MacDonald's wicked Lilith overcome: she herself must open her hand to accept her death. So I think in part Shelob's attributes derive from this concept of the worm of great evil. But that concept is made much more original and unique by clothing it in traditionally conoted female attributes.

Those attributes derive from a long history of misogyny, a history which is predominate in literature of the middle ages, but not limited to that time. Most of the attributes refer to bodily functions in their most repellant aspects, such as the stench, the uncontrolled appetite, the vast breeding, the voracious feeding upon others, the despicable way they uspet man's self-control. The Lilith legend is part of this, (although, as I say, MacDonald's Lilith is not given the extensive sensory imagery which Tolkien gives Shelob, even though MacDonald's Lilith has a fearful animal form. MacDonald's Lilith is Victorian, which Tolkien's is not. The Angel in the House cast a long shadow). Tolkien I think was brilliant in clothing this legendary aspect of early literature in animal form and not in human female form, but the tradition of fear of the female body is nonetheless made available in his story.

I'm not by any means saying that Tolkien's Shelob = MacDonald's Lilith. There are great differences! Yet the concept of the loathsome, self-loving and self-serving female who describes all manner of evil self-indulgence and threat to lawful order links the two.

Why does this matter to me? What does it add to my understanding of Tolkien? It allows me to see how his ideological framework works its way out in LotR. In that ideology, the pure, beautiful, and muse-like female, worshipped on the pedastle, counterbalances the disgusting, fearful female of chaotic impulse. Does Tolkien's Shelob have to be read this way? By no means! Yet for me this supplies another layer of wonder to the richness of Tolkien's imaginative creation. This is, to me, thoroughly in keeping with Tolkien's thoughts about how the imagination gathers, chooses, combines material to bring forth new revelation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Those attributes derive from a long history of misogyny, a history which is predominate in literature of the middle ages, but not limited to that time. Most of the attributes refer to bodily functions in their most repellant aspects, such as the stench, the uncontrolled appetite, the vast breeding, the voracious feeding upon others, the despicable way they uspet man's self-control. The Lilith legend is part of this, (although, as I say, MacDonald's Lilith is not given the extensive sensory imagery which Tolkien gives Shelob, even though MacDonald's Lilith has a fearful animal form. MacDonald's Lilith is Victorian, which Tolkien's is not. The Angel in the House cast a long shadow). Tolkien I think was brilliant in clothing this legendary aspect of early literature in animal form and not in human female form, but the tradition of fear of the female body is nonetheless made available in his story.

Sort of. It has to be pointed out here that there is a strong pre-Christian tradition of the 'dark Goddess', which derives from matriarchal cultures, & has a profound mystical/psychological meaning. The Dark Goddess is a figure who presides over initiation & transformation, & her 'loathly' aspect is merely the way we encounter her in our initial confrontation. There are some very valuable insights into this tradition to be found in stories like the Hanes Taliesin in the Mabinogion, the Marriage of Sir Gawain, & the Irish tales of the Lady Sovereignty. In short, we're not dealing with simple 'mysogyny', but with an ancient tradition which has been 'spun' in large part by the political church. Its dangerous to take ancient lore & interpret it in the light of modern feminist theory. One thing that should be borne in mind is that these female archetypes, Lilith included, were either originally beautiful & became ugly, or originally ugly & became beautiful. This has nothing to do with any kind of 'punishment' or 'reward', as originally the transformations were entirely under the control of the Goddess herself. We have to keep in mind that the versions we have were originally set down in writing by the monks & scribes of the early church, who either had their own axe to grind, or simply didn't understand the meaning of the stories. There is a male equivalent in the 'wild man' figures (ie Lancelot, or Merlin in the Vita) who are originally handsome warriors, but are transformed by traumatic experiences into wild figures, running mad in the forests or wilds, unrecognisable as the persons they had been, & often 'magically' covered from head to toe in hair. Suffice to say that the principal way in which Shelob differs from Lilith, & her 'sisters' is that she has never been 'beautiful' or 'wise'. She lacks not only that aspect, but also, & most importantly, the power to change her loathly aspect. She is what she appears, & nothing more. What she lacks, principally, is 'mystery'.

Why does this matter to me? What does it add to my understanding of Tolkien? It allows me to see how his ideological framework works its way out in LotR. In that ideology, the pure, beautiful, and muse-like female, worshipped on the pedastle, counterbalances the disgusting, fearful female of chaotic impulse. Does Tolkien's Shelob have to be read this way? By no means! Yet for me this supplies another layer of wonder to the richness of Tolkien's imaginative creation. This is, to me, thoroughly in keeping with Tolkien's thoughts about how the imagination gathers, chooses, combines material to bring forth new revelation.

Of course, Shelob could be seen as the 'Shadow' of Galadriel. As Jung pointed out, the brighter the light, the darker the shadow it casts. Shelob may be interpreted as an amalgam of all the 'female' (or perhaps better, the human)aspects of Galadriel, which have been sacrificed in her 'deification'. But, at least in her LotR manifestation, Galadriel is far from a 'goddess'. She is a fallen penitent, fighting the long defeat.

It is quite possible to view Shelob/Galadriel as the light & dark aspects of the Goddess (Lilith or one of her sisters), as it is possible to see in the Gandalf/Sauron pairing the twin aspects of Odin - wandering wizard//necromancer, but this leads to confusion, in my opinion, because just as Gandalf & Sauron are autonomous figures, with histories & motivations which do not correspond in any way to the history & motivations of Odin, so Shelob & Galadriel do not partake of the myth of Lilith in any significant way.

