Book 1, Chap. 2: The Shadow of the Past

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ax, I don't want to go too far down this road now, but I don't think there is any question that Frodo had already "fallen" somewhat long before reaching the Cracks of Doom.

[solicitr]

As to the chapter generally: How well does Tolkien succeed, after the suburban comedy of Ch 1, in suddenly presenting the reader with a huge Gandalfian info-dump, which also opens the window onto a world of depth and grandeur never hinted at previously, certainly not in The Hobbit?

[Primula Baggins]

This reader always thought that was exciting. For the first time we understand the depth of the danger, and the size of this world, and realize that the many pages still to come are going to take us well beyond the Shire not just geographically but in every other way.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Primula Baggins]

There are info dumps and info dumps, too, and Tolkien does it brilliantly, for my money. However much we learn, there is always the sense that much more is not being mentioned—there's always something dangling, unexplained, to pull us into the story and pull us onward.

The incredible depth of Tolkien's universe makes this easy in a way—he actually knows the things he isn't telling us, and some of them we learn later—but it's still a bravura example of How to Do It Right.

In a poor info dump the writer gives everything he knows, all in a dry lump; at the end the reader has no more questions. And questions are the only reason I turn the page.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[axordil]

Does anyone else note a hint of the Socratic in the Frodo/Gandalf conversation, with Frodo stuck as Glaucon?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I still have a few more things to say about this chapter, and I'm sure some others do, too. I think I'll give it a few more days before starting a new thread for the next chapter.

[Folca]

Folca, I must disagree. I think Gandalf did refer to capital punishment here: "death in judgement," killing someone not to immediately defend oneself or anyone else, or to prevent future harm, but as punishment for the past. No, Gandalf has no problem with killing, but not killing in cold blood and essentially for revenge. Punishment is not for us to decide; we have to act within the time and given the choices we have from moment to moment.

First of all, I apologize for being so late in re-joining the discussion. I moved and am still attempting to get settled.

Primula, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Hidden by the ring or not, Gollum was just a great a threat to Bilbo's life at the moment he decided not to kill him. I interpret Gandalf's statement about "death in judgement" not so much as death punishment but as acting out of prejudice. I don't interpret LOTR as containing an anti-capital punishment statement, but there are examples of kindness and mercy to the point of the victimization of those who meant well or were innocent: Gollum's betrayal of Frodo's trust and kindness, Grima Wormtongue's failure to make amends for his behavior in Rohan and perpetuating even more evil in the Shire despite being given a second chance through exile instead of death for his treasons. There is a point in which an individual can be determined a threat to society just by existing. I believe strongly that each of us should be allowed to choose our own path, but there must be consequences, good or bad, for each decision. As it is, if I have a choice, I don't give people the leeway to take advantage of me or anyone else if I am in a position to prevent it. I routinely deal with poeple who are just as unthinkingly viscious as orcs, just as malicious as Gollum. There is a place for capitol punishment in this world, especially if it prevents further lists of victims from similar crimes by the same individuals.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Folca, welcome back! I hope your move has gone smoothly, and that you quickly settle into your new place.

I'm afraid I think you rather miss Tolkien's point. I think you read Gandalf's words closely, it is clear what he is saying:

"No, and I don't want to," said Frodo. I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least.

Gandalf's statement is not a warning to not act out of prejudice. He says straight out that Gollum "deserves" death, but that he still should not be put to death. Why? The key to answering that question is in the statement that those who deserve life can not be given that. What he is saying here is that it is not the place of mortals to play God. I know that many wish to deny LOTR's religious overtones, but in some places it simply is undeniable, and this is one. Gandalf says that "even the very wise cannot see all ends." Only the One can see all ends. But Gandalf can see enough to recognize that Gollum is "bound up with the fate of the Ring." But in the end isn't just Bilbo's pity (and mercy) that rules the fate of many - it is Frodo's.

