Re: Taking The Ring West
Bill O' Meally
> Hi, gang! Long time no see. :)
>
> In the Council of Elrond, the idea came up of sending the Ring over
> Sea rather than destroying it. The idea was quickly and immediately
> shot down. "And they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it,"
> Elrond declares, "for good or ill it [the Ring] belongs to
> Middle-earth [...]"
>
> I've been thinking. (Always a dangerous thing. <g>) What would have
> happened if they _had_ tried to run the Ring into the Uttermost West?
<snip>
I think that is what is implied by "they would not receive it": those who
attempted to approach Aman with the Ring, whether they would otherwise be
welcome or not, would be turned away. I suspect possibly violently if they
did not comply.
--
Bill
"Wise fool."
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)
Sean_Q_
>> In the Council of Elrond, the idea came up of sending the Ring over
>> Sea rather than destroying it. The idea was quickly and immediately
>> shot down. "And they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it,"
>> Elrond declares
>>
>> I've been thinking. (Always a dangerous thing. <g>) What would have
>> happened if they _had_ tried to run the Ring into the Uttermost West?
Since Men weren't allowed, only an elf (or higher) would be qualified
to even enter the UW. If he tried to sneak the thing in -- well,
if elven swords glow blue near orcs I can only imagine the psychedelic
light show at Aman Customs and Immigration when the walk-through
Ring Detector sensed the One.
SQ
Bill O' Meally
> Since Sauron was not of ME but merely "banished" there, how did ME get
> saddled with the responsibility for something he made?
I don't recall that Sauron was actually 'banished' like the Exiles. I'm sure
the Valar would love for him to come back to Aman, and answer for his
crimes.
Stan Brown
<omea...@wise.rr.com>:
> Barry Schwarz wrote:
> > Since Sauron was not of ME but merely "banished" there, how did ME get
> > saddled with the responsibility for something he made?
>
> I don't recall that Sauron was actually 'banished' like the Exiles. I'm sure
> the Valar would love for him to come back to Aman, and answer for his
> crimes.
True -- Sauron was a voluntary expatriate, but I don't think that
answers Barry's question.
By our lights (well, mine anyway), Sauron was one of the people of
the Valar, gone horribly wrong, and they had every bit as much
responsibility to bring him to heel as they did Morgoth.
Obviously, Tolkien didn't agree. So within the context of the story,
I would say that just as defeating Sauron was the business of Middle-
earth, with only the slight help(*) of the Istari, so dealing with
the Ring that Sauron made was the business of Middle-earth.
(*) I mean "slight" relative to what the Valar could do if they put
forth their power. And I don't buy the argument that a second War of
Wrath would necessarily have destroyed large portions of Middle-
earth. Sauron didn't have the kind of power over the substance of
Arda that Morgoth had had. Sauron could make Orodruin erupt and
sometimes control the weather in the neighborhood of Mordor, but
that's it. Armies of Elves and Maiar could easily have routed
Sauron's slave armies.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
NY Teacher
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.2312ae1c8...@news.individual.net...
Interesting point, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
Changing the topic slightly, do you think that this change in the Valar from
"active interference" in Middle Earth (e.g. War of Wrath) in the earlier
days to "passive interference" (e.g. sending in the Istari, possibly getting
the eagles to help) during the days of Sauron has a biblical parallel? The
Old Testament is chockerblock full of God "getting involved" in the lives of
ordinary people in very overt ways, whereas the New Testament has him much
less involved directly.
Actually, I think the parallel exists...my question needs to be re-worded:
Is the parallel intentional on Tolkien's part?
NYT
Flame of the West
> Changing the topic slightly, do you think that this change in the Valar from
> "active interference" in Middle Earth (e.g. War of Wrath) in the earlier
> days to "passive interference" (e.g. sending in the Istari, possibly getting
> the eagles to help) during the days of Sauron has a biblical parallel? The
> Old Testament is chockerblock full of God "getting involved" in the lives of
> ordinary people in very overt ways, whereas the New Testament has him much
> less involved directly.
I think most Christians would disagree with that. Jesus was involved
pretty directly in the New Testament.
> Actually, I think the parallel exists...my question needs to be re-worded:
> Is the parallel intentional on Tolkien's part?
I suspect not. It seems to me a part of his attempt to bridge the
mythological era with our own. Part of his mythology dealt with
explaining why our boring era has no Valar, Elves, Dwarves, dragons,
Wizards, or even Hobbits.
--
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
NY Teacher
"Flame of the West" <SPAM_ME_NO...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:atidnU3MSK_ipTfV...@comcast.com...
> NY Teacher wrote:
>
>> Changing the topic slightly, do you think that this change in the Valar
>> from "active interference" in Middle Earth (e.g. War of Wrath) in the
>> earlier days to "passive interference" (e.g. sending in the Istari,
>> possibly getting the eagles to help) during the days of Sauron has a
>> biblical parallel? The Old Testament is chockerblock full of God
>> "getting involved" in the lives of ordinary people in very overt ways,
>> whereas the New Testament has him much less involved directly.
>
> I think most Christians would disagree with that. Jesus was involved
> pretty directly in the New Testament.
>
Perhaps, but I think there is a great deal of difference between levelling
two cities with fire and brimstone and sends plagues of icky things, among
other things, and sending an messenger who changes water into wine, among
other things. In my mind, the former is direct large-scale, the latter is
indirect and small-scale (with huge changes over time)...sort of a
battle-axe vs. scalpel argument.
>> Actually, I think the parallel exists...my question needs to be
>> re-worded: Is the parallel intentional on Tolkien's part?
>
> I suspect not. It seems to me a part of his attempt to bridge the
> mythological era with our own. Part of his mythology dealt with
> explaining why our boring era has no Valar, Elves, Dwarves, dragons,
> Wizards, or even Hobbits.
>
And also explaining why direct intervention of a diety/dieties is a lot less
noticeable nowadays?
Flame of the West
> "Flame of the West" <SPAM_ME_NO...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:atidnU3MSK_ipTfV...@comcast.com...
>> NY Teacher wrote:
>>
>>> Changing the topic slightly, do you think that this change in the Valar
>>> from "active interference" in Middle Earth (e.g. War of Wrath) in the
>>> earlier days to "passive interference" (e.g. sending in the Istari,
>>> possibly getting the eagles to help) during the days of Sauron has a
>>> biblical parallel? The Old Testament is chockerblock full of God
>>> "getting involved" in the lives of ordinary people in very overt ways,
>>> whereas the New Testament has him much less involved directly.
>> I think most Christians would disagree with that. Jesus was involved
>> pretty directly in the New Testament.
