LOTR, Hope, and the Theory of Courage

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I tend to think that Tolkien established a pretty solid foundation for the background of his Istari characters as the writing of LOTR progressed.

There is a good discussion about this in The History of the Hobbit, in regards to Gandalf. Rateliff makes a pretty convincing argument that while Gandalf's powers were certainly enhanced between the writing of The Hobbit and its sequel, that from the very beginning he was "a supernatural being incarnated within the world, neither human nor mortal but very human in his behavior and character."

[solicitr]

Some of these questions are touched on in a very perceptive essay here:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... l0127.html

(which, I'll confess, is in places a bit right-wing and uberCatholic even for my tastes, but that doesn't detract from its trenchant observations on myth vs allegory, and the reflection of Higher Things.)

[solicitr]

This is something Douglas Gresham wrote about his stepfather, C S Lewis:

I think that in today's sad and dark world many people will have difficulty in believing in the real Jack. He was a man who had grown up with the thinking of the 19th century. He believed in honesty, personal responsibility, commitment, duty, courtesy, courage, chivalry and all those great qualities that society in its wisdom dispensed with in the 20th century on the grounds that they were somehow outdated, and now needs so desperately to recall and recover.

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

But no, he had to live on. He had to live and remember the failure and humiliation of claiming the ring. Is that right, humiliation? Just a little bit. To get all that way, work so hard, and then screw up at the very end? He fell short of his own inner goals. But that's often life. There's a lot of humiliation in life, if you go looking for it. If you can't accept certain limitations and truths I guess it will find you quite often. Life teaches humility or it forces humiliation. For Frodo it must have been mostly been humility, but insofar as he blamed himself for his failure at the end it was humiliation.

Would Frodo then have prefered to die on Mount Doom? I know he had to live and I know that he eventually got to go West, but if he had had the choice to live or die then, what would he have chosen? Was it really merciful to save him, knowing that he would then have to live with humiliation and failure? I suppose it was merciful, giving him the chance to heal and to see his journey and pain pay off in the end.

That's an interesting contrast you point out between Frodo and Saruman. They both fail in the end of their purposes, but Frodo doesn't really fail and, honestly, could it have ended for him any other way? Saruman failed on purpose -- it was a choice, not a doom, although I suppose that could have been part of the Music from the first. Saruman is defined by his choices and lack of humility even in humiliation. And, go tie back to my original topic in what may be a stretch, Saruman never despaired. He never called on any 'higher power' as Sam does Galadriel. He clings to himself and to his own power, while Frodo despairs in a way but is redeemed by that. To the end, when he looks to the West, still he is proud. Frodo is never proud and thus gets to go to the place that ultimately rejects Saruman.

[axordil]

It would have certainly been more merciful for Frodo to have died on Oroduin, but then he would not have been able to become the vessel through which the light shone for others, the emblem of grace, which he became. It was not for his sake that he was saved, but for the sakes of those around him...including Saruman. What Frodo really offers to Curunir is a REAL last chance, since in him the grace of God/Eru is manifest in a way the wizard can't help but see. That he fails to take it only proves the strength of his wretched pride.

[Primula Baggins]

I think it was also for Frodo's sake that he was saved. Despair makes death look easy. Tolkien's Catholic viewpoint would surely be that we have to struggle on, even in the face of the unsupportable, until God/Eru decides it's time for death. It's a singularly merciless stance, or maybe a kind of hard, high mercy I can't easily grasp. Perhaps it makes sense if what happens after death is more important than everything that came before—if what you are then is changed for the better by the suffering.

[axordil]

I think you're right, Prim, in normal cases--but by all rights Frodo and Sam should have died on the slopes of Oroduin. Every moment Frodo in particular gets after that is through grace alone.

It's not so much that Frodo despaired at that point--he had been through despair and come out the other side, to a place where, his burden gone, his inevitable fall redeemed, death would have been the nicest thing that could have happened to him. But nice and mercy aren't always the same, as you note--there is indeed a high, hard one yet to be thrown at him.

Frodo thought his purpose was to destroy the Ring and save the Shire. He was only partially correct, and (why am I stuck in a baseball analogy?) he succeeded only through the theological equivalent of a balk. His purpose was in fact not yet complete, and only through living on could he come to understand that. That knowledge was what he got out of living, out of the grace of God. Dearly bought, to be sure, but as with the rest of his quest, it wasn't done for himself.

Frodo, alone of all the characters in JRRT, goes through an annihilation of the self and emerges from it transfigured, as opposed to merely, well, annihilated.

[Alatar]

Maybe it was for Sam's sake that Frodo was saved. How could Sam have lived a full and happy life knowing he came home and his master didn't?

Just a thought.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And a good one (particularly since I had the same thought ).

[axordil]

Well, it's hard to imagine a scenario in the book where Sam comes home without Frodo. But yes, Sam was the person who most benefited from Frodo's return to the Shire.

