Tolkien--Lessons From A Combat Veteran?
quiet
I didn't feel really got answered. So I'll ask it again.
Sorry about the length here. This is in two parts. In the first
message, I ask about the nature of Frodo's character, what the core of
his strength was, and why Tolkien wrote him the way he did. Something
that might not be obvious is that I see the LOTR as at least partly a
morality tale written by a combat veteran, and I get the feeling that
Tolkien was definitely making some moral statements to us in his
writing. If I am right, then I have a duty as a reader of his work to
understand what those statements are, to try and understand Tolkien's
views of good and evil.
From the LOTR story, it is plain that Tolkien is someone who has very
definite ideas about good and evil, and that these are very real
things to him, not just abstract notions. Perhaps this is partly due
to his experiences in the war. Many people dismiss LOTR as a silly
fantasy, but I feel that there is an important moral component there,
and that Tolkien's status as a combat veteran give automatic
credibility to his decision to express himself to the world in the
form of fiction. Charles Shulz, another combat veteran, used what
appeared to be a simplistic children's comic strip to communicate some
very solid fundamental and worthwhile morality to his audience.
Antoine de St. Exupery is another case of a combat veteran teaching us
right from wrong with what appears to be a simple tale for young
people.
The second message I'm repeating here (both messages are appended
below) is basically an attempt to clarify the first one. People get
very emotionally attached to the characters in LOTR, to the point
where they develop complex ego fantasies around these characters, and
their self-esteem can get tied up in the characters. Anything they
suspect to be derogatory can seem like an attack not just on their
favorite character but on them personally. My messages were asking
what morals Tolkien was giving us, by the act of constructing his
characters the way he did. I'm not asking, "What's your favorite
character?" or "Do you enjoy LOTR by fantasizing that you are a
such-and-such character?" or "In what way do you become emotionally
attached to the story?" There are already plenty of messages like
this on usenet about every conceivable subject.
People who write stories design their characters very carefully, and
if a character does something admirable, or despicable, or clever or
foolish, it is not an accident. That is the author's way of
communicating something to us about the characters, and he uses the
characters and plot and everything else in the story to communicate
something to us about how he sees the world. *That's* what I was
getting at here--people who think that I'm taking jabs at Frodo or
"overanalyzing" the story are missing the point.
Thanks in advance for your responses. What follows are my two
messages from seven years ago.
--quiet
--------------------------------------------
Subject: The Heroic Qualities of Hobbits
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Date: 1995/12/15
Hey, I've got a question about the heroic qualities of hobbits in the
LotR. This is probably covered in cliff notes or something, so
forgive me if it seems facile.
The heroic qualities of Frodo's companions, their strengths and
virtues, seem evident to me. Merry and Pippin are brave,
indefatiguably cheerful, and seemed to have a passionate sense of
honor. Sam is an icon of stubborn loyalty and good-heartedness; too
bad all friends aren't like Sam. Those three I understand.
But what about Frodo? I can see that he was wise, and that he had a
deep inner strength, but there is something about him that seems
non-heroic to me. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I
just see him as portrayed differently than all the other good-guys in
the story. He gets wounded and is sick a lot. He has to be looked
after constantly. His judgement was terrible concerning Gollum
towards the end. He loses his head in Shelob's Lair, running
heedlessly for the exit and almost torpedos the whole mission. And
then, of course, there is the whole business of the vanity of his
claim on the ring at the end of his quest. His friend Sam, having
born the ring for a short while, understands and forgives Frodo for
this, as do his other friends, it seems. But I can't help but smack
my forehead (figuratively) every time I read that part of the story!
"Frodo!", I think to myself, "you idiot! You came all this way, and
now you're screwing everything up!" I appreciate the elegance of
Gollum, the only one more obsessed with the ring than Sauron himself,
being the instrument of it's destruction, but still, I sort of roll my
eyes a bit when I think of Frodo going all that way, and folding at
the last moment. If it weren't for his friends, he'd be lost. I
don't think of him as a bumbler, and yet, when I think of all the
screw-ups he made, the image of Frodo as a bumbler does come across a
bit.
Do you think that maybe the whole point was that Frodo's strength was
the very fact that he inspired such loyalty in his friends? I very
much like Frodo's character, and I'm not being negative here. It just
struck me that Frodo is very different from all the other good guys,
and I'm trying to pin down exactly how and why. I have the suspicion
that this was an subtle and important point that Tolkien was trying to
make about Heroes, the nature of Good, and the importance of
friendship and wisdom...
-------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Heroic Qualities of Hobbits
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Date: 1995/12/22
In article f...@garuda.csulb.edu, beav...@csulb.edu (kella) writes:
>
> Yet, somehow, seated in the midst of the finest and bravest
> Eldar and Edain of the third age, he rises to his feet and accepts the
> quest when _none of the others do_. This act is the bravest thing he does
> in the whole story, for surely it takes more bravery to venture into a
> known danger than to volunteer for something out of ignorance.
>
There were a number of replies to my original message about the heroic
qualities of hobbits and how Frodo seemed to be a different character
than any of the other "good guys" in the Lord of the Rings story. I
enjoyed reading these comments, and wanted to follow them up.
One thing I noticed about the replies was that they all seemed, in one
way or another, to defend Frodo and his actions, and I think that they
all made very good points. But my original question wasn't whether
Frodo deserves admiration or not, but rather, why did Tolkien write
the Frodo character that way. Boromir and Denethor had their flaws
and I think that Tolkien was trying to show the hazards of pride and
intellectual arrogance: both Boromir and his father believed that
they knew better than anybody else what the right course of action
was. They refused to listen to their allies, and let their emotions
run away from them, abandoning wisdom and betraying their friends.
Even so, they were both good in their nature. Boromir was brave and
strong, and Denethor was (generally) wise, perceptive and tenacious as
the leader of Gondor. So I feel that Tolkien was showing Boromir and
Denethor as examples of how strength, bravery and intelligence, by
themselves, are not always enough in life. Wisdom, and loyalty and
humility are also important.
By contrast, look at Aragorn. He's brave, but he is not reckless. He
is strong, but gentle with people who are smaller or weaker than he
is. He fights to protect the shire, and doesn't ask for reward or
recognition. And he is smart, and knows all kinds of ancient lore, but
he is wise enough to know his limits, and respects the thoughts of
Elrond, Gandalf and others around him. He's just overflowing with
good qualities, and in Aragorn, it's easy to see what Tolkien thinks
are important qualities in a person.