>>
>
> Perhaps, but I think there is a great deal of difference between levelling
> two cities with fire and brimstone and sends plagues of icky things, among
> other things, and sending an messenger who changes water into wine, among
> other things. In my mind, the former is direct large-scale, the latter is
> indirect and small-scale (with huge changes over time)...sort of a
> battle-axe vs. scalpel argument.
Again, I think most Christians do not regard Jesus as a mere messenger
who performed a few local miracles. They regard Jesus as God Himself
and what he did as saving humanity - much more important than knocking
down some ramshackle Near Eastern town.
NY Teacher
A "mere" messenger? no, of course not...but one who achieves most of his
influence through the use of words. In other words, a messenger.
Of course they view him as God Himself, thats the whole point of most
Christian ideology, but God in the form of one who does most of his
influencing through words and small, localized miracles. That is part of
the point...you need to accept Jesus' message through faith instead of
through witnessing grand displays of divine power. With the Old Testament,
it is easy to see God's power (what? the rivers are made fo blood again?).
With the New, its much more subtle (hey, where did all the bread come
from?). Its easy to believe in a God who goes around showing his power by
leveling cities and bringing plagues...its takes more faith to believe in a
subtle God.
Put yet another way, its "seeing is believing" in the Old testament, and
"believing is seeing" in the New.
NYT
Larry Swain
Rather than a difference between "OT" and NT, its more a difference
between God as presented in the Bible, directly involved in human
affairs, and God as known in the Christian Ages, less directly involved
and working through the paraclete and the church.
Clams Canino
"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> Rather than a difference between "OT" and NT, its more a difference
> between God as presented in the Bible, directly involved in human
> affairs, and God as known in the Christian Ages, less directly involved
> and working through the paraclete and the church.
I don't think it's an "iether/or" - more like a "yes, that as well".
-W
Paul S. Person
<SPAM_ME_NO...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snippo>
>I suspect not. It seems to me a part of his attempt to bridge the
>mythological era with our own. Part of his mythology dealt with
>explaining why our boring era has no Valar, Elves, Dwarves, dragons,
>Wizards, or even Hobbits.
The last report I read in /Science News/ on homo florienses (I /think/
that's the right term) indicated that several skeletons have been
found, and that their feet were exceptionally long.
No indication if they were hairy, though.
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature."
Larry Swain
show God directly involved in human affairs a false claim. Difficult to
imagine God more directly involved than to become human himself.
NY Teacher
How about becoming human himself, then doing grand-sale ostentatious
miracles like he was known for? That would certainly be more directly
involved. Or, how about becoming a human in a time or place that would make
his actions be more noticeable...as Weber says, "why'd you choose such a
backwards time and such a strange land?"
It is clear that you and I need to agree to disagree. I think God was far
more subtle in the NT. [Mainly because the people advocating the nascent
Jewish faith needed to make their god seem more powerful than the gods of
their neighbors, but thats a separate issue entirely...] Similarly, I
think the valar were far more subtle in their dealings with Sauron. Which
is more directly involved, riding to war against Melkor and destroying much
of the world, or sending the Istari, who - much like Jesus - seldom show
their true power and instead usually rely on counseling others?
I personally think Tolkien copied the model of Christianity, perhaps not
consciously, when making the Valar less involved.
NYT
teepee
"NY Teacher" <Te...@you.com> wrote
> Changing the topic slightly, do you think that this change in the Valar
> from "active interference" in Middle Earth (e.g. War of Wrath) in the
> earlier days to "passive interference" (e.g. sending in the Istari,
> possibly getting the eagles to help) during the days of Sauron has a
> biblical parallel? The Old Testament is chockerblock full of God "getting
> involved" in the lives of ordinary people in very overt ways, whereas the
> New Testament has him much less involved directly.
It seems to me that passive involvement does not mean less involvement. The
hands of fate were always on the tiller in LOTR. Gandalf said the ring was
meant to be found, and not by it's maker. Someone sent that dream to
Boromir. Eru himself intervened to send Gandalf back - the last time Eru
intervened was to destroy Numenor.
Some big players were pulling strings. You could even ask why, when they
could have stomped Sauron like a bug. Well one good answer is fairly
apparent - it was all part of a destiny to begin the age of men.
tp
NY Teacher
"teepee" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:48ac987f$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
That argument seems to point to the "it was all ordained in the beginning"
argument. While that is certainly true, both from a reading of the text and
as a logical deduction from a given of an omnipotent creator, I find it
immensely unsatisfying. my problem, i know.
Ertugrul iNANÇ
news:si2ma4dpq6fs35crt...@4ax.com...
> homo florienses (I /think/
> that's the right term)
Homo floresiensis IIRC
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Flame of the West
> It is clear that you and I need to agree to disagree. I think God was far
> more subtle in the NT.
There was something in the Screwtape Letters about that: God wants
assent freely given and not compelled via some overwhelming show of power.
> [Mainly because the people advocating the nascent
> Jewish faith needed to make their god seem more powerful than the gods of
> their neighbors, but thats a separate issue entirely...]
Well, He was, but then again He had the advantage of actually existing!
> Similarly, I
> think the valar were far more subtle in their dealings with Sauron. Which
> is more directly involved, riding to war against Melkor and destroying much
> of the world, or sending the Istari, who - much like Jesus - seldom show
> their true power and instead usually rely on counseling others?
Good point. You know, I sometimes wonder about the Valar. One of their
kind goes to Middle-earth, goes on a rampage, and the Valar decide it is
for the people of Middle-earth to clean up! They won't take the Ring,
they won't send any help other than the Istari. Good thing Eru was
keeping an eye on things, or we'd all be grunting the Black Speech.
> I personally think Tolkien copied the model of Christianity, perhaps not
> consciously, when making the Valar less involved.
But keep in mind he had no choice given that his stories were set in our
world in a long-ago time, and the fact that Valar, etc., are nowhere to
be found today. This seems to me a much more natural explanation than
reading Tolkien's mind to uncover some "unconscious" reason.
Flame of the West
>> Some big players were pulling strings. You could even ask why, when they
>> could have stomped Sauron like a bug. Well one good answer is fairly
>> apparent - it was all part of a destiny to begin the age of men.
>>
>> tp
>>
>
> That argument seems to point to the "it was all ordained in the beginning"
> argument. While that is certainly true, both from a reading of the text and
> as a logical deduction from a given of an omnipotent creator, I find it
> immensely unsatisfying. my problem, i know.
Read the book again. At every step, there is free will involved. Frodo
freely chose to carry the Ring, etc., etc. As Tolkien pointed out, LotR
was a Catholic book; so you won't find predestination there.