You cite "Gollum's betrayal of Frodo's trust and kindness" as an example of "kindness and mercy to the point of the victimization of those who meant well or were innocent." And yet Tolkien makes it abundantly clear that it is Frodo's willingness to show pity and mercy to Gollum even after his betrayal of Frodo's trust and kindness that leads to Frodo being granted the Grace that allows him to complete his otherwise impossible task in the end.

But I digress. Even without getting of ahead of things and looking to the climax of the story, it is evident from reading Gandalf's actual words that he is saying that even those who "deserve" death should not be put to death. In other words, no capital punishment.

[Athrabeth]

I don't interpret LOTR as containing an anti-capital punishment statement

Even without getting of ahead of things and looking to the climax of the story, it is evident from reading Gandalf's actual words that he is saying that even those who "deserve" death should not be put to death. In other words, no capital punishment.

I agree with you, Voronwë. The theme is revisited throughout the book, ending with Frodo sparing Saruman. In LOTR, "death in judgement" is never dealt out by "the Wise" or truly "just", despite the very real risks and potentially disastrous consequences that are at stake.

(And thanks for waiting......I finally have some time to add my thoughts on this chapter, and will post them soon!).

[River]

In a weird way, Frodo's mercy towards Gollum did pay off. Frodo spared Gollum. And, in the end, whether he intended to or not, Gollum saved the quest.

[Folca]

Point taken. It is undeniable that I have been filtering the text through my own personal beliefs too much. I don't believe in a "god" that cares one whit what happens to the individual, so based on my personal and professional experiences, I have no qualms with society removing internal threats premanently. But it appears that I have misinterpreted Tolkien's intended meaning. Good food for thought and thanks for calling me out on the carpet!!

[Athrabeth]

I don't believe in a "god" that cares one whit what happens to the individual, so based on my personal and professional experiences, I have no qualms with society removing internal threats permanently

.

I, too, don't believe in a god that cares what happens to the individual, but I believe strongly in those words. I guess I see a humaneness in them, a kind of compassionate logic that just, for whatever reason, seems "right and proper" to me.

It is undeniable that I have been filtering the text through my own personal beliefs too much.

I think we all do that, Folca. I don't think the book would resonate so strongly for such a diverse readership if it had to be viewed one way. That's why these discussions are always worthwhile and that's also why it's good to have you here.

And now.....getting back to the said discussion, I'm late (as usual) but have thoroughly enjoyed reading the many thoughts and insights that have been shared here. For what they're worth, here are some of mine.

I actually see the first two chapters more like one continuous unit, just because of the way they're constructed. I like how Tolkien uses distinctly parallel structures in both chapters' opening scenes. In “A Long Expected Party”, it is the older generation represented by Hamfast Gamgee and Sandyman the Miller talking about the “goings on” in their safely limited and hemmed-in little corner of Middle-earth (both physically and historically). In “A Shadow of the Past”, it is their sons, Samwise and Ted, who are at the center of a discussion that reveals rather more distant edges of the Shire, north to the Moors and west to the Sea. And dark things are brewing on “the outside”. It’s like Tolkien is already beginning to steadily draw us further and further back from a central point so that we can begin to see the possible “beyonds” that are waiting for us.

In the first chapter, the outside world seems to be just part of the baggage that the decidedly different and “queer” Bilbo Baggins brought back after his questionable adventure, only to be buried, like his reported treasure, in the vaults of “rural legend.”. Nearly twenty years later, the outside world is pushing into the Shire with increasing intensity, but the meaning behind the rumours and migrations continues to be lost on those who still trust that the “white spaces” beyond the borders of their maps (as Tolkien wrote in “The Hobbit”) are nothing really worth considering. Even the names of the respective inns in both chapters seem to highlight the progression of time and circumstances reflected in the two conversations - “The Ivy Bush” sounding every bit as comfortable and familiar as the pastoral world of the Shire and “The Green Dragon” hinting at the almost mythical qualities of a greater, more dangerous, and far more ancient world beyond its borders.