So we come to Frodo. He is the central character in the Lord of the
Rings. The story spans so much ground with so many characters that it
is not always easy during the reading to point to any one character as
being the central character, but Frodo and his mission are most
central to the overall story. And what I meant to ask wasn't "Was
Frodo a good guy, and if so, why?" but rather, "What are Frodo's
qualities, good and bad, and why did Tolkien pick them?" Tolkien has
plenty of other characters which express different ways of living, and
the consequences of living in those ways. Frodo is a very specific
kind of person, and not the classic hero either. That makes me
curious. Why did Tolkien write Frodo the way he is instead of making
him tough and fearless and perfect? Personally, I think that would
have been more boring, but I can't help but wonder why anyways!
Also, it seems to me now that I think about it, that we, the readers,
were given a lot of insight into what Frodo was thinking in the
beginning of the story, but as the story went on, Frodo's thoughts got
"farther away" from us, and Sam's thoughts got closer. In the
beginning of the book, Sam is just a loyal and simple gardener, but by
the end, he has a lot more depth, and Frodo seemed a lot quieter. In
fact, it seems to me that after Frodo was hammered by the Eye on the
seat of vision on top of Amon Lhaw, he started to sort of drift away
from the reader. Any thoughts on this? Why the shift in focus from
Frodo to Sam as the story goes along?
Mark Constantino
"quiet" asks lots of pointed questions, showing that he already knows the
answer and is merely looking for confirmation from a respectable source. That
would be me.
That's the dilemma over which Sam and Smeagol have to struggle. How to handle
Frodo and the Ring. In the end, Smeagol wins the argument he has with Sam,
because he had to use force. Sam merely calls it a day and waits for Gandalf
to pick them up.
If we look at Easter Isle, the Frodo depicted there 240 times can teach us a
lesson from another point of view. Jerry Rivers *wants* his name there for
centuries, for God-only-knows-why aside from Jerry Rivers reasons.
Sammy pulled a switch on the conniving witches of course, Smeagol decoying. Or
the other way around, we don't know, because they won't tell us.
What's Aragorn and Eomer doing at the time? Being watched and manipulated
carefully by Meriadoc and Peregrin. Falconer's both.
At least that's my take on LOTR. Bet none of you had even thought it through
that far.
Brian Rauchfuss
> The heroic qualities of Frodo's companions, their strengths and
> virtues, seem evident to me. Merry and Pippin are brave,
> indefatiguably cheerful, and seemed to have a passionate sense of
> honor. Sam is an icon of stubborn loyalty and good-heartedness; too
> bad all friends aren't like Sam. Those three I understand.
>
> But what about Frodo? I can see that he was wise, and that he had a
> deep inner strength, but there is something about him that seems
> non-heroic to me. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I
I think that Tolkien was showing someone who had taken on a mission
beyond mortal strength. Frodo was not intended to be less heroic
than the other hobbits (except for in the Scouring of the Shire, when
it was his task to try to keep reason and morality on his own side).
In FOTR, all the hobbits are portrayed in similar ways. As time goes
on they all grow in heroism. Frodo, though, has taken on a task that
has no hope without divine intervention. He goes on doggedly, though,
and for his trouble he is especially targeted for danger.
> "Frodo!", I think to myself, "you idiot! You came all this way, and
> now you're screwing everything up!" I appreciate the elegance of
Tolkien said somewhere that *no one* would have been able to throw the
ring in at this point. I rather like the touch - Gandalf made it clear
at the very beginning of the story that Frodo was unable to risk hurting
the ring - but Frodo went through hell anyways to reach Mt Doom and
walked right up to the Crack of Doom. Did he every really think that
he would be able to throw the ring in? Why did he do it? He was merely
holding out as long as humanly (hobbitly?) possible, hoping that
Providence would take a hand when he gave out.
So would Merry or Pippin have done better? Of course not! What about
Sam? Maybe, but I would not want to bet Middle-Earth on it. Bilbo
and Gandalf though Frodo was the best hobbit in the Shire, and so I
think we can trust their judgement - Frodo was the best hobbit for
the job, and his failure was more an indication of the job than the
hobbit.
> Do you think that maybe the whole point was that Frodo's strength was
> the very fact that he inspired such loyalty in his friends? I very
> much like Frodo's character, and I'm not being negative here. It just
I think that part of Sam's strength was that he was capable of such
loyalty.
Brian
Jim Muller
>Hi. About seven years ago, I asked a question on this newsgroup which
>I didn't feel really got answered. So I'll ask it again.
Interesting essay, interesting questions.
I'll start with something from the bottom of your second note.
>...after Frodo was hammered by the Eye on the
>seat of vision on top of Amon Lhaw, he started to sort of drift away
>from the reader. Any thoughts on this? Why the shift in focus from
>Frodo to Sam as the story goes along?
Of course, it's always possible that this shift was unintentional by
JRRT, or rather, that he didn't intend for it to be so obvious. Let's
take as a given that Sam's character and the need for his loyalty were
planned from the start. As the need for Sam's help grew (in
accordance with the plot), his character would naturally have come
forward. In a two character scene, one comes forward only at the
expense of the other. By comparison, the earlier chapters could
maintain multi-way interactions, or multiple 2-way interactions.
But there is are more fundamental ideas at work in the story, and they
aren't just a matter of the mechanics of plot-construction. I think
you touched on them without realizing it.
Yes, JRRT does seem to have had firm ideas about good and evil. Most
people see the obvious: He valued personal strength, courage, wisdom,
simplicity, loyalty, etc., (not necessarily in that order); he was a
bit of a Luddite who mistrusted the use of technology (not necessarily
technology itself, I don't believe), and the use of power; he liked
the countryside and the qualities required by a rural life, though he
recognized the need for cities and some level of centralilzation. But
he also seems to have had ideas on the nature of evil that are not
often mentioned:
First, it consumes people, even those who fight it. Frodo was the
embodiment of the saying "It's a tough job but somebody's got to do
it." The Shakespearean Tragedy aspect of Frodo's story is that he
loses himself, and couldn't possibly win. No matter how strong, firm,
brave, unpretentious, simplistic, blah, blah, blah you are, evil will
extract its toll. The individuals who carry the torch are always
singed by the effort. War comes and even the winner loses as the
world is changed, so nations too are singed. Frodo is stabbed, stung,
bitten, and ultimately loses his values. As he rides to the Gray
Havens he is probably more burdened by the knowledge of his own
weakness than the physical hurts. But he survives and deals with it
instead of becoming a drunkard or psychotic because Hobbits have no
pretensions about being perfect. So in the end he is a victor after
all.
Second, Frodo succeeded only through his friends' help, everyone doing
everything right, and good fortune. The task was his because the
Great Ones couldn't dare to try. But despite all his Hobbit-ness, he
could have failed because the task was simply too big, too hard. In
other words, there is no guarantee in the world. Despite what your
mother said, Good will not necessarily always triumph over Evil. None
of us are beyond failure, none of us knows exactly what we will do in
an unknown situation. Evil is frightening precisely because there is
no certain success, or even a certainty of our own individual
morality. That makes Frodo more like us latter-day humans, less of a
comic-book character, and certainly not less admirable.