--
NY Teacher
"Flame of the West" <SPAM_ME_NO...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PM2dnfKvnrYhXDHV...@comcast.com...
That's one reason why the "it was all ordained" argument doesn't feel right
to me.
But, granting a lot of free will in LOTR, there were also a lot of "chance
happenings" that moved things inthe rigth direction, as well.
Clams Canino
"NY Teacher" <Te...@you.com> wrote in message news:Pb5rk.3413
> That's one reason why the "it was all ordained" argument doesn't feel
right
> to me.
> But, granting a lot of free will in LOTR, there were also a lot of "chance
> happenings" that moved things inthe rigth direction, as well.
"God helps those that help themselves" ??
-W
Bill O' Meally
> Good point. You know, I sometimes wonder about the Valar. One of
> their kind goes to Middle-earth, goes on a rampage, and the Valar
> decide it is for the people of Middle-earth to clean up! They won't
> take the Ring, they won't send any help other than the Istari. Good
> thing Eru was keeping an eye on things, or we'd all be grunting the
> Black Speech.
I suspect Manwe would have been aware of your last point, hence the Valar's
choice to do things the way they did.
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:_cidnSHIe94-qzHV...@comcast.com...
>
>>Clams Canino wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rather than a difference between "OT" and NT, its more a difference
>>>>between God as presented in the Bible, directly involved in human
>>>>affairs, and God as known in the Christian Ages, less directly involved
>>>>and working through the paraclete and the church.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think it's an "iether/or" - more like a "yes, that as well".
>>>
>>>-W
>>>
>>>
>>
>>As pointed out, the Incarnation rather makes the claim that NT does not
>>show God directly involved in human affairs a false claim. Difficult to
>>imagine God more directly involved than to become human himself.
>
>
> How about becoming human himself, then doing grand-sale ostentatious
> miracles like he was known for? That would certainly be more directly
> involved. Or, how about becoming a human in a time or place that would make
> his actions be more noticeable...as Weber says, "why'd you choose such a
> backwards time and such a strange land?"
And as Christians have pointed out for centuries, it was the perfect
time for the spread of Christianity.
> It is clear that you and I need to agree to disagree. I think God was far
> more subtle in the NT.
You may think that, that's fine, and I wouldn't disagree. However,
we're not talking about what you and I think, but rather the impact of a
certain kind of thought on Tolkien. Christianity, particularly
conservative Roman Catholic Christianity, would strongly and stoutly
disagree with your assessment. And *THAT* is what's important since
*THAT* is what would have influenced Tolkien, far more in fact than your
(or my own) assessment.
[Mainly because the people advocating the nascent
> Jewish faith needed to make their god seem more powerful than the gods of
> their neighbors, but thats a separate issue entirely...] Similarly, I
> think the valar were far more subtle in their dealings with Sauron. Which
> is more directly involved, riding to war against Melkor and destroying much
> of the world, or sending the Istari, who - much like Jesus - seldom show
> their true power and instead usually rely on counseling others?
They only rode to war against Melkor because the embassy of Earendil was
successful, in large part because he had a simaril. And the result was
ruination and death. In fact, the Valar had for a long time washed
their hands utterly of Middle Earth until Earendil came and begged their
aid on behalf of men and elves. So, I'd say that while more
clandestine, they took far more action against Sauron, esp in the Third
Age, than they had in the First Age after the Elves returned to Middle
Earth up until the War of Wrath.
Let's also remember that Sauron's success in the second and third ages
is due entirely to the choices made by elves and men in Middle Earth
concerning affairs in Middle Earth rather than the very different
situation of Melkor.
Larry Swain
> "teepee" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:48ac987f$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>
>>"NY Teacher" <Te...@you.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Changing the topic slightly, do you think that this change in the Valar
>>>from "active interference" in Middle Earth (e.g. War of Wrath) in the
>>>earlier days to "passive interference" (e.g. sending in the Istari,
>>>possibly getting the eagles to help) during the days of Sauron has a
>>>biblical parallel? The Old Testament is chockerblock full of God
>>>"getting involved" in the lives of ordinary people in very overt ways,
>>>whereas the New Testament has him much less involved directly.
>>
>>It seems to me that passive involvement does not mean less involvement.
>>The hands of fate were always on the tiller in LOTR. Gandalf said the ring
>>was meant to be found, and not by it's maker. Someone sent that dream to
>>Boromir. Eru himself intervened to send Gandalf back - the last time Eru
>>intervened was to destroy Numenor.
>>
>>Some big players were pulling strings. You could even ask why, when they
>>could have stomped Sauron like a bug. Well one good answer is fairly
>>apparent - it was all part of a destiny to begin the age of men.
>>
>>tp
>>
>
>
> That argument seems to point to the "it was all ordained in the beginning"
> argument.
Not from the beginning, but it does show a level of intervention on the
part of the Valar that took a rather long view.
NY Teacher
> NY Teacher wrote:
>> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:_cidnSHIe94-qzHV...@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Clams Canino wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rather than a difference between "OT" and NT, its more a difference
>>>>>between God as presented in the Bible, directly involved in human
>>>>>affairs, and God as known in the Christian Ages, less directly involved
>>>>>and working through the paraclete and the church.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't think it's an "iether/or" - more like a "yes, that as well".
>>>>
>>>>-W
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>As pointed out, the Incarnation rather makes the claim that NT does not
>>>show God directly involved in human affairs a false claim. Difficult to
>>>imagine God more directly involved than to become human himself.
>>
>>
>> How about becoming human himself, then doing grand-sale ostentatious
>> miracles like he was known for? That would certainly be more directly
>> involved. Or, how about becoming a human in a time or place that would
>> make his actions be more noticeable...as Weber says, "why'd you choose
>> such a backwards time and such a strange land?"
>
> And as Christians have pointed out for centuries, it was the perfect time
> for the spread of Christianity.
Faulty logic. It may have been a better time somewhere else or some other
time. That it succeeded when it did and where it did is not sufficient to
say it was the "perfect time" for it.
>
>> It is clear that you and I need to agree to disagree. I think God was
>> far more subtle in the NT.
>
> You may think that, that's fine, and I wouldn't disagree. However, we're
> not talking about what you and I think, but rather the impact of a certain
> kind of thought on Tolkien. Christianity, particularly conservative Roman
> Catholic Christianity, would strongly and stoutly disagree with your
> assessment. And *THAT* is what's important since *THAT* is what would
> have influenced Tolkien, far more in fact than your (or my own)
> assessment.