I like how the voice of hobbit reasonableness is first given to the Gaffer and then to Sam, challenging the unpleasant close-mindedness of the miller and his son. I especially like the sound of Sam’s voice – I always have. My “reader’s ear” hears it speaking in a broad, rustic Devon dialect (although I’m more than sure that there are many who hear it quite differently): “Queer things you do hear these days, to be sure......And I’ve heard tell that Elves are moving west. They do say they are going to the harbours, out away beyond the White Towers”.
Good old Sam.
For me, it is his voice in this chapter that so poignantly sets the underlying tone of the entire tale. “They are sailing, sailing, sailing over the Sea, they are going into the West and leaving us.” Those words, from the very first time I read them, felt so deeply moving, so mysteriously sad. I think that long, long before I entered Imladris, or walked in Lothlórien, or watched the white ship sail from the Havens, Sam was telling me that this would be a story of passings and farewells.

It is in the study of Bag End on a bright spring morning that the narrative begins to change, when the story shifts from the relatively remote “over the shoulder” style Tolkien adopted for the initial pages of the tale to a more “Frodocentric” perspective. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly where this happens, but some of my old notes pencilled down the margins next to the Ring Verse read, “story shifts – new perspective – we’re hobbits now!” (I think that was when I was reading along with Teremia's thread over on TORC, but hadn't worked up the gumption to post anything. I have a copy of LOTR that's riddled with barely decodable musings from that discussion). I find it intriguing that when the Ring's true nature is revealed, we don’t just read about Frodo’s thoughts and feelings any more, we begin experience them…..and the first ones, aptly enough, are centred on increasing dread: “Frodo sat silent and motionless. Fear seemed to stretch out a vast hand, like a dark cloud rising in the East and looming up to engulf him.”

It’s a subtle shift, really, but an essential one. We, the readers, have to become hobbits so that we can get pulled out of the Shire and introduced to the wonders and perils, cultures and histories of Middle-earth as real and tangible things. They have to matter, they have to resonate, they must be true. When Gandalf begins to answer Frodo’s question, “How on earth did it come to me?”, if we listen “as Frodo” we can feel the weight and urgency of the wizard’s words; we can sense Frodo’s swirl of confusion and anger, the waves of disgust, the mounting desperation, even that secret yearning for adventure. The extraordinarily long and detailed back story related by Gandalf is so utterly compelling precisely because it’s aimed right at us, sitting in that room by the fire.

It’s interesting to me that Tolkien chose to keep Bilbo’s inner workings out of our range in the first chapter, especially after writing so intimately about him in “The Hobbit”. I read with interest the posts in the previous chapter’s discussion that were sparked by Cerin’s thoughts about Bilbo giving up the Ring. What happens is duly related to us – we “see” his hand jerk back, but why? What are his thoughts? What is his sense of what’s happening? As the discussion revealed, that final “disconnect” at the mantelpiece is certainly open to interpretation. Perhaps it was Tolkien’s intention to show providential intervention in the tale at this point, but to me, because the scene is related (as is the entire chapter) from a remote point of view, it couldn’t really be portrayed any other way. As Tolkien continues to tie similar scenes from the first chapter to the second, it becomes extremely effective to have Bilbo’s strange actions echoed by Frodo, but this time with another dimension added to those ominous compulsions – Frodo’s sense of them……and his sense of the Ring.

I think the most revealing and important passage about the Ring is offered to us through Frodo in this chapter. Over many readings, it never really stood out as more than just another one of those “unsettling”, perhaps even "foreboding" moments of the tale, but recently, I’ve grown to appreciate how…….well, I’m going to gush here…….how brilliantly Tolkien describes what Frodo sees as he gazes down at the Ring in his hand, trying to will himself to cast it away:

Frodo drew the Ring out of his pocket again and looked at it. It now appeared plain and smooth, without mark or device that he could see. The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its color, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious.

