Surprisingly, this one's serious

[FrodoFriend]

I always thought that Frodo, Sam, and Gollum's journey to Mordor was a spiritual journey more than anything else. The lands they pass through are really just background for what's actually going on: the interplay between the three characters. The contrast between Frodo's two servants is remarkable. One loving and loyal, one full of hate and treacherous. It's almost as if they are two halves of himself: one a slave to the Ring, and the other just a hobbit from the Shire. As a matter of fact, after he is stung by Shelob, Frodo as a character becomes much less prevalent throughout the story; Sam pretty much takes over the narration, with Gollum tagging along behind. When Gollum and the Ring are destroyed, the Gollum-like part of Frodo dies as well, leaving him "wounded." Here's the dilemma: Is something beautiful even more beautiful if it is flawed with evil? In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo is just an ordinary hobbit, more or less, but as the journey continues and the Ring gets a hold on him he becomes "beautiful", "elvish", with a "clear light" shining through him. His nobility and beauty as a person are enhanced by the evil of the Ring in him. And when the Ring is gone, "much that is fair" leaves Middle Earth, and Frodo is left quiet and, well, washed out. So was it worth it? Would it be better to have Sauron and Orcs but also have Elves and Hobbits and Ents?

Any insights/thoughts on this?

[sepulchrave]

theres something in the bible about that concept, in Romans, whereby wherever there is evil (sin, or disobedience), grace abounds all the more. The light shines brightest when it is alone against the darkness.

[sepulchrave]

I believe that the cost of victory was exceptionally high for some, Frodo being one... I am sure that when he took, unknowingly, the burden of the Ring upon himself, Elrond must have exchanged sorrowful glances with Gandalf, aware of course of the awesome challenges to come to this poor hobbit. In addition, we must remember that he had already suffered a deep and significant wound, an almost spiritual wound, with the morgul knife. This was never to fully leave him. The weight of the Ring when the hobbits grew close to Mordor would have scarred him for life, I believe, rather like the heroin addict who can never again get the drug that he craves...look at Gollum, driven mad with lust after this thing!
As for the elves, their doom was already cast, with the rebellion of Feanor and the Doom of Mandos. Their destiny in Middle Earth was to fade... Perhaps Celebrimbor forged the rings to slow that process! another thread may have been born!

[Churl]

I wrote a more concise response to your terrific post, FrodoFriend, but it got gobbled up somewhere between here and the Entmoot.&nbsp :(&nbsp I'll try to recreate it as completely as possible.

First off, great observations!&nbsp I never thought of it that way — that Sam and Gollum might represent the opposing forces working within Frodo.&nbsp (The fact that Gollum engages in his own internal struggle adds yet another layer of complexity.)&nbsp It's something I'll definitely keep in mind whenever I get a chance to read Rings again.

I also agree that Frodo fades as an active participant the closer he gets to Orodruin … especially following his rescue by Sam from Cirith Ungol.&nbsp I have no doubt that he'd never have made it to the Crack of Doom without Sam's courage, endurance, and sense of duty.&nbsp Sam, as a strong individual character or as a symbol for all that is good within Frodo, becomes the true hero of the story by literally carrying Frodo to the finish line.

Ironically, though, the ultimate destruction of the Ring can't be accomplished without Gollum being present — without Frodo's two halves being reunited, by your interpretation.

Fascinating! &nbspI'll definitely add that to the theories I mull as I read the book next time.

But as for your question, "Was it all worth it?" and more specifically, "Would it be better to have Sauron and Orcs but also have Elves and Hobbits and Ents?," I'd have to answer yes, and no, respectively.&nbsp Uncontested, Sauron would never have rested until everything good and beautiful in Middle-earth was either enslaved, corrupted, or destroyed.&nbsp The passing of the elves, and "much that is fair," was the sad price demanded by the destruction of Sauron, to which there was no happy alternative.

It's this painful weight of victory that makes the ending so powerful and haunting to me … much more so than if all the heroes had simply lived "happily ever after."

[coolismo]

Thanks for a great post.