Shelob is, first & foremost, a big monster, & the role she plays is not that of Lilith, but of the 'killer' of Frodo & the nemesis of Sam. She is made as ugly & threatening, as monstrous in every aspect, as possible - mostly, I would say, for very simple reasons - the main one being that the confrontation with her creates a magnificent climax to the Frodo/Sam/Gollum storyline. Yes, Shelob is female, but that was dictated, I think, by Ungoliant being female. Ungoliant was the manifestation of 'unlight', of the void, that which consumes & absorbs into itself all light.

But, it could be argued, that's only pushing the Shelob/Lilith 'equality' back a stage, & that it actually strengthens the argument of equivalence by 'doubling' it. Perhaps. But there is a very ancient tradition that the deity that initiates the apocalypse is female. This can be seen in the Prophecies of Merlin in Geoffrey's History of the Kings of Britain, where the Goddess 'Ariadne' 'unweaves' the cosmos she created in the beginning & takes back everything into the void. She creates (or 'weaves) all things into being at the Beginning, & destroys ('unweaves') all things at the End. So, we have both aspects of the primal Goddess manifest, the creator & the destroyer, the one who builds up & the one who breaks down. Ultimately She manifests the forces of both anabolism & catabolism. This also accounts for 'her' association with the spider.

Now, Tolkien has presented us with multiple 'light' 'goddesses', principally Elbereth & her 'avatars' Galadriel & Melian, & also with 'dark' goddesses, again principally Shelob & Ungoliant. As with Odin, these 'Light' & 'Dark' aspects are split off, & seen from that perspective both aspects lose somthing of the depth, conflict & mystery of the original archetypes, but this is what we have from the hand of Tolkien. As I said in another thread, Shelob & Galadriel (as Gandalf & Sauron) must stand by what they are within the world they inhabit. The more external, primary world, input that is necessary to elucidate them the less effective they are as characters in their own right, & the more they become cyphers or 'allegories'.

Now, it could be argued that the root cause of this 'split' was Tolkien's own attitude to death, his desire to understand & make sense of the 'gift' of death. Death becomes a problem to be solved, or at the least an ugly thing which must be explained & shown to have purpose in a universe created & ruled over by a loving God. The original myths from which the Lilith stories derive saw life & death as aspects of each other, with the Goddess standing at each 'gate', giving life & being & taking it away. Once the division of life=good & death=evil comes into play such archetypes fragment & no longer serve a useful purpose.

So, there you have it - my interminable ramblings on why Lilith isn't Shelob - which I know isn't what you claimed at all, but I'm posting it for what its worth...

[Formendacil]

A rather flippant, and to me amusing, thought occurred to me in reading this thread.

Perhaps the reason that Shelob is a she-lob (female spider) has to do with the simple fact that in nature, the female spiders are the larger and more dangerous ones, often eating their own mates.

Perhaps Galadriel was female for the same reasons: Celeborn could not be married to a male elf.

[Firefoot]

This is definitely one of my favorite chapter. I was absolutely stunned the first time I read it. After all, how could Frodo be dead? (Of course, being the fairly gullible reader I still am, I fell for it, even after Gandalf turned up alive...) Then, to my great relief, Frodo is still alive... but then what!? I was fortunate enough to have taken both TTT and RotK out from the library at the same time, but that didn't help, as the storyline switched back to the other characters to my disappointment. Anyway.

Some comments on Shagrat and Gorbag. Up until this point, there hasn't been a lot to say that Orcs are any more than basically evil beings, mostly characterized by greed, selfish ambition, cruelty, (in some cases, intelligence, though in itself this is neither good nor evil) and loyalty to his own respective (bad) side, whether Saruman, Sauron, or themselves as is the case with the Moria Orcs. Basically your ordinary, evil minions of the bad guy (very simplified, I know). In Shagrat and Gorbag, however, we see two fairly reasonable characters. Though they do exhibit a few of the aforesaid traits, all each of them is doing is looking out for his own skin. They clearly have no particular affinity for either Sauron or the Nazgûl, and even though their service is more or less willing, what they really want is to "set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads... and no big bosses." The only reason they would seem to want to win the war is because if Sauron is done for, so are they. Lalwendë's comparison (post #7) to middle-managers is a good one, I think - they don't really know what's going on, and can't really affect it, but they're concerned about it in how much it affects them. From what we can see of these two from this chapter, they seem to be of a fairly decent sort, even likable.

On to Sam. This really is Sam's chapter. We've had glimpses into Sam's character, and we have a pretty good idea of Sam's personality, but this is a great chapter. Frodo is a very passive character in this chapter, and this shifts all the light onto Sam, who has hitherto always been rather in the background, both in the writing of the story and in his own actions - after all, his whole purpose for even being there was because of his loyalty to Frodo. So now, Sam is in the limelight and we get to see him at his best, despite his honest mistake of believing Frodo dead. We are told once again that Sam does not have and has never had any real hope, but his will, determination, and loyalty are enough to keep him going. Let there be no doubt: Sam's subservience to Frodo is not because of weakness of character.

This just occurred to me: in many ways, Sam is very like to Faramir. Consider this quote of Faramir's: "War must be while we defend our lives against a destroyer that would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor." Now consider Sam. Sam is not one to go seek war and glory by victory, though not for lack of courage. His love and loyalty is to Frodo, and to defend what he thinks to be Frodo's dead body he is completely willing to take on some eighty Orcs - despite certain death to him and a failure of the Quest.