My knowledge of Catholic dogma is fairly strong for a layman, but I have
never heard it stated or written that God was more active or involved in the
NT. In fact, my own religious instruction of my youth (taught by nuns, no
less) stated that God was more directly involved in the OT.
Granted, Catholic teachings for Prof. Tolkien were probably significantly
different than mine (growing up in 1970's middle-class America)...but
changing dogma is an argument for another time.
>
> [Mainly because the people advocating the nascent
>> Jewish faith needed to make their god seem more powerful than the gods of
>> their neighbors, but thats a separate issue entirely...] Similarly, I
>> think the valar were far more subtle in their dealings with Sauron.
>> Which is more directly involved, riding to war against Melkor and
>> destroying much of the world, or sending the Istari, who - much like
>> Jesus - seldom show their true power and instead usually rely on
>> counseling others?
>
> They only rode to war against Melkor because the embassy of Earendil was
> successful, in large part because he had a simaril. And the result was
> ruination and death. In fact, the Valar had for a long time washed their
> hands utterly of Middle Earth until Earendil came and begged their aid on
> behalf of men and elves. So, I'd say that while more clandestine, they
> took far more action against Sauron, esp in the Third Age, than they had
> in the First Age after the Elves returned to Middle Earth up until the War
> of Wrath.
An interesting argument, and one that I will need to reflect on.
teepee
"Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote
>> That argument seems to point to the "it was all ordained in the
>> beginning" argument.
>
> Not from the beginning, but it does show a level of intervention on the
> part of the Valar that took a rather long view.
>
Well given that they had a long standing agenda to get all the Elves out of
middle earth (dead or otherwise) this was certainly a major contribution to
that.
Morgil
> Good point. You know, I sometimes wonder about the Valar. One of their
> kind goes to Middle-earth, goes on a rampage, and the Valar decide it is
> for the people of Middle-earth to clean up! They won't take the Ring,
> they won't send any help other than the Istari. Good thing Eru was
> keeping an eye on things, or we'd all be grunting the Black Speech.
Perhaps the reason for this was that despite his power,
Sauron was not beyond the capability of the people of
Middle-Earth to defeat. In fact, they had done this
twice already, and it was only by the free choices of
Isildur and Ar-Pharazon, that Sauron had been able
to restore his power. This, IMO, puts the responsibility
of defeating Sauron firmly on the people of Middle-Earth.
the only glitch in this arrangement was the Ring, which
was too powerful for anyone to destroy. Therefore the
situation still required a little intervention by Eru,
once the people had first demonstrated firmly that this
was what they desired.
This brings up an interesting question. What if Isildur
had chosen to destroy the Ring, instead of keeping it?
From what I understand, he would not have been any more
able to do so then Frodo, but if he had tried hard enough,
would Eru have provided some kind of divine intervention
to finish the job, as he did with Frodo??
Morgil
Barry Schwarz
wrote:
>This brings up an interesting question. What if Isildur
>had chosen to destroy the Ring, instead of keeping it?
> From what I understand, he would not have been any more
>able to do so then Frodo, but if he had tried hard enough,
>would Eru have provided some kind of divine intervention
>to finish the job, as he did with Frodo??
The ring did not have nearly the same amount of time to wear down
Isildur's resolve as it did with Frodo.
At the Council of Elrond, Frodo appeared quite willing to give the
ring to Aragorn. He had no problem with Gimli (or was it Gloin)
trying to destroy it. If Aragorn's army had prevailed at the Black
Gate so he could ride to Mount Doom, I have no doubt that Frodo's
reaction at a repetition of either would have been markedly different.
--
Remove del for email
Öjevind Lång
news:0rbsa4hopnq2jhfil...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> At the Council of Elrond, Frodo appeared quite willing to give the
> ring to Aragorn. He had no problem with Gimli (or was it Gloin)
> trying to destroy it. If Aragorn's army had prevailed at the Black
> Gate so he could ride to Mount Doom, I have no doubt that Frodo's
> reaction at a repetition of either would have been markedly different.
You are confusing events in the film with events in the book, I'm afraid. In
the book, Gimli is not a moron who tries to whack the ring with his axe.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
news:daidneKO49WAETDV...@comcast.com...
[snip]
>> their neighbors, but thats a separate issue entirely...] Similarly, I
>> think the valar were far more subtle in their dealings with Sauron.
>> Which is more directly involved, riding to war against Melkor and
>> destroying much of the world, or sending the Istari, who - much like
>> Jesus - seldom show their true power and instead usually rely on
>> counseling others?
>
> They only rode to war against Melkor because the embassy of Earendil was
> successful, in large part because he had a simaril.
And also because he was one of the Peredhil - that is to say, he didn't
represent only the Elves but also Men, who were not under the Doom of
Mandos. You might say he represented all the free or freedom-loving peoples
in Middle-earth.
Öjevind
Michael Ikeda
news:6h78hpF...@mid.individual.net:
> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:daidneKO49WAETDV...@comcast.com...
>
>> They only rode to war against Melkor because the embassy of
>> Earendil was successful, in large part because he had a
>> simaril.
>
> And also because he was one of the Peredhil - that is to say, he
> didn't represent only the Elves but also Men, who were not under
> the Doom of Mandos. You might say he represented all the free or
> freedom-loving peoples in Middle-earth.
Gimli and Frodo would be upset with you for that last sentence...
I don't think Treebeard would be all that pleased either...
:-)
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Troels Forchhammer
Öjevind Lång <bredba...@ojevind.lang> spoke these staves:
>
[Frodo's attitude towards the One Ring at the Council of Elrond]
> You are confusing events in the film with events in the book, I'm
> afraid. In the book, Gimli is not a moron who tries to whack the
> ring with his axe.
And Frodo's reaction to the revelation of Aragorn's lineage at the
Council (LotR II,2) is, in the book, rather ambiguous. He cies out, in
amazement, that the Ring belongs to Aragorn, and jumps up 'as if he
expected the Ring to be demanded at once.' It is never made clear if
this amazement and springing to his feet is in relief and eagerness to
hand over the One Ring to somebody else, or if he resents this
possibility, and I think it is deliberately left unclear as an echo of
Gollum's state as described in 'The Shadow of the Past' (LotR I,2) --
both loving and hating the Ring. Had Aragorn asked for the Ring, I
think Frodo would have wanted to give it over, but would have found
himself unable to do so -- at least directly and without help, such as
Bilbo got from Gandalf when he left Bag End.
This of course relates also to the question of whether Frodo would have
been able to give up the One Ring had Galadriel accepted his offer -- a
question which was also left unanswered by Galadriel's redemption.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
They both savoured the strange warm glow of being much
more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant
of ordinary things.