It struck me that the way to get a grip on the Gollum/Sam/Frodo sequences is to refer back to the ending of Fellowship. It’s really here that the master/servant relationship in Frodo and Sam gets going. In the symbolism of the ring it is worn on one finger. This symbolises the desire to singular power of the ego. When Frodo lifts Sam out of the waters it is with the open hand. The symbol of the open hand again surfaces after the death of Shelob and on Mount Doom when they are rescued hand in hand. I think this all points to a joining of the master and servant in the same way as it is in christ though Fellowship is not an allegory. What binds Frodo and Sam is an impersonal bond. When Sam cries for Frodo they are impersonal tears of devotion to him. They are focussed on the quest of destroying the ring, two become one, the quest is beyond them both in geography and seeming ability at times to see it through. The constant shifts in the master/servant relationship set them in motion.
Gollum is also master and servant but these are not impersonal. They are a schism. Smeagol/Gollum have similar arguments within the one body but they are all centered on self: the desire to own the one ring on one finger. The mutterings of S/G are a contrast to the dialogue between Frodo and Sam and his whinings contrast with the impersonal tears of the Hobbits. Gollum is the etheric double or the shadow side of Smeagol.
The centre of the master and servant relationship in Frodo/Sam is the same as in Christ: sacrifice. The sacrifice is symbolised by the wound. The wounds Frodo receives from the Nazgul, the hill troll, Shelob and finally from Gollum show that Frodo is as much a sacrificial lamb as christ. Frodo has the very darkness abroad in Middle Earth pressed into his little Hobbit body.
Only the master part of the duality can bear these wounds. Sam is an onlooker at these moments, he serves the wounded master but he can’t bear them himself. The losing of the ring on his finger to Gollum shows how the egotistical power of the ring becomes the impersonal wound. Frodo goes from ringbearer to woundbearer. Gollum absorbs more ego than he can hold and it is his destruction but Frodo is left with the burden.
So back in the Shire Frodo has a greater sense of justice but he also has to ascend. The final wounding is his ascencion and leads to his necessary departure to the Grey Havens. He has no choice.

Lots more but time to work.

[Laurelyn]

Very interesting thoughts, guys.

"The light shines brightest when it is alone against the darkness,"
I like that line, sepulchrave.

[sun-star]

Perhaps the elven qualities in Frodo need the evil power of the Ring to throw them into relief and make them visible - not enhanced by the evil but inspired as a response to it. Bravery needs something for the person to be brave about, or it lies dormant.

[FrodoFriend]

Thanks for posting, everyone! You've given me a lot to think about.

But as for your question, "Was it all worth it?" and more specifically, "Would it be better to have Sauron and Orcs but also have Elves and Hobbits and Ents?," I'd have to answer yes, and no, respectively. Uncontested, Sauron would never have rested until everything good and beautiful in Middle-earth was either enslaved, corrupted, or destroyed. The passing of the elves, and "much that is fair," was the sad price demanded by the destruction of Sauron, to which there was no happy alternative.

But it's not as if the destruction of Sauron ended all evil. The evil in the world always parallels and equal the good. In the Silmarillion, the Valar are still involved with the world, but so is Melkor, the Great Enemy. In LotR, only Melkor's stooge, Sauron, is around (a lesser form of evil, I hope you agree?), but the Valar have also abandoned Middle Earth and only the Elves are left. I don't think it's coincidence that Sauron and the Elves disappear around the same time. Now in our world, we have neither supreme-evil nor supreme-good. Hence my conclusion that good and bad always equal out. So would you rather have a super bad and a super good or a wishy-washy sort of bad and good like we have in our world? Personally, I think seeing Valinor might be worth having to see Angmar.

coolismo - Thanks for the interp! I've read that there are very subtle religious undertones throughout LotR, but never quite figured them out. The whole sacrifice-dealie makes it a lot more clear.

IMHO, Gollum is one of the most interesting and complicated characters in literature. Specifically, the fact that he turns part-way back to good despite having carried the Ring for 5 centuries. Sure, he wants the Ring and he does end up betraying Frodo, but he feels a geniune affection for his master, at least for a while. The odd thing about this, I think, is the fact that Tolkien always portrayed men as being mostly evil (even the Numenoreans don't last). Why then, Gollum's speedy redemption (remember the part in the pass of Cirith Ungol: "they would have thought they beheld a weary old hobbit . . . an old starved pitiable thing"?)?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
So was it worth it? Would it be better to have Sauron and Orcs but also have Elves and Hobbits and Ents?

Any insights/thoughts on this?

I think the other entmooters have answered that better than I could but I feel like adding something. During the war there was the White council against Sauron. the In the end the high elves leave and Sauron and most of the orcs are destroyed. The remnant are still there but without leadership and only capable of small evil. I think this balances out nicely. There is much lost but there is also a new chance for Middle earth and there's that balance again. The thing that I always admired in Tolkien's work is that he always kept that balance. nearly everything had an opposite: elves-orcs, Gandalf-Saruman, Frodo-Gollum.