Thirdly, evil has (or at least, can have) the propensity to turn on
itself and be its own undoing. Gollum's return is more than just a
Deus ex machina solution. It is the reflection of evil back onto its
own path, to its own ultimate loss. JRRT says this about evil many
times - the orc fight among themselves, betray each other, Saruman
decides to play his own game and betray Sauron, etc.
The point you touched on is that a combat veteran would be highly
likely to recognize these ideas and good at presenting them. Ever
know anyone who went to Viet Nam? Or WWII? Perhaps some returned
less burned than others, but combat changes everyone. (Fortunately
for me I've never been there, done that. Known those who have,
though.) A combat veteran would also know that you can never predict
your own actions in the face of enough trouble. And that you may not
necessarily win even if you have (or believe that you have) God,
motherhood, and apple pie on your side. Fnally, that Evil's (or the
enemy's) intent can backfire, such as when Germany tried using
chlorine gas during WWI. Surely JRRT would have learned these ideas
in two world wars. Frodo was therefore the embodiment of the poor
grunt given a rifle and expected to do a task that he didn't ask for
and that was really bigger than he could handle. He wanted it to go
away. "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for
them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with time that is
given to us." So he did all that he could do. With good fortune and
a little help from his friends, he succeeded. He paid the price and
earned our compassion.
quiet
I'm in the middle of chores, but what I glanced at look interesting.
Thanks for the comments, I'm going to really dig 'em!
Regards,
quiet
quiet
> On 11 Jul 2002 15:40:07 -0700, quiet...@yahoo.com (quiet) wrote:
> Thirdly, evil has (or at least, can have) the propensity to turn on
> itself and be its own undoing. Gollum's return is more than just a
> Deus ex machina solution. It is the reflection of evil back onto its
> own path, to its own ultimate loss. JRRT says this about evil many
> times - the orc fight among themselves, betray each other, Saruman
> decides to play his own game and betray Sauron, etc.
>
> in two world wars. Frodo was therefore the embodiment of the poor
> grunt given a rifle and expected to do a task that he didn't ask for
> and that was really bigger than he could handle.
wow, great stuff man, thanks for taking the time to write that. Brian
also made some good points but I think you really nailed down what I
couldn't quite say or figure out myself. Thanks to both you guys,
interesting stuff, and it will add to my next reading of LOTR.
Regards,
R
Daffodil
<snip>
>
> Subject: The Heroic Qualities of Hobbits
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
> Date: 1995/12/15
>
> Hey, I've got a question about the heroic qualities of hobbits in the
> LotR.
>
> But what about Frodo? I can see that he was wise, and that he had a
> deep inner strength, but there is something about him that seems
> non-heroic to me. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I
> just see him as portrayed differently than all the other good-guys in
> the story. He gets wounded and is sick a lot. He has to be looked
> after constantly. His judgement was terrible concerning Gollum
> towards the end. He loses his head in Shelob's Lair, running
> heedlessly for the exit and almost torpedos the whole mission. And
> then, of course, there is the whole business of the vanity of his
> claim on the ring at the end of his quest. His friend Sam, having
> born the ring for a short while, understands and forgives Frodo for
> this, as do his other friends, it seems. But I can't help but smack
> my forehead (figuratively) every time I read that part of the story!
> "Frodo!", I think to myself, "you idiot! You came all this way, and
> now you're screwing everything up!" I appreciate the elegance of
> Gollum, the only one more obsessed with the ring than Sauron himself,
> being the instrument of it's destruction, but still, I sort of roll my
> eyes a bit when I think of Frodo going all that way, and folding at
> the last moment. If it weren't for his friends, he'd be lost. I
> don't think of him as a bumbler, and yet, when I think of all the
> screw-ups he made, the image of Frodo as a bumbler does come across a
> bit.
>
> Subject: Re: The Heroic Qualities of Hobbits
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
> Date: 1995/12/22
>
> In article f...@garuda.csulb.edu, beav...@csulb.edu (kella) writes:
> >
> > Yet, somehow, seated in the midst of the finest and bravest
> > Eldar and Edain of the third age, he rises to his feet and accepts the
> > quest when _none of the others do_. This act is the bravest thing he does
> > in the whole story, for surely it takes more bravery to venture into a
> > known danger than to volunteer for something out of ignorance.
> >
>
> So we come to Frodo. He is the central character in the Lord of the
> Rings.
>Frodo and his mission are most central to the overall story.
>"What are Frodo's qualities, good and bad, and why did Tolkien pick
them?"
>Frodo is a very specific kind of person, and not the classic hero
either.
> Why did Tolkien write Frodo the way he is instead of making
> him tough and fearless and perfect?
> In fact, it seems to me that after Frodo was hammered by the Eye on the
> seat of vision on top of Amon Lhaw, he started to sort of drift away
> from the reader.
>Why the shift in focus from Frodo to Sam as the story goes along?
Your post reminded me of my favorite letter in 'Letters' so I reread
it and think it answers many of your questions. It is too long to type
the whole thing so here are just a few parts.
Letter #246 "From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar Sept 1963
(A reply to a reader's comments on Frodo's failure to surrender the
Ring in the Cracks of Doom)
Frodo's failure...is a very important point. It became at last quite
clear that Frodo after all that had happened would be incapable of
voluntarily destroying the Ring. Reflecting on the solution after it
was arrived at, I feel that it is central to the whole 'theory' of
true nobility and heroism that is presented.
Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he
did not endure to the end; he gave in.
I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment
the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximun - impossible, I
should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long
possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and
exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely
(as an instument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which
the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which
he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest
honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained
him Mercy: his failure was redressed. ..Moral failure can only be
asserted, I think, when a man's effort or endurance falls short of his
limits.
...He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt; he was restored
to sanity and peace. But then he thought that he had given his life
in sacrifice; he expected to die very soon. But he did not, and one
can observe the disquiet growing in him. ...Slowly he fades out of the
picture, saying and doing less and less. I think it is clear on
reflection to an attentive reader that when his dark times came upon
him and he was conscious of being 'wounded' by knife sting and tooth
and a long burden' it was not only nightmare memories of past horrors
that afflicted him, but also unreasoning self-reproach: he saw himself
and all that he had done as a broken failure..."
The insight into Frodo JRRT gives in this letter just about breaks my
heart every time I read it. I had to restrain myself and only gave you
a bit. The letter is almost eight pages long. Have you read 'Letters'?
If not, I highly recommend it. You really need to read the entire
letter. I left out lots of good information.
Are there any other good sources explaining Frodo? I find his
character subtle and complicated to understand.