- Discworld scientists at work, /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
Morgil
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:18:46 +0300, Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>This brings up an interesting question. What if Isildur
>>had chosen to destroy the Ring, instead of keeping it?
>>From what I understand, he would not have been any more
>>able to do so then Frodo, but if he had tried hard enough,
>>would Eru have provided some kind of divine intervention
>>to finish the job, as he did with Frodo??
>
>
> The ring did not have nearly the same amount of time to wear down
> Isildur's resolve as it did with Frodo.
True, but I'm not sure if that would have made a difference.
Tolkien's comment in letter 246 can be read either way:
"At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach
its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one
to resist, certainly after long possession, months of
increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted."
So possibly Tolkien wants to leave the door open that
it might have been possible without the long exposure,
or possibly he just wants to emphasize why it was so
totally beyond Frodo's strength to complete his task.
As I said, personally I believe it was impossible for
anyone under any circumstances, as Tolkien first says,
but I certainly don't see that as the only definite answer.
Morgil
Larry Swain
Perhaps, but entirely immaterial to the discussion, since the point once
again is what would have influenced Tolkien to write things as he did.
Your problems with the logic of a conservative Christian position held
for centuries doesn't matter to that issue.
If you want to discuss Christianity, start a new thread.
>
>
>>>It is clear that you and I need to agree to disagree. I think God was
>>>far more subtle in the NT.
>>
>>You may think that, that's fine, and I wouldn't disagree. However, we're
>>not talking about what you and I think, but rather the impact of a certain
>>kind of thought on Tolkien. Christianity, particularly conservative Roman
>>Catholic Christianity, would strongly and stoutly disagree with your
>>assessment. And *THAT* is what's important since *THAT* is what would
>>have influenced Tolkien, far more in fact than your (or my own)
>>assessment.
>
>
> My knowledge of Catholic dogma is fairly strong for a layman, but I have
> never heard it stated or written that God was more active or involved in the
> NT. In fact, my own religious instruction of my youth (taught by nuns, no
> less) stated that God was more directly involved in the OT.
I can't help it if you were taught incorrectly or weren't paying
particular attention that day.
>
> Granted, Catholic teachings for Prof. Tolkien were probably significantly
> different than mine (growing up in 1970's middle-class America)...but
> changing dogma is an argument for another time.
I think you, or your nuns, confused content with "involvement," since
any reader of the Christian holy texts may observe that outside of the
gospels and acts of the apostles there is no narrative, only didactic
epistles and the apocalypse, in contrast to the large narrative sections
of the Christian Old Testament that even if we ignored the other texts
in said collection, would be far longer than that NT by itself.
Difference in content might suggest to those wishing to be modern or to
the careless reader that the Christian NT shows God less involved, but
the opposite is the case, whether it be discussions of the persecuted
church and martyrdom or the end of history, the Christian NT shows the
hand of God in human affairs every bit as much as the Christian Old
Testament does.
Whether you agree or disagree (or for that matter, whether I do) is
immaterial. What matters is that this is out of the RC catechism, and
this idea can be traced all the way back to the 3rd century in Christian
thought. And it is this which influenced Tolkien, not a middle America
Catholic education in the 70s.
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns9B02921A...@147.243.37.18...
> In message <news:6h78cpF...@mid.individual.net>
> Öjevind Lång <bredba...@ojevind.lang> spoke these staves:
>>
>
> [Frodo's attitude towards the One Ring at the Council of Elrond]
[snip]
> This of course relates also to the question of whether Frodo would have
> been able to give up the One Ring had Galadriel accepted his offer -- a
> question which was also left unanswered by Galadriel's redemption.
Hm. Interesting. I never considered the possibility that if Galadriel had
accepted Frodo's offer, he might have discovered himself unable to honour
it.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns9B0248E5FAEC9...@216.196.97.136...
[snip]
>>> They only rode to war against Melkor because the embassy of
>>> Earendil was successful, in large part because he had a
>>> simaril.
>>
>> And also because he was one of the Peredhil - that is to say, he
>> didn't represent only the Elves but also Men, who were not under
>> the Doom of Mandos. You might say he represented all the free or
>> freedom-loving peoples in Middle-earth.
>
> Gimli and Frodo would be upset with you for that last sentence...
>
> I don't think Treebeard would be all that pleased either...
>
> :-)
Heh. Wise guy! But you know what I meant.
I bet Melkor would have had a tough time dealing with the Ents even if the
Valar hadn't come to Middle-earth. No doubt he would have ptevailed, but I'd
say at a very great cost.
Incidentally, we are told that at the final battle, there were
representatives of all sentient races on both sides, with the exception of
the Elves. Yet we know that Elves could be evil. Celegorm and Curufin
definitely answer to that description. One could argue that they were
corrupted by the Oath, but once made, they seem to have embraced it very
happily and been prepared to commit all kinds of outrages, including
attempted murder and rape without any connection at all to the silmarilli.
At the end of the day, they didn't hate Melkor because he was evil but
because he possessed something they wanted.
Öjevind
NY Teacher
Nor did I say that it was, I was merely responding to an argument made.
>
> If you want to discuss Christianity, start a new thread.
Please do not try to tell me what to do. This thread began witha tie-in to
Tolkien, and like many threads, perhaps nearly all, has taken a life of its
own with many branching and tangential arguments. This is merely one of
them.
>>
>>
>>>>It is clear that you and I need to agree to disagree. I think God was
>>>>far more subtle in the NT.
>>>
>>>You may think that, that's fine, and I wouldn't disagree. However, we're
>>>not talking about what you and I think, but rather the impact of a
>>>certain kind of thought on Tolkien. Christianity, particularly
>>>conservative Roman Catholic Christianity, would strongly and stoutly
>>>disagree with your assessment. And *THAT* is what's important since
>>>*THAT* is what would have influenced Tolkien, far more in fact than your
>>>(or my own) assessment.
>>
>>
>> My knowledge of Catholic dogma is fairly strong for a layman, but I have
>> never heard it stated or written that God was more active or involved in
>> the NT. In fact, my own religious instruction of my youth (taught by
>> nuns, no less) stated that God was more directly involved in the OT.
>
> I can't help it if you were taught incorrectly or weren't paying
> particular attention that day.
>
Wow, getting pretty insulting there. Perhaps if I were to get my
father-in-law, a Roman Catholic Priest to post his thoughts - which match up
nicely with what I have written, based on a discussion I had with him
yesterday - here you'd say he wasn't paying attention either?
