# 'The Lord of the Rings' had a bad ending.



## Gnashar_the_orc (Mar 4, 2002)

Did you like the ending of 'Lord of the Rings'? I certainly didn't. For two reasons:
a) Gollum dies.
b) I feel that all of a sudden, the magic that Tolkien had created, has perished in a blink of an eye. I understand that by the Elves, Dwarves etc. leaving Middle-Earth and by the destruction of the orcs, goblins etc., Tolkien wanted to say that now humanity has inherited the earth, which leads us to modern times. This I find tragic. Tragic for the reader, the fan you would say, to see that all the wonderful world of Middle-Earth to be altered in that way to explain history. I think reading Tolkien's books is a passage to another world, where you don't have to worry about your own personal problems as you are enchanted by the beauty and complexity of Middle-Earth. I find it sad that it should end that way as the reader admits to himself that there is no such thing as Elves, Hobbits and Ents, a reader who while reading these books actually thinks that they do.

I hope you got the message of what I am trying to say here.


----------



## Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn (Mar 4, 2002)

Sure... it's a bittersweet ending. The world had to "grow up", in a certain sense; and it's always sad when childhood comes to an end.

In fact, it's a bit like the song "Puff, the Magic Dragon".


----------



## Goldberry344 (Mar 4, 2002)

I liked that gollum died. not that he DIED, but that he was the hero. well, i think he was. I didnt like how Frodo dissapeared into the Havens. i wanted him to stay in the shire and have a happy life, like sam. but at least he was with Bilbo.


----------



## YayGollum (Mar 5, 2002)

Gollum could have been the hero without dying! What should have happened is in the end the Smeagol side won out and he bit off Frodo's finger and threw it and the ring into the Crack of Doom! And then maybe Sam would die. That would be cool.  It is pretty bad that all the magic left ME or just Earth as it's called now. The dwarves didn't leave though. I guess they just died out a lot. Hobbits are still around according to Tolkien in The Hobbit. You think the ending of LOTR is sad? Don't read The Sil! It's full of tragedy.


----------



## greypilgrim (Mar 5, 2002)

The ending was too quickly taken care of.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 5, 2002)

Sadly, like all good stories, it must come to an end. As abrupt as you might think it is, it is better than most. Once you have completed the Lord of the Rings and you have the insatiable appetite for more, then you must read The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and then move on to HOME. It's a cycle that you end up repeating over the years, and where once you always wanted to read more, eventually you simply try to understand in more depth that which you have.


----------



## Dengen-Goroth (Mar 5, 2002)

What I always enjoyed was the leading into, semingly, our own age. It did not end quicly, but actually was a progression into the eventual downfall of the other races an man's dominion.


----------



## Aerin (Mar 5, 2002)

If you only read the LotR series, then the ending does seem a bit abrupt; but if you read all the other books about Middle Earth, then you realize that the last page of RotK is not the end of it. There is so much depth in Tolkien's writings that a mere reading will not suffice to understand what he wrote. Multiple readings, along with studying, help one to dig deeper into understanding the complex pattern he wove with his words.

One might almost look at Tolkien's books as a history series. The LotR books are the most recent events, while the Sil, the Unfinished Tales, etc., document older happenings in Middle Earth.
It's an interesting thought that Tolkien was writing the pre-history of Earth as we know it...


----------



## Gnashar_the_orc (Mar 7, 2002)

AERIN: Yes, i always thought that Tolkien is sort of creating his own theory about the creaton of this world. I wonder if there are people out there who actually worship Iluvatar or even... Melkor! Can you imagine that?!


----------



## Prince Legolas (Mar 8, 2002)

Gollum had to die in the end. As Gandalf says Gollum had lived too long because the Ring prolonged his life far beyond what it should have been.
It is kinda fitting that he died a hero.

As for Frodo sailing over the Sea, he couldn't have stayed in Middle Earth because his wound was too deep, he would not have been happy, (well he wasn't at the end).


----------



## Lantarion (Mar 8, 2002)

> I wonder if there are people out there who actually worship Iluvatar or even... Melkor! Can you imagine that?!


*stops chanting abruptly, blows out candles and tries frantically to blow away the incense*
Huh! Yes, imagine that.. 

But seriously, I think the ending was very sad and abrupt, although it did make..some sense. But wait: why did the Elves all suddenly have to go? There is no mention in the LotR or Sil whether people like Thranduil and his people in Mirkwood left at all! And the Dwarves, well they can be just brushed aside by saying they 'became extinct'. How the hell did they manage that?! They were living quite happily and peacefully in Erebor, and had no reason to suddenly die out! Harumph..
I like to think to myself that not all the Elves or Dwarves left Middle-Earth: that some still roam around here and go on with their lives, perhaps ignorant of their ancient past. If we go into the area of ELvish beauty, I'd say Carmen Electra and Milla Jovovich et al. were Noldor!


----------



## ReadWryt (Mar 8, 2002)

Carmen Electra and Battle Bots....mmMMMMmmmmm...Heheheh

Well it just goes to show you that it takes all sorts to make up a forum like this. This isn't the first time I have heard someone say that the ending was less then satisfying, but most times it's a complaint that Frodo fails...


----------



## Legolam (Mar 8, 2002)

I think I like the fact that Frodo fails at the end. Everyone in LOTR seems to have a "fatal flaw" (if they're human) or some human emotion (that's if they're not human) that means they're weak. LOTR is riddled with heroes and anti-heroes. In a book that's pretty much devoid of plot twists (it's the original good vs evil fantasy story), in my opinion, this is what makes it so fascinating to read. The characters themselves are the plot twists.