Namarie,
Daffodil
Mark Constantino
>character subtle and complicated to understand.
Why did Frodo get tortured, and then had to write an account of his travels
from his point of view?
Tolkien is Catholic, and he read the Bible.
A real Frodo, such as Lewis, *is* divided and suffers greatly, and is Tolkien's
close friend, though I think he liked Auden better. The extreme Frodo is what
serious critics and scientists detest, or a charicature of Jerry Rivers who are
supposed to be taken seriously, and who are downright *dangerous* to the
society at large. The only reason to write LOTR, besides laughs. I suggest
spiders as an invention of Frodo or Bilbo or Sam, probably Bilbo and expanded
to Shelob by Frodo. There are others. Now I see lots of people going back to
the books for a reread, so the Estate will be happy.
Glenn Holliday
...
> message, I ask about the nature of Frodo's character, what the core of
> his strength was, and why Tolkien wrote him the way he did. Something
Frodo's role in the story is not a heroic one. There are other characters
to show heroic lessons. Tolkien said the same thing about Bilbo in
"The Hobbit": "... in this neighbourhood heroes are scarce, or simply
not to be found. ... That is why I settled on burglary..."
Why did Tolkien pick the characteristics that he put into Frodo's
character? Because they show how Tolkien felt human nature worked.
Frodo at the Council does not make a heroic choice but a moral choice.
(It also requires bravery to make, but that's beside the point.)
Frodo fails at the end because all flesh fails. Frodo knew he would
fail. He said as much to Sam before ascending Mount Doom. Tolkien
chose fallible as one of Frodo's characteristics because he wanted
to say that about all people.
That'a a big theme of the book -- everything is running down, and
getting less mythical as the Ages turn. I think Tolkien makes it
clear that not one character in the story would have succeeded at
the Cracks of Doom.
However, Frodo makes the right choices (except for the moment of
his failure, and you could argue that he is no longer freely choosing
at that point). Tolkien is showing that moral choices are more
important than having the strength to act fully on those choices.
Tolkien's story comes to a happy ending not because the heroes
succeed, but because Providence rewards their choices at the critical
moment.
Frodo seems to me much like Tolkien. There have probably been essays
I haven't read yet written on this topic, so I won't try to develop
it much. But both were ordinary people thrown into a war. Both
tried to do the right things, and both suffered in the process.
I think there's probably a lot to your suggestion that Tolkien's
combat history had something to do with his stories.
--
Glenn Holliday holl...@acm.org
Mark Constantino
You're close, but not the right stuff, that you wrote.
C'mon, Bombadil-o, Gandalf, Bilbo, Sam, and Smeagol all gave up the One Ring
quite easily. The Bomber himself at his house, Gandalf in Bilbo's house, Bilbo
both on the way back from Erebor and after the Party, Sam in Mordor [of all
places, where the Ring was supposed to be heavy], and Smeagol [who lied to
Gandalf] who left it on the floor. Drownded, you say? There are other
possibilities.
It was easy to take off and get rid of the real or faux Ring.
Stan Brown
>Frodo's role in the story is not a heroic one.
This depends very much on which of the standard meanings of "hero"
you use.
His role was not heroic in the sense of doing great deeds by arms.
His role _was_ heroic in the sense of carrying out a holy task,
assigned him by the gods, at great personal sacrifice.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com/
"What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?"
"My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters."
"The waters? What waters? We're in the desert."
"I was misinformed."
AC
> Glenn Holliday <holl...@acm.org> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>Frodo's role in the story is not a heroic one.
>
> This depends very much on which of the standard meanings of "hero"
> you use.
>
> His role was not heroic in the sense of doing great deeds by arms.
> His role _was_ heroic in the sense of carrying out a holy task,
> assigned him by the gods, at great personal sacrifice.
I consider it pretty heroic to take the Ruling Ring, the major requirement
for Sauron to finally achieve victory, right into the heart of his power. I
don't think I'd have that kind of guts.
--
AC
Brought to you by Ed the Invisible Orange Iguana of Doom, Creator of the
Universe.
Mark Constantino
Speaking of heroes, the national hero of the Philippines currently is Lea
Salonga, who I briefly, very briefly met in the halls of the University at
Diliman. Her acting colleague is one Leo Roque who only likes protein and is a
star, in the Philippines [ryan ryan, musikahan, it's a tv show], bit player in
Saigon, and her relative is Senator Jovito Salonga who knows my family. She
was seventeen, I was 21 or 22 when we met.
I see no reason for clothing cutie, do you?
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
> In article <MPG.179abb1e3...@news.odyssey.net>, Stan Brown wrote:
> > Glenn Holliday <holl...@acm.org> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >>Frodo's role in the story is not a heroic one.
> >
> > This depends very much on which of the standard meanings of "hero"
> > you use.
> >
> > His role was not heroic in the sense of doing great deeds by arms.
> > His role _was_ heroic in the sense of carrying out a holy task,
> > assigned him by the gods, at great personal sacrifice.
>
> I consider it pretty heroic to take the Ruling Ring, the major requirement
> for Sauron to finally achieve victory, right into the heart of his power. I
> don't think I'd have that kind of guts.
Neither, I think, did Frodo. Had he know what was in store, I don't
think he would have accepted the task. A little like Merry and Pippin:
"That is because you do not understand and cannot imagine what lies
ahead," said Elrond.
"Neither does Frodo," said Gandalf, unexpectedly supporting Pippin.
"Nor do any of us see clearly. It is true that if these hobbits
understood the danger, they would not dare to go. But they would still
wish to go, or wish that they dared, and be shamed and unhappy.
-- LOTR, The Ring Goes South
--
Kristian Damm Jensen | Feed the hungry at www.thehungersite.com
kristian-d...@cgey.com | Two wrongs doesn't make a right,
ICQ# 146728724 | but three lefts do.
Lauren
news:7830097e.02071...@posting.google.com:
> Hi. About seven years ago, I asked a question on this newsgroup which
> I didn't feel really got answered. So I'll ask it again.
>
>
Hi! I'm coming in a bit late to this topic, but I hope you'll read it
anyway ... I snipped a good bit of your message for brevity.
>
> But what about Frodo? I can see that he was wise, and that he had a
> deep inner strength, but there is something about him that seems
> non-heroic to me. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I
> just see him as portrayed differently than all the other good-guys in
> the story. He gets wounded and is sick a lot. He has to be looked
> after constantly. His judgement was terrible concerning Gollum
> towards the end. He loses his head in Shelob's Lair, running
> heedlessly for the exit and almost torpedos the whole mission. And
> then, of course, there is the whole business of the vanity of his
> claim on the ring at the end of his quest. His friend Sam, having
> born the ring for a short while, understands and forgives Frodo for
> this, as do his other friends, it seems. But I can't help but smack
> my forehead (figuratively) every time I read that part of the story!