>
>>
>> Granted, Catholic teachings for Prof. Tolkien were probably significantly
>> different than mine (growing up in 1970's middle-class America)...but
>> changing dogma is an argument for another time.
>
> I think you, or your nuns, confused content with "involvement," since any
> reader of the Christian holy texts may observe that outside of the gospels
> and acts of the apostles there is no narrative, only didactic epistles and
> the apocalypse, in contrast to the large narrative sections of the
> Christian Old Testament that even if we ignored the other texts in said
> collection, would be far longer than that NT by itself.
No such confusion. God's level of involvement is up for debate, even among
peiople of the same church. Are you purposefulyl trying to obfuscate the
matter by changing it to the literary style of the OT and NT? Or are you
just ignoring your own advise to start a new thread?
> Difference in content might suggest to those wishing to be modern or to
> the careless reader that the Christian NT shows God less involved, but the
> opposite is the case, whether it be discussions of the persecuted church
> and martyrdom or the end of history, the Christian NT shows the hand of
> God in human affairs every bit as much as the Christian Old Testament
> does.
In your opinion. Perhaps also in Tolkien's opinion, which was why I raised
the question.
>
> Whether you agree or disagree (or for that matter, whether I do) is
> immaterial. What matters is that this is out of the RC catechism, and
> this idea can be traced all the way back to the 3rd century in Christian
> thought. And it is this which influenced Tolkien, not a middle America
> Catholic education in the 70s.
Hmmm...rather than stating a historical origin to the third century, perhaps
you could just show Catholic ideology in England during Tolkien's time?
Catholic ideology is subject to national, geographic and temporal influences
which would indicate that Tolkien's catholicism, even if deemed
"conservative," likely did not match up exactly with Rome's. Or would you
rather insult me again?
Morgoth's Curse
<bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>Heh. Wise guy! But you know what I meant.
> I bet Melkor would have had a tough time dealing with the Ents even if the
>Valar hadn't come to Middle-earth. No doubt he would have ptevailed, but I'd
>say at a very great cost.
You gotta be kidding. A Vala who could transform an entire plain into
a vast desert (as he did during the Fourth Battle) wouldn't have much
trouble reducing the Ents to ash. Remember that fire was always
Melkor's special province.
Morgoth's Curse
Troels Forchhammer
"NY Teacher" <Te...@you.com> spoke these staves:
> "Flame of the West" <SPAM_ME_NO...@comcast.net> wrote in
> message news:PM2dnfKvnrYhXDHV...@comcast.com...
>>
<snip>
[LotR]
>> At every step, there is free will involved.
I don't know if I'd say at /every/ step, but the exceptions are just
that: exceptions (and rare ones to boot). The most notable (if not
actually the only one?) is Frodo's failure to destroy the One Ring
himself at Sammath Naur. Tolkien's defence of Frodo in letters,
notably in nos 181 and 246, suggest that Frodo was not acting with
free will (basically Tolkien asserts that Frodo was not morally
responsible for his failure, and that suggests a lack of free will).
>> Frodo freely chose to carry the Ring, etc., etc.
Something which is explicitly elaborated upon in 'The Quest of
Erebor' in UT:
(Frodo speaking) 'Then I said: "I understand you a little
better now, Gandalf, than I did before. Though I suppose
that, whether meant or not, Bilbo might have refused to
leave home, and so might I. You could not compel us. You
were not even allowed to try."'
[UT 3,III 'The Quest of Erebor']
Frodo, according to Tolkien in letter #246, recieved grace to accept
the quest, and as I understand the concept of actual grace, this
doesn't rob him of responsibility for his choice or of his freedom of
choice.
>> As Tolkien pointed out, LotR was a Catholic book; so you won't
>> find predestination there.
>
> That's one reason why the "it was all ordained" argument doesn't
> feel right to me.
The impression I get is that you're referring to an explicit
predetermination of events? While that certainly didn't happen (not
since Men awoke in any case), there is nevertheless providence and
there's the Music, which 'is as fate to all things else.' It is right
to get a strong sense of a 'guiding hand,' or whatever we should call
this presence of Eru's Will, but Men still have the ability to reject
this fate and to change the Music.
> But, granting a lot of free will in LOTR, there were also a lot of
> "chance happenings" that moved things inthe rigth direction, as
> well.
Exactly. I tend to view these chance events as opportunities set up
by providence. They are opportunities to do the right thing, and they
occur in the normal order of events, but they are unexpected by the
people who experience them and therefore appear to be random and
unguided even if they are not.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
One who cannot cast away a treasure at need is in fetters.
- Aragorn "Strider", /Two Towers/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Larry Swain
> In message <news:Pb5rk.3413$jY....@fe117.usenetserver.com>
> "NY Teacher" <Te...@you.com> spoke these staves:
>
>>"Flame of the West" <SPAM_ME_NO...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>message news:PM2dnfKvnrYhXDHV...@comcast.com...
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> [LotR]
>
>
>>>At every step, there is free will involved.
>
>
> I don't know if I'd say at /every/ step, but the exceptions are just
> that: exceptions (and rare ones to boot). The most notable (if not
> actually the only one?) is Frodo's failure to destroy the One Ring
> himself at Sammath Naur. Tolkien's defence of Frodo in letters,
> notably in nos 181 and 246, suggest that Frodo was not acting with
> free will (basically Tolkien asserts that Frodo was not morally
> responsible for his failure, and that suggests a lack of free will).
I would disagree. It indicates a lack of ABILITY inherent in a being
like Frodo to be able to forever resist the lure of the ring; lack of
inherent ability however is not the same as lack of free will. Though I
agree one could take some of Tolkien's statements as indicating that
Frodo no longer had a free will because he was dominated by the Ring.
Troels Forchhammer
Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
Exceptions to free will in LotR:
>> I don't know if I'd say at /every/ step, but the exceptions are
>> just that: exceptions (and rare ones to boot). The most notable
>> (if not actually the only one?) is Frodo's failure to destroy the
>> One Ring himself at Sammath Naur. Tolkien's defence of Frodo in
>> letters, notably in nos 181 and 246, suggest that Frodo was not
>> acting with free will (basically Tolkien asserts that Frodo was
>> not morally responsible for his failure, and that suggests a lack
>> of free will).
>
> I would disagree.
Wonderful -- thank you! ;-)
(Mostly for being willing to discuss this, of course)
> It indicates a lack of ABILITY inherent in a being like Frodo to
> be able to forever resist the lure of the ring; lack of inherent
> ability however is not the same as lack of free will.