[Churl]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend…
But it’s not as if the destruction of Sauron ended all evil. The evil in the world always parallels and equal the good. In the Silmarillion, the Valar are still involved with the world, but so is Melkor, the Great Enemy. In LotR, only Melkor’s stooge, Sauron, is around (a lesser form of evil, I hope you agree?), but the Valar have also abandoned Middle Earth and only the Elves are left. I don’t think it’s coincidence that Sauron and the Elves disappear around the same time. Now in our world, we have neither supreme-evil nor supreme-good. Hence my conclusion that good and bad always equal out. So would you rather have a super bad and a super good or a wishy-washy sort of bad and good like we have in our world? Personally, I think seeing Valinor might be worth having to see Angmar.That’s a good point, FrodoFriend.&nbsp Even though the ending is more happy than sad for “the good guys,” many painful personal losses take their toll even in victory: Sam, Merry, and Pippin losing Frodo, Elrond and Arwen’s eternal separation, etc.&nbsp In Appendix A, Tolkien further acknowledges that death claims all mortals — even beloved characters like Aragorn, Arwen (newly mortal), and Rosie.&nbsp Those are the personal losses suffered at the book’s end, but you’re talking about the worldwide balance between good an evil.&nbsp Even in this, I think that Tolkien was realistic.

On the surface, the rejoicing in the days that followed Sauron’s destruction (?), as well as the happiness during the Shire’s “Year of Plenty,” imply that the world was safe and content forever.&nbsp But throughout The Lord of the Rings, it’s acknowledged that Sauron wasn’t the embodiment of all that’s evil in the world, but was instead merely a servant of Melkor/Morgoth.&nbsp Furthermore, in Tolkien’s mythology, Middle-earth is our current earth as it existed in a time before the reckoning of our history.

Whether or not Tolkien ever addressed the issue explicitly, I can only imagine that the events which wiped all mortal artifacts of Gondor, Rohan, Eriador, etc. cleanly from the map could not have been a happy time.&nbsp (…Unless, as it is quite possible, Tolkien set Middle-earth in a time so prehistoric that even archaeological traces of it had faded between then and now.&nbsp Or maybe at this point, I’m ill-advisedly looking for “the bones boiled to make the soup.”)

I remember a statement that said something like, “Those who come after us must face the threats that arise after we are gone; all we can do is tend the fields in our time.”&nbsp Those aren’t the exact words, but I didn’t have time to find the actual passage.&nbsp In any case, it more than anything convinced me of the awareness of the wise that Sauron’s destruction didn’t spell the final end to all evil.

As for living in a world of extreme good and extreme evil instead our own in which — terrorism aside — most things are less clear-cut, that’s hard for me to answer.&nbsp You’re provoking too many thoughts!&nbsp (Just kidding … that’s a good thing!)

[markedel]

Well it's indicated evil never leaves-the seeds remain to sprout if only one tends them it says in the Silmarrilion.

[FrodoFriend]

Churl: If you're getting too thoughtful, check "The Most Annoying Thread Contest." That oughta wipe all thought from your mind! :D

I think the happy times like the "Year of Plenty" make up for the completely bad times like before Sauron was defeated by the Last Alliance. Unfortunately, due to human nature, it's much harder to get rid of the actual evil in our world. No little Ringbearing quest is gonna do that for us. :( Especially because evil isn't clearcut: one person's evil is not necessarily another person's (for example, the Taliban views the U.S. much as we viewed communism: a dangerous, infectious evil). I wonder what Tolkien thought?

Will somebody PLEASE discover a vortex that leads to Middle Earth?

[olsonm]

Well put FrodoFriend. :)

[FrodoFriend]

Muchas gracias and merci beaucoup, olsonm!

P.S. Does anyone know how to say 'thank you' in Elvish?

[Churl]

Point well taken, FrodoFriend.&nbsp I didn’t mean to inject politics into the discussion, and I certainly would never paint general cultural and religious differences in terms of “good” and “evil.”

I was merely referring to the clearest embodiments of evil in our contemporary world: those who murder, torture, and oppress innocent people.&nbsp (From all credible reports of Taliban human rights violations within Afghanistan, I would call them evil, but that’s a different discussion.&nbsp As for those who commit deliberate acts of terror against civilians — or military personnel, for that matter — I don’t hesitate to call them evil.)

In short, you said it best: where is that vortex to Middle-earth?

P.S. In order to maintain this thread’s theme of balance, I followed up this grim post with a silly (and annoying) addition to your "Most Annoying Thread" thread. :)