> "Frodo!", I think to myself, "you idiot! You came all this way, and
> now you're screwing everything up!" I appreciate the elegance of
> Gollum, the only one more obsessed with the ring than Sauron himself,
> being the instrument of it's destruction, but still, I sort of roll my
> eyes a bit when I think of Frodo going all that way, and folding at
> the last moment. If it weren't for his friends, he'd be lost. I
> don't think of him as a bumbler, and yet, when I think of all the
> screw-ups he made, the image of Frodo as a bumbler does come across a
> bit.
>
Well, first of all, I think you're being a bit too hard on poor Frodo here-
-but I see that that's already been addressed. Moving on, this is the part
I wanted to respond to:
>
> By contrast, look at Aragorn. He's brave, but he is not reckless. He
> is strong, but gentle with people who are smaller or weaker than he
> is. He fights to protect the shire, and doesn't ask for reward or
> recognition. And he is smart, and knows all kinds of ancient lore, but
> he is wise enough to know his limits, and respects the thoughts of
> Elrond, Gandalf and others around him. He's just overflowing with
> good qualities, and in Aragorn, it's easy to see what Tolkien thinks
> are important qualities in a person.
>
> So we come to Frodo. He is the central character in the Lord of the
> Rings. The story spans so much ground with so many characters that it
> is not always easy during the reading to point to any one character as
> being the central character, but Frodo and his mission are most
> central to the overall story. And what I meant to ask wasn't "Was
> Frodo a good guy, and if so, why?" but rather, "What are Frodo's
> qualities, good and bad, and why did Tolkien pick them?" Tolkien has
> plenty of other characters which express different ways of living, and
> the consequences of living in those ways. Frodo is a very specific
> kind of person, and not the classic hero either. That makes me
> curious. Why did Tolkien write Frodo the way he is instead of making
> him tough and fearless and perfect? Personally, I think that would
> have been more boring, but I can't help but wonder why anyways!
I've always seen Frodo's "non-heroic" nature (as opposed to someone like
Aragorn) as one of the major points of the story. There are two major
plotlines going on. One is a story of great, highly visible events and
battles, centered around a traditionally heroic figure--Aragorn. The other
is small, almost invisible, happening in the shadows, centered around a
figure who is not traditionally heroic--Frodo. The great irony of the
situation is that it's this smaller, "non-heroic" battle which is actually
the more important. It's Frodo and his quest upon which the fate of the
world depends. All of Aragorn's heroism will amount to nothing if Frodo's
quest ultimately fails.
The point I've always taken from this (whether it was part of Tolkien's
intent or not): great battles and heroism are all very well, and they're
important. But ultimately, the fate--indeed, the salvation--of the world,
doesn't depend on the actions of a few larger-than-life hero figures, but
on the consciences and actions of the ordinary, the non-"heroic".
Frodo being so imperfect, then, is part of the very point. If he were a
traditional hero-figure, would his actions have the same importance? I
think not. It's the fact that he *is* rather ordinary in the heroism
department that makes his acceptance of the quest, and his sacrifice,
significant. If he were a "hero", what he did would have been just "in the
line of duty": that's what "heros" do.
But he wasn't a "hero". He was just a guy in over his head, thrust into
this situation through no particular action or quality of his own, as far
as anyone could see. And he still did his best, because, by being thrust
into the situation, that's what he had to do, according to his conscience.
We all like to hope, however ordinary we may be, that if we were suddenly
given that kind of responsibility, we would do as well as he did.
Taking it back to the combat-veteran thread--of course the great political
events, the great battle generals, et cetera, are important. But
ultimately, the success in a war depends on the bravery and sacrifice of
the ordinary soldier.
Lauren
Waxing a little philosophic this morning
Josep
>> deep inner strength, but there is something about him that seems
>> non-heroic to me. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I
>> just see him as portrayed differently than all the other good-guys in
>> the story. He gets wounded and is sick a lot.
However, he carries for fourteen days a splint of a Morgul blade that
would have finished a powerful Man.
>> He loses his head in Shelob's Lair, running
>> heedlessly for the exit and almost torpedos the whole mission.
Yeah, right. Gandalf shudders when Cirith Ungol is *mentioned*. Frodo and
Sam have the real stuff to cope with, and getting out of such a foul
place ASAP sounds not like a bad idea to me. How could Frodo know all the
exits of Shelob's lair?. I would say not even Manwė had such a knowledge
>> And
>> then, of course, there is the whole business of the vanity of his
>> claim on the ring at the end of his quest.
Vanity? I would rather say that finally the Ring has gnawed at his mind
enough to turn him mad. A man with Numenorean blood, like Boromir,
becomes mad at the mere thought of the Ring. Elrond does not even want to
touch it in Rivendell. Frodo succumbs to it after *years* of carrying it
and coming to the place where the power of the Ring is greatest. Not bad.
Oh, and why was Frodo the Ringbearer, you might say? I think I remember
it was because among all the noblest people of Middle Earth *nobody* -
and that includes Aragorn, Elrond, Cirdan and Gandalf - has the courage
to take it
>> His friend Sam, having
>> born the ring for a short while, understands and forgives Frodo for
>> this, as do his other friends, it seems.
Sam is the archetypical "good companion", and I would say he is too full
of plain hobbit-sense to be deceived by the Ring. His friendship to
Frodo is also considerably strong.
>> If it weren't for his friends, he'd be lost.
That is the reason the Fellowship of the Ring was formed, to help the
Ringbearer fulfill his mission. Incidentally. the choice of members for
the Fellowship proved to be a good one in the end.
>>I
>> don't think of him as a bumbler, and yet, when I think of all the
>> screw-ups he made, the image of Frodo as a bumbler does come across a
>> bit.
A bumbler? I cannot imagine any other else in the Fellowship sustaining
half of the hardships Frodo does
>> By contrast, look at Aragorn. He's brave, but he is not reckless.
>> He is strong, but gentle with people who are smaller or weaker than
>> he is. He fights to protect the shire, and doesn't ask for reward or
>> recognition. And he is smart, and knows all kinds of ancient lore,
>> but he is wise enough to know his limits, and respects the thoughts
>> of Elrond, Gandalf and others around him. He's just overflowing with
>> good qualities, and in Aragorn, it's easy to see what Tolkien thinks
>> are important qualities in a person.
>>
Aragorn is a wonderful character. True. Is it not curious that such an
admirable man instead of kicking such a bumbler's ass tells all his
subjects to "praise him with great praise"? Maybe Frodo is not such a big
bumbler, after all.