What an amazing description. It seems so benignly loving, the language high and noble, but there is an undercurrent of fixation, or perhaps even “hypnotic persuasion” winding its way through all the pretty words. And that one word……..precious. How effectively Tolkien ties Gollum’s term of endearment first to Bilbo as he defied Gandalf in Bag End, and now to Frodo as he faces the burden that has been passed to him. That one word is the give-away. This was Gollum’s vision “then”, as much as it is Frodo’s “now”. What a terrible thing it is: the mockery of love, the corruption of purity, the illusion of perfection – the temptation to fall for all the right reasons.

[Athrabeth]

DP

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Oh, I think it was worth saying twice.

[axordil]

It’s interesting to me that Tolkien chose to keep Bilbo’s inner workings out of our range in the first chapter, especially after writing so intimately about him in “The Hobbit”. I read with interest the posts in the previous chapter’s discussion that were sparked by Cerin’s thoughts about Bilbo giving up the Ring. What happens is duly related to us – we “see” his hand jerk back, but why? What are his thoughts? What is his sense of what’s happening? As the discussion revealed, that final “disconnect” at the mantelpiece is certainly open to interpretation. Perhaps it was Tolkien’s intention to show providential intervention in the tale at this point, but to me, because the scene is related (as is the entire chapter) from a remote point of view, it couldn’t really be portrayed any other way. As Tolkien continues to tie similar scenes from the first chapter to the second, it becomes extremely effective to have Bilbo’s strange actions echoed by Frodo, but this time with another dimension added to those ominous compulsions – Frodo’s sense of them……and his sense of the Ring.

Choice of POV is a crucial one for an author, and with a good one, never accidental. This is something that is worth watching throughout LOTR.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And I'm sure that we will.

[Jnyusa]

[Note: This is one of several threads from which Jnyusa removed some or all of her posts. We regret that the integrity of these discussions has been disrupted in this way. While we support the right of our members to edit their posts if they have second thoughts about them, we believe this type of wholesale removal of posts goes beyond that, and is damaging to the community.

Voronwë_the_Faithful, Primula Baggins, Whistler, nerdanel]

[removed]

[Frelga]

It’s interesting to me that Tolkien chose to keep Bilbo’s inner workings out of our range in the first chapter, especially after writing so intimately about him in “The Hobbit”. I read with interest the posts in the previous chapter’s discussion that were sparked by Cerin’s thoughts about Bilbo giving up the Ring. What happens is duly related to us – we “see” his hand jerk back, but why? What are his thoughts? What is his sense of what’s happening? As the discussion revealed, that final “disconnect” at the mantelpiece is certainly open to interpretation. Perhaps it was Tolkien’s intention to show providential intervention in the tale at this point, but to me, because the scene is related (as is the entire chapter) from a remote point of view, it couldn’t really be portrayed any other way. As Tolkien continues to tie similar scenes from the first chapter to the second, it becomes extremely effective to have Bilbo’s strange actions echoed by Frodo, but this time with another dimension added to those ominous compulsions – Frodo’s sense of them……and his sense of the Ring.

This really brought into focus something I glimpsed back in Teremia's thread, but only now manage to properly notice.

Tolkien pulls this trick several times over the course of the book - when we first observe the reaction of a character to the Ring from the "outside" and then a similar situation is re-lived through the POV character.

To give just a couple examples: I commented in m00bs how in the Tower of Cirith Ungol Frodo lashes out at Sam for the "theft" of Ring and then, when he comes to his senses, he pours out his anguish in the same words as Boromir did. "What have I said? What have I done?" Now we understand what the Gondorian went through!

Another example - Faramir's noble denial of the Ring. He hesitates, he considers the possibilities, then he decides that he doesn't want it. Easy peasy, right? But later, Samwise the Strong is given a glimpse of what the Ring could do for him and we see his struggle to see through its tricks. Now we know - it wasn't so easy after all.