This is basically Tolkien's argument for exempting Frodo from moral
responsibility -- that he could no longer resist the Ring. This is
stated explicitly by Tolkien and of course enters into my
considerations, but I am convinced that the intention was that
Frodo's free will, in this particular situation, was suppressed by
the lure and power of the One Ring, which was at its largest in that
place. Effectively, Frodo was not acting with free will when he chose
to claim the One: his free will had been suppressed by forces
external to himself.
There is a connection between moral responsibility and free will in
that the latter is a necessary precondition for the former. Had Frodo
therefore been morally responsible for his failure, then there could
be no doubt that he was acting (in that particular situation) with
free will. The opposite, however, is not always the case, but a lack
of free will is at least a possible explanation for a lack of moral
responsibility (another possibility is simple accident, but that
would not be applicable in this case).
> Though I agree one could take some of Tolkien's statements as
> indicating that Frodo no longer had a free will because he was
> dominated by the Ring.
Exactly.
I didn't mean to suggest that Frodo did not in general have or act
with free will -- only that his free will was suppressed when he made
this particular choice. I'd be happy to provide the quotations from
letters 181, 191, 192 and 246 that have convinced me of this.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.
- Niels Bohr, to a young physicist
Larry Swain
No, I know the Letters and have done some thinking on the question too.
I think Tolkien himself is trying to avoid saying that Frodo had lost
his free will to the Ring, though, while at the same time attempting to
exonerate him of moral failure or culpability. I'm not sure I find his
reasoning convincing, but I think that that is the line he is (or was)
trying to draw and walk along. And as you are aware the basis for that
very fine line is that Frodo though given grace to bear the burden could
never when it came down to the moment have mastered the Ring enough to
dispose of it, he wasn't big enough, perhaps no one in Middle Earth was.
Not sure how far we can take this, since we largely agree! But always
willing to discuss it
Derek Broughton
> Öjevind Lång <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote in
> news:6h78hpF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> "Larry Swain" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:daidneKO49WAETDV...@comcast.com...
>>
>
>>> They only rode to war against Melkor because the embassy of
>>> Earendil was successful, in large part because he had a
>>> simaril.
>>
>> And also because he was one of the Peredhil - that is to say, he
>> didn't represent only the Elves but also Men, who were not under
>> the Doom of Mandos. You might say he represented all the free or
>> freedom-loving peoples in Middle-earth.
>
> Gimli and Frodo would be upset with you for that last sentence...
Actually the general consensus here appears to be that Hobbits are merely
small Men (might I say "degraded"? No, probably not..)
> I don't think Treebeard would be all that pleased either...
I expect Treebeard would have simply (if anything an Ent says can be simple)
opined that Men & Elves are always hasty, and no doubt things would work
out for the good in the end, but if they really must claim to speak for
Ents, so be it.
--
derek
tenworld
> "Flame of the West" <SPAM_ME_NOT_jsoli...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:PM2dnfKvnrYhXDHV...@comcast.com...
>
...
> But, granting a lot of free will in LOTR, there were also a lot of "chance
> happenings" that moved things inthe rigth direction, as well.
>
but thats the way real life is:
would Christianity have spread so fast without a series of chance
events resulting in Octavian taking power and the Pax Romanum?
The battle of Midway which significantly changes WW!! was won because
of a number of chance happenings starting with Halsey being
hospitalized - much of the Japanese strategy was based on predicting
how he would react, and the miscoordination of the different groups
resulting in the scenario that dive bombers arrived late while
Japanese command were scratching their heads with grounded planes.
What would Kennedy have accomplished if Oswald had missed?
What if the 4th plane had hit the White House?
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
I'd like to try and take it just a bit further to see if we can
narrow down the point where our readings diverge.
>> I didn't mean to suggest that Frodo did not in general have or
>> act with free will -- only that his free will was suppressed when
>> he made this particular choice. I'd be happy to provide the
>> quotations from letters 181, 191, 192 and 246 that have convinced
>> me of this.
>>
>
> No, I know the Letters and have done some thinking on the question
> too.
> I think Tolkien himself is trying to avoid saying that Frodo had
> lost his free will to the Ring, though, while at the same time
> attempting to exonerate him of moral failure or culpability.
That's an interesting idea.
I wouldn't say that 'Frodo had lost his free will to the Ring,' so
I'd agree that Tolkien was trying to avoid saying that ;-)
My starting point is the following definition of free will, which I
think is the one that is relevant in connection with Tolkien:
Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is
very closely connected to the concept of moral
responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is
just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being
responsible for one's action.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/>
My claim is that other views than this have largely emerged since the
second world war and aren't really relevant here.
If a discussion of free will should be relevant at all, Frodo must be
making a choice to claim the One Ring (if he is not making a choice,
then some other will is using his voice and his action is clearly not
free-willed and the discussion moot). Now, there are of course other
requirements for moral responsibility than free will, but if we focus
on the choice itself, then we can at least eliminate those that
involve accident influencing the consequences of his choice.
The moment of Frodo's choice is this:
'I have come,' he said. 'But I do not choose not to do
what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is
mine!' And suddenly, as he set it on his finger, he
vanished from Sam's sight.
[LotR VI,3 'Mount Doom']
Frodo is clearly aware that his choice is morally wrong -- that it is
'against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under
the duress.'
Tolkien, in his letters, often mention 'will', e.g. by saying that we
should not 'demand impossible feats of will.' There are some
statements more or less directly suggesting that Frodo's strength of
will was insufficient to withstand the pressure of the One Ring at
this last moment. But if your will cannot resist some external force,
and you therefore succumb to the external pressure and make a choice
that is contrary to anything you would freely choose ('unfettered,
not under the duress'), is that not equivalent to making that choice
without free will? That, at least, is my conclusion.
In this I am also influenced by other considerations: the free will
of Elves who are nevertheless bound by the Music of the Ainur, which
is as fate to them, suggests that Tolkien was using a model of free
will that is similar in some respects to Franfurt's[1], in which you
act with free will if your action (or choice) reflects your 'true
self' -- I suppose that we can agree that in such a model, Frodo's
choice wasn't free-willed (since it was 'against any choice he would
make unfettered' etc.)? (Regardless of whether we agree on whether
Tolkien was using anything of the kind.)
> I'm not sure I find his reasoning convincing, but I think that that
> is the line he is (or was) trying to draw and walk along.
If Tolkien tried to avoid saying that Frodo's choice was unfree
(something I don't get the impression that he did, but still), he
wasn't making a very good effort at it, since he quite clearly states
that the choice is contrary to the one Frodo would freely make: the
choice was forced upon Frodo by a pressure he couldn't resist. I
think Tolkien is trying to be more specific: he is trying to
investigate the details of one specific kind of loss of freedom (or
loss of moral responsibility, if you will).