>>"What are Frodo's
>> qualities, good and bad, and why did Tolkien pick them?" Tolkien has
>> plenty of other characters which express different ways of living,
>> and the consequences of living in those ways. Frodo is a very
>> specific kind of person, and not the classic hero either. That makes
>> me curious. Why did Tolkien write Frodo the way he is instead of
>> making him tough and fearless and perfect? Personally, I think that
>> would have been more boring, but I can't help but wonder why anyways!
Frodo is a hero. I would say he is even more heroic than Aragorn. After
all, besides removing evil from the world and restoring justice, Aragorn
ghas at least two very powerful motives to go on with the fight: The love
of Arwen and the Kingdom of Gondor and Arnor. It is not a bad prize, is
it?.
On the other side, what are Frodo's expectations? To save the Shire, the
land he loves. Any other? I would not say so. Wealth? Power? Not at all:
Rather going back home and finding that everything is as it was before.
He does not even get that.
After Minas Morgul, Frodo does not even hope to go back to the Shire,
since they (he and Sam) do not have enough food to be back to Ithilien.
However, after being poisoned, almost eaten alive, tortured, and whipped
he keeps going on, just for the Shire and the people in it. Enduring so
much without hope of a reward and be ready to die for the loved ones seem
quite good qualities to me. Like Farmer Giles, Frodo is an ordinary man
(er... hobbit). Like Farmer Giles, Frodo has a lot more in him than it
shows at first glance, far more that many knights in shining armour. And
that is the big issue: Greatnes is not inherited, but rather demonstrated
when under test
Donald Shepherd
> Oh, and why was Frodo the Ringbearer, you might say? I think I remember
> it was because among all the noblest people of Middle Earth *nobody* -
> and that includes Aragorn, Elrond, Cirdan and Gandalf - has the courage
> to take it
It wasn't so much that they lacked courage, rather than they were wise
enough to know that they could not resist the Ring's evil had they put it
on.
Josep
news:MPG.17a6781c3...@news.cairns.net.au:
>
> It wasn't so much that they lacked courage, rather than they were wise
> enough to know that they could not resist the Ring's evil had they put
> it on.
>
But they let a poor hobbit do it. Unless they saw something in that hobbit
that made him stronger against the Ring than themselves, they would be but
a pack of fools. So, in any case, Mr. Frodo BAggins definitely *had*
something
Pep
Stuart Campbell
> deep inner strength, but there is something about him that seems
> non-heroic to me. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I
> just see him as portrayed differently than all the other good-guys in
> the story. He gets wounded and is sick a lot. He has to be looked
> after constantly. His judgement was terrible concerning Gollum
> towards the end.
I think you have missed the point of the book here. The point is -
BECAUSE Frodo made such good judgements concerning Gollum, in the end
the mission succeeded. Without the Pity ( or mercy, if you like ) of
Frodo, Gollum would have died long ago, and the mission would
certainly have failed.
Frodo is depicted many times ( Ithilien, The Rope Incident for
instance ) making a knife edge decision on Gollum, that though
personally costly, he makes the right choice.
Also, I think you are making light of Frodos wounds. Stabbed by
Saurons first leutenant, Pinned to the wall by an Orc-Chieftain, stung
and poisioned by Shelob, last child of Ungoliant to trouble an unhappy
world, and the tortured by Orcs, let alone the torture of carrying the
ring. Any one of these would have likely done in a brave man.
>
> There were a number of replies to my original message about the heroic
> qualities of hobbits and how Frodo seemed to be a different character
> than any of the other "good guys" in the Lord of the Rings story. I
> enjoyed reading these comments, and wanted to follow them up.
>
Certainly Frodo is different, but so is Sam, Merry, Pippin, Bilbo.
None of these are your classical hero.
Sam is certainly the hero of the book, Frodo could not have made it
without Sam's clarity of mind, strength and courage. But then Sam was
lost without Frodo.
> the Frodo character that way. Boromir and Denethor had their flaws
> and I think that Tolkien was trying to show the hazards of pride and
> intellectual arrogance: both Boromir and his father believed that
> they knew better than anybody else what the right course of action
> was. They refused to listen to their allies, and let their emotions
> run away from them, abandoning wisdom and betraying their friends.
> Even so, they were both good in their nature. Boromir was brave and
> strong, and Denethor was (generally) wise, perceptive and tenacious as
> the leader of Gondor. So I feel that Tolkien was showing Boromir and
> Denethor as examples of how strength, bravery and intelligence, by
> themselves, are not always enough in life. Wisdom, and loyalty and
> humility are also important.
The basic flaw of Denethor and his son Boromir is that they thought
that all means were equal in reaching a given goal. Hence using the
Ring to overthrow Sauron, made sense to them, indeed , in a worldly
immediate sense it was the wise choice. Gandalf chose foolishness over
wisdom, knowing that Good lay in the heart, not in victory.
>
> By contrast, look at Aragorn. He's brave, but he is not reckless. He
> is strong, but gentle with people who are smaller or weaker than he
> is. He fights to protect the shire, and doesn't ask for reward or
> recognition. And he is smart, and knows all kinds of ancient lore, but
> he is wise enough to know his limits, and respects the thoughts of
> Elrond, Gandalf and others around him. He's just overflowing with
> good qualities, and in Aragorn, it's easy to see what Tolkien thinks
> are important qualities in a person.
>
Actually, Aragorn has several dimensions. He makes bad choices.
Knowing that he has a pivotal role to play, he agonises over his
'wrong' decisions, forgetting to be part of the whole.
Also, when he captures Gollum he says something along the lines of -
"he bit me, and I was not gentle, I had to tie him up with ropes".
Perhaps he has actually learnt his pity from Frodo? Who knows what
would have happened on the way to Mordor, had Aragorn been there.
>
> Also, it seems to me now that I think about it, that we, the readers,
> were given a lot of insight into what Frodo was thinking in the
> beginning of the story, but as the story went on, Frodo's thoughts got
> "farther away" from us, and Sam's thoughts got closer. In the
> beginning of the book, Sam is just a loyal and simple gardener, but by
> the end, he has a lot more depth, and Frodo seemed a lot quieter. In
> fact, it seems to me that after Frodo was hammered by the Eye on the
> seat of vision on top of Amon Lhaw, he started to sort of drift away
> from the reader. Any thoughts on this? Why the shift in focus from
> Frodo to Sam as the story goes along?
I wonder if Tolkien himself, having made Sam an offsider, came to like
him more than Frodo?
AC
> The basic flaw of Denethor and his son Boromir is that they thought
> that all means were equal in reaching a given goal. Hence using the
> Ring to overthrow Sauron, made sense to them, indeed , in a worldly
> immediate sense it was the wise choice. Gandalf chose foolishness over
> wisdom, knowing that Good lay in the heart, not in victory.
