Who could possibly object to the contributions of such an obviously astute poster?Old_Tom_Bombadil wrote:Very nice comments, WampusCat. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Who could possibly object to the contributions of such an obviously astute poster?Old_Tom_Bombadil wrote:Very nice comments, WampusCat. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote.
Did Gandalf and Elrond know that no one could have willingly destroyed the Ring, even Frodo? I would say yes. But they didn't have a better plan but to rely on divine intervention at the critical moment. And Gandalf clearly had some sense of what could happen, since he specifically stated that the pity of Bilbo could rule the lives of many, and that Gollum would have a role to play.In Letter 181, he wrote:'Lead us not into temptation &c' is the harder and the less often considered petition. The view, in the terms of my story, is that though every event or situation has (at least) two aspects: the history and development of the individual (it is something out of which he can get good, ultimate good, for himself, or fail to do so), and the history of the world (which depends on his action for its own sake) – still there are abnormal situations in which one may be placed. 'Sacrificial' situations, I should call them: sc. positions in which the 'good' of the world depends on the behaviour of an individual in circumstances which demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal – even, it may happen (or seem, humanly speaking), demand a strength of body and mind which he does not possess: he is in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will': that is against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under the duress.
Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision. (Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.)
The Quest ⁂ was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostatized' – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a traitor, not honoured. Believe me, it was not until I read this that I had myself any idea how 'topical' such a situation might appear. It arose naturally from my 'plot' conceived in main outline in 1936.1 I did not foresee that before the tale was published we should enter a dark age in which the technique of torture and disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and the Ring and present us with the practical problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.
Did Gandalf and Elrond know that no one could have willingly destroyed the Ring, even Frodo? I would say yes. But they didn't have a better plan but to rely on divine intervention at the critical moment. And Gandalf clearly had some sense of what could happen, since he specifically stated that the pity of Bilbo could rule the lives of many, and that Gollum would have a role to play.In Letter 181, he wrote:'Lead us not into temptation &c' is the harder and the less often considered petition. The view, in the terms of my story, is that though every event or situation has (at least) two aspects: the history and development of the individual (it is something out of which he can get good, ultimate good, for himself, or fail to do so), and the history of the world (which depends on his action for its own sake) – still there are abnormal situations in which one may be placed. 'Sacrificial' situations, I should call them: sc. positions in which the 'good' of the world depends on the behaviour of an individual in circumstances which demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal – even, it may happen (or seem, humanly speaking), demand a strength of body and mind which he does not possess: he is in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will': that is against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under the duress.
Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision. (Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.)
The Quest ⁂ was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostatized' – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a traitor, not honoured. Believe me, it was not until I read this that I had myself any idea how 'topical' such a situation might appear. It arose naturally from my 'plot' conceived in main outline in 1936.1 I did not foresee that before the tale was published we should enter a dark age in which the technique of torture and disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and the Ring and present us with the practical problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.
Plus his comments about Bilbo's pity ruling the lives of many, and that his heart tells him that Gollum would have a role to play. As for knowing about the Valar and Co, I'm not sure I see the relevance, since it is not the possibility of their interference that is significance, it the possibility of Eru's interference that is significance. And I don't need to read the Silmarillion to know about Him.Frelga wrote:Unless you read the Sil, would you ever know about the Valar and Co., and the possibility of their interference? The only reference I can think of is Gandalf's remark that finding the Ring was meant to happen, which is a rather slim narrative hook.
Both the knowledge that Tolkien is Catholic, and a generally common belief in the existence of God, which I somewhat share in my own iconoclastic way. As for reference to Eru in LOTR, one need look no further than Gandalf's comments about Bilbo being meant to find the Ring ("I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker").Frelga wrote:Do you mean that you would extrapolate from knowing that Tolkien is Catholic, or from your own personal beliefs that you expect to be consistent with the world depicted in the books? Or is there a specific reference to Eru or any sort of divine creator in LOTR? It's been a while since my last reread, it's quite possible that I have forgotten.
Your last sentence is how I see it. Frankly, I think Gandalf could see the mind of God, even if it wasn't always clear to him. In that context, he had some inkling that Frodo might succeed, one way or another. I also believe that he sanctioned Frodo's sacrifice because Frodo made it willingly. He did not force Frodo to go to Mordor. Thus, he is not criminally-negligent at all. He chose a mature hobbit that knew perfectly well what he was doing. This comes through far better in the books, but is hard to accept in the form of the doe-eyed teenaged Frodo of the films.Frelga wrote:I wonder if what Tolkien wrote about his story does not sometimes contradict what is actually in the story, if he did not attempt to retcon his writings to be more in line with his religious belief as it evolved.
Based on what is in the book, Gandalf either believed that Frodo could succeed, or he was criminally negligent not just with regards to Frodo's life but in sending him where his failure would certainly result in Sauron's recovery of the Ring and the ultimate catastrophe. They'd have a better chance of success if they invested into some R&D to build a furnace that was capable of reaching sufficiently high temperatures to melt the Ring.
Based on Tolkien's other writings it appears that Gandalf's actual plan was to get as far as possible and count on divine interference to do the rest. Which, while a time-honored literary device, is somewhat unsatisfying to me.
Agreed. Unnecessary and unhelpful and irrelevant to the discussion.Alatar wrote:Nobody's talking about then movie here PdG, leave the bashing at the door.
There's also the line "May the Valar turn him aside!" spoken by one of Faramir's men (I forget which one) when the oliphaunt was rushing right towards them. I still remember the first time I read the book, not knowing anything about the Valar, and inferring from the context that it was a derogatory term for the men riding the oliphaunt. Then later, when I read the Appendices, I had to totally reframe that remark.Frelga wrote:Unless you read the Sil, would you ever know about the Valar and Co., and the possibility of their interference? The only reference I can think of is Gandalf's remark that finding the Ring was meant to happen, which is a rather slim narrative hook.