[Primula Baggins]

I think it was a side benefit. Sam is <looks both ways for yov> ancillary in terms of the "real" story. Doesn't some part of HoMe or the appendices mention Frodo as going "alone" to Mordor? Sam was one of the resources that got Frodo to Mount Doom, like Frodo's determination to do what he'd set out to do. In story terms, he's part of Frodo.

Frodo returning from Mount Doom was good for Sam, but that isn't why Frodo lived. Sam would have recovered from losing him. Sam was tough.

[Inanna]

I think Sam had to survive.... and therefore so did Frodo have to. There is no way only one of them could have come out of Mount Doom alive...

[axordil]

Prim--

Achilles had his Patroclus.
Gilgamesh had his Enkidu.
Beowulf had his Wiglaf.

Frodo going alone was a mistake, and Tolkien knew it. Thus the course correction.

[MaidenOfTheShieldarm]

I think Sam had to survive.... and therefore so did Frodo have to. There is no way only one of them could have come out of Mount Doom alive...

I'm sure someone's going to come along and prove me wrong, but in a way I don't think Sam did have to survive. Having neither of them survive would have hit home the idea of the sacrifice and loss necessary for their task to be achieved. Sam survived and, in the end, doesn't seem like he had to sacrifice anything, although maybe that's part of a larger point I'm missing. Frodo sacrificed himself, but that sacrifice was refused in a way when he was saved and allowed to go West. It is more necessary to my mind to have Frodo survive than Sam, for the reasons that Ax stated above.

Sam was one of the resources that got Frodo to Mount Doom, like Frodo's determination to do what he'd set out to do. In story terms, he's part of Frodo.

Only one of the resources? I would argue that Sam is the resource that got Frodo there. Without Sam, Frodo's determination would have been for naught.

It's a singularly merciless stance, or maybe a kind of hard, high mercy I can't easily grasp.

That seems no mercy at all. If Frodo survives for his own sake only to go West after only a few years, would it not have made just as much sense for him to die? Even supposing that what happens after death is more important, he has suffered more than enough.

[Primula Baggins]

Sam got him tha last hard bit of the way. But neither of them would have been in Mordor at all without Frodo's resolution to go. One strength feeding into the other strength, getting both of them where they needed to be. That's why I think they can almost be considered a single, self-contained character.

As for Frodo living on in Middle-earth for a few years before going West, I think he still had things to do and to learn: the encounter with Saruman, and then the realization that home was not home for him, any more. It made him able to go on and leave the Shire.

I don't think the point is always suffering. Frodo's stay in Bag End with Sam and Rosie must have been a great comfort to Sam while it lasted.

[axordil]

Mossy--

If it were just about Frodo, you would be right. But it isn't. He gives up his life, literally and metaphorically, but instead of it being taken it is returned to him for a time, so that he can really fulfill his calling (I don't say destiny).

This is where I wished I had a searchable LOTR on a Sony reader or Kindle. OK--found it.

The key for me is the passage where Gandalf is looking over Frodo in Rivendell, after he comes to:

But to the wizard's eye there was a faint change, just a hint as it were of transparency, about him, and espeically about the left hand that lay outside upon the coverlet.
'Still that must be expected,' said Gandalf to himself. 'He is not half through yet, and to what we come in the end not even Elrond can foretell. Not to evil, I think. He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see that can.'

This is one of the Ainur thinking to himself, mind you. And what he sees is what happens. Frodo emerges from his travails transfigured. He is a living embodiment of the grace of God, which is not the same as the mercy of God. There are those who HAVE the eyes to see it--Saruman, certainly--and those who, ironically, can't--most of the Shire (a prophet in his own country, don't you know). And then there are the readers of the story...

That kind of light, especially in a glass damaged so much by the process, can't stay in Middle-earth long. THAT would be torturous. So West he goes--and there is the mercy, after he has truly done what he was meant to do to the utmost.

[Ophelia]

That kind of light, especially in a glass damaged so much by the process, can't stay in Middle-earth long.

"... too ennobled and rarified by the Great Quest," as JRR put it (with or without initial capitals). (And I've probably chosen the kind of "rarified" that refers to high altitudes, to boot).

I like your extended image of the glass being broken. I have been wondering whether the light itself glimmered again after Shelob's Lair, but your suggestion that merely the vessel that housed it is damaged, whilst sad, is oddly comforting. The light is never referred to again, as far as I remember, but the idea that Saruman, seeing Frodo's greatness (or "considerable personness," to be more accurate ), might have been seeing that light, is strangely uplifting.

And it made me decide to register.

[WampusCat]

Well met, Ophelia.

I hope you enjoy the discussion here. It's obvious you will add to it.

[Ophelia]

Well met indeed, Wampus Cat.

The Douglas Gresham quotation on this page reminds me of why I think I found the recent Beowulf film so tiresome.

(That's still about the theory of courage, at a slight stretch!)

[axordil]

On one level what it really comes down to is that Frodo is the Eärendil of his time, and just like the mariner of old, he can't really go home again. You can't be de-illuminated, as it were.

The story turns once more, and the ending is the same.

And welcome aboard, Ophelia.