I agree, but it is deeper than that. Denethor was a political leader, whose
concern was the state of Gondor. Boromir had essentially the same goal, the
preservation of Gondor. That is part of the reason, I think, that Denethor
did not altogether trust Faramir. Faramir did betray the safety of Gondor
by permitting Frodo to depart for Mordor with the Ring, if you look at it
from Denethor's point of view. Faramir leaned towards the concerns of
Gandalf, whose concern was all the free peoples of Middle Earth, not just
one kingdom.
Josep
> Bilbo walking away from the ring was apparently unprecedented. Maybe
> "the Wise" were so impressed by this that they figured that the
> kinsman Bilbo left the ring to was a good candidate for carrying it.
> When Frodo offered to *give* it to Galdriel, that was also impressive,
> apparently.
As a matter of fact, in the end it could prove very lucky for Middle
Earth that most Ring-bearers were hobbits. Let's remember them
Sauron - cannot be corrupted because is already completely turned to evil
Isildur - Had the Ring only about 2 years, and Eru knows what could have
become of him
Gollum - The Only hobbit to be corrupted by the Ring. However, it must be
said in his defence that he had the Ring more time than any other
Ringbearer (although I am not sure about Sauron)
Bilbo - Had the Ring for 60 years, and passed it of his own will (with
some help from Gandalf)
Tom Bombadil - Although he had the Ring only for some minutes, not only
he gave it completely freely, but also was unaffected by its powers
Frodo - Had the Ring for about 18 years. Became dominated by the Ring a
short time in Mount Doom. Quite understandable, considering the place and
situation
Sam - Had the Ring for some hours (but in Mordor!) and gave it up freely
Gollum (again) - Never got to actually *touch* the Ring in his - brief -
second Ringbearer term
So, you have it. With one exception, all *mortals* that wore the Ring
were hobbits, and two of them managed to give it to some other person. As
Gandalf said, a curious race indeed. Maybe it is not just Frodo, but all
hobbits that have some extraordinary qualities
Pep
Bill O'Meally
"Josep" <f...@crlf.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92557BF4...@130.133.1.4...
> pci...@TheWorld.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in
> Gollum - The Only hobbit to be corrupted by the Ring. However, it must be
> said in his defence that he had the Ring more time than any other
> Ringbearer (although I am not sure about Sauron)
Although, one could argue that Smeagol was already a bad seed .
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
> pci...@TheWorld.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in
>
> > Bilbo walking away from the ring was apparently unprecedented. Maybe
> > "the Wise" were so impressed by this that they figured that the
> > kinsman Bilbo left the ring to was a good candidate for carrying it.
> > When Frodo offered to *give* it to Galdriel, that was also impressive,
> > apparently.
>
> As a matter of fact, in the end it could prove very lucky for Middle
> Earth that most Ring-bearers were hobbits. Let's remember them
>
> Sauron - cannot be corrupted because is already completely turned to evil
>
> Isildur - Had the Ring only about 2 years, and Eru knows what could have
> become of him
I am at the moment playing in an RPG based on this scenario. The
conjecture here is that Isildur would have been corrupted by the ring
and learned to use its power. Using this power he would have sought out
the ghost of Sauron and destroyed it, set up a goverment over all of
Middle Earth that made Saurons rule seem like kindergarten. When the
Valar decides to intervene by sending the Istari, he decides to view
this as an act of was and attack Valinor itself (how this could happen,
I don't know, this is fantasy anyhow). You get the drift.
> Gollum - The Only hobbit to be corrupted by the Ring. However, it must be
> said in his defence that he had the Ring more time than any other
> Ringbearer (although I am not sure about Sauron)
One could argue that
(a) he was not a hobbit, but a proto-hobbit and
(b) he was corrupted before even touching the ring.
<snip>
> Frodo - Had the Ring for about 18 years. Became dominated by the Ring a
> short time in Mount Doom. Quite understandable, considering the place and
> situation
... and what happened in the previous 2-3 month. Agreed.
> Sam - Had the Ring for some hours (but in Mordor!) and gave it up freely
Not quite freely, though he might have, had Frodo waited another few
seconds:
"No, no!" cried Frodo, snatching the Ring and chain from Sam's hands.
"No you won't, you thief!"
<snip>
pmhi...@mfx.net
>
> Sam is the archetypical "good companion", and I would say he is too full
> of plain hobbit-sense to be deceived by the Ring. His friendship to
> Frodo is also considerably strong.
>
I would suggest that Sam's loyalty, steadfastness, love & determination are
the foundatons of the human condition.
Yours in the north Maine woods,
Pete Hilton aka The Ent
--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero
pmhi...@mfx.net
Recall Gandalf's evaluation of Bilbo: "There's more about you than meets the
eye." (perhaps not exact) Also with Frodo & Sam: they're so thoroughly "basic"
in their personalaities that all the high-toned, world-shaking drama of great
power & greed means little or nothing to them. The only aspects of the
"greater" elements in these tales which do affect their thinking and mold
their actions are those which are really their own personality traits lifted
to the levels of world-wide figures. They are loyal to Aragorn as a companion
and even when they learn more fully of his background & quest their thoughts &
actions toward him do not change. Of all the ruling class, only Theoden has
the good luck to be granted total loyalty of a Hobbit.This has been hinted at
also in other posts to this thread & perhaps explained more clearly. Not to
say Hobbits are perfection made flesh, but they are basically what is good &
decent & hoped for in all peoples.
Yours in the north MAie woods,
Josep
news:3D3E44F8...@MOVEcgey.com:
> (a) he was not a hobbit, but a proto-hobbit and
> (b) he was corrupted before even touching the ring.
Hum, no. I would say he was a full-blown hobbit. However, it is true that
he was not the nicest hobbit in the world. A lot like Ted Sandyman, if
you understand me.
> Not quite freely, though he might have, had Frodo waited another few
> seconds:
>
> "No, no!" cried Frodo, snatching the Ring and chain from Sam's hands.
> "No you won't, you thief!"
But, IIRC, that was *after* giving the Ring back to Frodo, when Sam
offers Frodo to carry it a bit more
Pep
Bill O'Meally
"Josep" <f...@crlf.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9255D9B3...@130.133.1.4...
> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
> news:3D3E44F8...@MOVEcgey.com:
> > One could argue that
> > (a) he was not a hobbit, but a proto-hobbit and
> > (b) he was corrupted before even touching the ring.
>
> Hum, no. I would say he was a full-blown hobbit. However, it is true that
> he was not the nicest hobbit in the world. A lot like Ted Sandyman, if
> you understand me.
Agreed. Tolkien makes it quite clear that Smeagol was a Hobbit, particularly
a Stoor.
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
> news:3D3E44F8...@MOVEcgey.com:
> > One could argue that
> > (a) he was not a hobbit, but a proto-hobbit and
> > (b) he was corrupted before even touching the ring.