He suggests that we all have a limited strength of body and mind, and
that we can be placed in situations where this strength is not
sufficient to withstand temptation, that (as he states as a fact)
'the power of Evil in the world is /not/ finally resistible by
incarnate creatures, however "good".' The implication, as I read it,
is that he thought that one can be pushed beyond one's limits, in
which case one will be forced to make choices that go against one's
own will, and for which one would not be morally responsible.
> And as you are aware the basis for that very fine line is that
> Frodo though given grace to bear the burden could never when it
> came down to the moment have mastered the Ring enough to dispose
> of it, he wasn't big enough, perhaps no one in Middle Earth was.
Indeed.
There's a statement also in one of the letters that grace is not
infinite (I think it is in relation precisely to this question),
implying, I think, that Frodo did /not/ in the end receive grace to
resist the Ring in Sammath Naur.
> Not sure how far we can take this, since we largely agree! But
> always willing to discuss it
Let's see how far it'll take us ;)
[1] See e.g.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/>
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/>
for a summary of Harry Frankfurt's position.
A number of central papers are available here:
<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
To make a name for learning
when other roads are barred,
take something very easy
and make it very hard.
- Piet Hein, /Wide Road/
Bill O' Meally
> The moment of Frodo's choice is this:
>
> 'I have come,' he said. 'But I do not choose not to do
> what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is
> mine!' And suddenly, as he set it on his finger, he
> vanished from Sam's sight.
> [LotR VI,3 'Mount Doom']
>
> Frodo is clearly aware that his choice is morally wrong -- that it is
> 'against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under
> the duress.'
I'm not sure he is even aware that claiming the Ring was wrong at this
point. I'm not even sure it *was* his choice at this point.
Note that in claiming the Ring, Frodo states, "...I do not choose now to do
what I came to do."
I think it noteworthy that the phrase is "I do not choose" rather than "I
choose not to". The latter would be the most common usage, but Tolkien chose
to have Frodo say "I do not choose". A subtle difference, yes, but in the
hands of Tolkien I think it significant.
I think by this point Frodo had no more free will (when it came to resisting
the Ring). Therefore, it was not morally wrong for him to claim it: he did
*not* choose to do so! He failed *physically*, but no one could blame him
for that. Had he indeed failed *morally*, Providence would not have
intervened, and the story would have had a very different ending.
Larry Swain
some of the same questions on Free Will. I need to absorb what you say
here and think about it, but will respond.
Troels Forchhammer
> Great post Troels, and as you can see NYT and I are coming around
> to some of the same questions on Free Will. I need to absorb what
> you say here and think about it, but will respond.
Thank you.
I also wanted to ask if the e-mail address you use is valid? It doesn't
bounce, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you will actually read
any mail sent to it ;)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows
how to read.
- /Guards! Guards!/ (Terry Pratchett)
Larry Swain
> In message <news:Gs2dnQAA_oUswCrV...@comcast.com>
> Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>
>
>>Great post Troels, and as you can see NYT and I are coming around
>>to some of the same questions on Free Will. I need to absorb what
>>you say here and think about it, but will respond.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> I also wanted to ask if the e-mail address you use is valid? It doesn't
> bounce, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you will actually read
> any mail sent to it ;)
>
It is valid, I do read it, and actually even answered the note you sent.
Apparently you didn't get it? I'll resend.
RichD
> > That's one reason why the "it was all ordained" argument doesn't
> > feel right to me.
> > happenings" that moved things in the rigth direction, as well.
>
Indeed, that is one of the major themes of the book.
LOTR is not merely a fantasy adventure saga, it is
also a morality tale, in the old style sense. Very
'unmodern', so to speak. The good guys wear white
hats, bad guys wear black, valor is rewarded, evil
must be punished.
So, there is free will, but also Fate... which is more
or less fungible with God.
Tolkien inserts many such allusions; "I can only say
Bilbo was meant to find the ring, and you were meant
to have it, Frodo." ... but Frodo accepts his role freely,
not as a mesmerized robot of Fate...
--
Rich
Larry Swain
> In message <news:6h78cpF...@mid.individual.net>
> Öjevind Lång <bredba...@ojevind.lang> spoke these staves:
>
>
> [Frodo's attitude towards the One Ring at the Council of Elrond]
>
>
>>You are confusing events in the film with events in the book, I'm
>>afraid. In the book, Gimli is not a moron who tries to whack the
>>ring with his axe.
>
>
> And Frodo's reaction to the revelation of Aragorn's lineage at the
> Council (LotR II,2) is, in the book, rather ambiguous. He cies out, in
> amazement, that the Ring belongs to Aragorn, and jumps up 'as if he
> expected the Ring to be demanded at once.' It is never made clear if
> this amazement and springing to his feet is in relief and eagerness to
> hand over the One Ring to somebody else, or if he resents this
> possibility, and I think it is deliberately left unclear as an echo of
> Gollum's state as described in 'The Shadow of the Past' (LotR I,2) --
> both loving and hating the Ring. Had Aragorn asked for the Ring, I
> think Frodo would have wanted to give it over, but would have found
> himself unable to do so -- at least directly and without help, such as
> Bilbo got from Gandalf when he left Bag End.
>
> This of course relates also to the question of whether Frodo would have
> been able to give up the One Ring had Galadriel accepted his offer -- a
> question which was also left unanswered by Galadriel's redemption.
>
Hi Troels, I sent you a message, just asking here if you got it.
Clams Canino
"RichD" <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87aaccc5-508e-4c26...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >Clams Canino wrote:
> > "God helps those that help themselves" ??
>
> Indeed, that is one of the major themes of the book.
> LOTR is not merely a fantasy adventure saga, it is
> also a morality tale, in the old style sense.
I agree up to this point. My above statement being just an over-simplified
way of explaining how "grace" works in the real world.
> 'unmodern', so to speak. The good guys wear white
> hats, bad guys wear black, valor is rewarded, evil
> must be punished.
I somewhat disagee here. We see our "good" characters warts and all. Making
at times poor decisions and with perhaps the wrong motivations. (and even
some correct decisions with perhaps the wrong motivations) Sometimes it
works out for the best, other times not so good.
> So, there is free will, but also Fate... which is more
> or less fungible with God.
No disagreement here.
>
> Tolkien inserts many such allusions; "I can only say
> Bilbo was meant to find the ring, and you were meant
> to have it, Frodo." ... but Frodo accepts his role freely,
> not as a mesmerized robot of Fate...
Agreed 100%.
-W