>
> Hum, no. I would say he was a full-blown hobbit.
After checking out, I would say you are correct. I had my timeline mixed
up, but Smeagol was born around 800 years after the founding of the
Shire.
> However, it is true that
> he was not the nicest hobbit in the world. A lot like Ted Sandyman, if
> you understand me.
>
> > Not quite freely, though he might have, had Frodo waited another few
> > seconds:
> >
> > "No, no!" cried Frodo, snatching the Ring and chain from Sam's hands.
> > "No you won't, you thief!"
>
> But, IIRC,
You don't.
> that was *after* giving the Ring back to Frodo, when Sam
> offers Frodo to carry it a bit more
The full quote is:
"All right, Mr. Frodo," said Sam, rather startled. "Here it is!"
Slowly he drew the Ring out and passed the chain over his head. "But
you're in the land of Mordor now, sir; and when you get out, you'll see
the Fiery Mountain and all. You'll find the Ring very dangerous now, and
very hard to bear. If it's too hard a job, I could share it with you,
maybe?"
"No, no!" cried Frodo, snatching the Ring and chain from Sam's hands.
There si no mention of Sam handing over the ring before Frodo snatches
it.
Mary Gardiner
> Also with Frodo & Sam: they're so thoroughly "basic" in their
> personalaities that all the high-toned, world-shaking drama of great
> power & greed means little or nothing to them.
Frodo knows some high Elven and is comfortable enough with Elves to make
the "Go not to the Elves for advice" quip. Bilbo makes the Translations
from the Elvish - a work of great scholarship. So they're at least
interested in the history of great deeds, and since the Translations
from the Elvish is roughly the Silmarillion (I believe), Bilbo, and
post-War, Frodo and Sam, know the *that* story of power and greed quite
well. They might not be interested in being part of the stories, but I
suspect the motives must not be completely foreign to them. And Bilbo
and Frodo both suffer from wanderlust quite badly - although that might
be partly due to the Ring. They aren't comfortable normal hobbits.
And Bilbo is quite interested in his share of the dwarven treasure -
although partly because he feels very hard done by for most of The
Hobbit. His later extravagence and the lack of notice he seems to pay
to his extremely valuable mithril coat (worth more than the Shire and
everything in it - and Frodo speculates that Bilbo knew that well) is
probably due to his "education" in The Hobbit, rather than any *innate*
lack of greed. Frodo is much less avaricious, and Sam too as far as we
know. But they knew the post-Hobbit Bilbo, not the straight-laced Bilbo
of old.
-Mary.
Josep
>but Smeagol was born around 800 years after the founding of the
> Shire.
So? Not all hobbits went to the Shire. Take Bree, for instance
> "All right, Mr. Frodo," said Sam, rather startled. "Here it is!"
> Slowly he drew the Ring out and passed the chain over his head. "But
> you're in the land of Mordor now, sir; and when you get out, you'll
> see the Fiery Mountain and all. You'll find the Ring very dangerous
> now, and very hard to bear. If it's too hard a job, I could share it
> with you, maybe?"
> "No, no!" cried Frodo, snatching the Ring and chain from Sam's
> hands.
Ah, that is the problem of speaking based on one's memories. Thank you
for providing the quote and taking the pains to type it. Anyhow, as you
said, I am quite sure Sam would have given the Ring freely. He did not
complain about Frodo snatching it, did he?
Pep
Mark Constantino
Rasputin of sorts. What did Rasputin do amongst the ladies at the Czar's
court?
Sam may have been and adopted "son" or not.
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
>
> >but Smeagol was born around 800 years after the founding of the
> > Shire.
>
> So? Not all hobbits went to the Shire. Take Bree, for instance
And you are saying ... ?
I was merely tryingto point out the (part of) reason for my mistake.
<snip>
> Ah, that is the problem of speaking based on one's memories. Thank you
> for providing the quote and taking the pains to type it. Anyhow, as you
> said, I am quite sure Sam would have given the Ring freely. He did not
> complain about Frodo snatching it, did he?
He did not complain that Frodo *took* it. But he was hurt by *the way*
he took it.
Mark Constantino
I haven't really thought it out very well; Tolkien is more of a relaxation
exercise for me, as I have some other things to think about, like Thurgood
Marshall.
But, you nag, so I'll try to pebble the 'snatch:
The Valar are ruled by a corrupt classist-racist tribe, that is, the Vanyar.
The Noldor leave and cover their tracks.
All goes well until somebody decides somewhere that the Noldor are too much
trouble, then the Noldorin strongholds are destroyed, including Angband and
Thangorodrim.
Men are divided, even the pure hearts are divided in Numenor. Sauron-Fingolfin
(??) cannot help at the last, even with Ringil, the One Ring, and Numenor is
too destroyed by the Vanyar.
All goes well for the Noldor in the Third, and it just needs an epic story to
put things to right. That epic is about holbytla, who unite all the peoples of
Middle-Earth despite the Vanyar. The story is really a summation of loose
ends, and a discarding of various masks and a re-uniting of Noldorin couples,
and a reaffirmation of the covenant between the angels and Man.
Need I explain more? I'm not Catholic, I don't buy the angels bit. Look to
Dumas and Brust, _To Reign in Hell_, and Sartre's "Hell is other people", and
my "It is a hell full of pillows", and Barbara Eden in her den of pillows, and
Aladdin, the street lawyer of China and Africa, in Arabia. Where's the Eye of
Egypt in all this?
Driving a shitty cab. Shoulda delivered pizzas dood.
Josep
> Josep wrote:
>> So? Not all hobbits went to the Shire. Take Bree, for instance
>
> And you are saying ... ?
>
That some hobbit families could have remained in the Anduin valley near the
Gladden Fields
> He did not complain that Frodo *took* it. But he was hurt by *the way*
> he took it.
Of course he was. Anybody would. So?
Pep
Bill O'Meally
"Josep" <f...@crlf.com> wrote in message
news:Xns925893C3...@130.133.1.4...
> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
> news:3D40E3A6...@MOVEcgey.com:
>
> > Josep wrote:
> >> So? Not all hobbits went to the Shire. Take Bree, for instance
> >
> > And you are saying ... ?
> >
> That some hobbit families could have remained in the Anduin valley near
the
> Gladden Fields
>
>
The Stoors of the Gladden Fields had actually migrated *back* to that area
around TA 1356, the Periannath having started their migrations westward from
the Wilderland starting TA c.1050. This move effectively sundered them from
other Hobbit folk. (The Shire was of course settled TA 1600).
Smeagol was born to this group TA 2430 (SR 830), and the Ring was found TA
2463 (SR 863). (Interestingly, both Frodo and Smeagol aquired the Ring on
thier 33rd birthdays).
What became of this group is not known. They either died out or fled from
Dol Guldur.