----------



## elvish-queen (Mar 8, 2002)

Hey, gnashar, i like the fact that u think differently to most people. U r like my pal at school, really just different. Cool! An elf liking an orc, honestly! well, we did kinda have the same roots.
anyway, about the ending, i was depressed for weeks, (still am, but that's about something else, depression amongst today's teenagers!) frodo was really supposed to stay with sam! he was so loyal, it wasn't fair. and it was supposed to carry on longer! i felt as if i had lost my best friends! i actually cried, and i usually don't allow myself to cry.
it was too abrupt, but i think tolkien meant it that way, he was always unexpected.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 8, 2002)

Yes, the ending of LOTR is sad. I find it just as sad now as when I first read it in the early 1960's and all the times I have read it since. But the fact that Tolkien did not go for the simple "they all lived happily ever after" ending is one of the things that raises LOTR head and shoulders above other fantasy novels. (Of course, the quality of the writing contributes something also.  ) The point is that Tolkien's characters, at least the main ones, are for the most part not simple, cardboard cut-outs. They have doubts and flaws like the rest of us. There are not all that many happy endings in real life. Sometimes great sacrifices have to be made and sometimes the people making the sacrifices don't get the benefits of those sacrifices. Frodo is the hero of the story, but unlike a perfect hero, at the end of his quest he succumbs to the evil power of the Ring. He (and the rest of Middle-earth) are only saved from total failure by the fact that his (and Sam's) pity spared Gollum's life when they had every reason to kill him. BTW, Gollum is in no way a hero at the end (sorry YayGollum). Frodo had given Gollum opportunities to reform, but in the end the power of the Ring was too much for him (as it was for Frodo). Gollum had sworn never to hurt Frodo, but he led him to Shelob to be killed and he attacks Frodo and bites off his finger, not in some effort to save Frodo and fufill the quest to destroy the Ring, but to get the Ring for himself. Yes, Smeagol may not have been evil to begin with, but Smeagol has been destroyed by the evil power of the Ring and replaced by Gollum. You might as well say the nine Nazgul were heros. They started out as kings of men, but the rings corrupted them. 

Even after the quest succeeds, Frodo returns to a blighted Shire and is left too scarred by his ordeal to ever find peace again in Middle-earth. Yes, it is a very depressing ending, but sadly real life can be the same way.


----------



## Legolas_The Elf (Mar 8, 2002)

The end is soooooooooo saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad  
Well...what bout if we do our own story of the Lord Of The Rings¿¿¿¿
How bout...this title.
The Revenge of The Ring
Or another title...if u agree tell me if u like the title..if u dont agree..ok  
Any way we could put the same characters and the same places and put our own ideas...
If u would like to answer me write me to my e-mail or just post it cause all be going round some few hours today..Well my e-mail is
[email protected] or
[email protected]

__________________
We elves cant just dissapear like that..thats why i volunteer to figth for our lives..

*Legolas_The Elf*


----------



## Aldanil (Mar 8, 2002)

*succinct in supporting milord Eryn Lasgallen*

Greenwood puts the matter of our Story's melancholy conclusion very well indeed; the bittersweet sadness of its ending is weft of the Tale in its deepest weaving, and helps lift LOTR to a level of mythopoeic resonance, literary merit, and moral truth which few if any of Tolkien's many imitators even come close to attaining.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 9, 2002)

I liked it!!! 

I thought it was sort of a happy ending 'cause Sam goes home and there's his beautiful little girl and the Shire is happy and the birds are singing... 
I guess that the elves lose their powers is sad, but they have a choice to stay if they want, and sort of become like humans... or am I wrong? Was it just Elrond's children who had that option...

Actually, Sam and Frodo weren't seperated, if you read the appendix. Sam eventually went along as did Gimli and Legolas. Really only Merry, Pippen, Aragorn, and the dead Boromir stayed behind of the origenal fellowship. 

It's a choice to be human or not human, the choice that a lot of Tolkien's work comes down to. Elrond chose elfhood, his brother chose humanity. Arwen chose Humanity, Frodo didn't. What I mean by humanity is mortality, the choice to live only for a short while and pass out of the circle of the earth... 

I don't think it was weak of Frodo to go. Arwen gave him her place as a gift. He was miserable in middle earth because he'd been stabbed so many times by magical weapons... Give the poor guy a break!!!


----------



## Goldberry (Mar 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *I liked it!!!
> Actually, Sam and Frodo weren't seperated, if you read the appendix. Sam eventually went along as did Gimli and Legolas. Really only Merry, Pippen, Aragorn, and the dead Boromir stayed behind of the origenal fellowship.
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure this is true. Frodo got to go to the Undying Lands, but doesn't it say somewhere in the Silmarillion that just going there doesn't make you immortal? I don't think Arwen's gem conveyed any immortality. I believe Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and Gimli were only permitted to spend the rest of their days their. Frodo was about 15 years older than Sam. It's very possible by the time Sam got to the Undying Lands, Frodo was already dead - Bilbo for sure. Gimli didn't go until much later, as dwarves live much longer, so it is doubtful he was reunited with his friends either. 

It really is a very sad ending.


----------



## Quercus (Mar 9, 2002)

I don't feel bad about Gollum dying, the little fellow had lived in misery way too long. And let's not forget, as we've already discussed in another thread, that Smeagol was really not that nice of a guy to begin with.

The ending was very bittersweet for me. I couldn't help but imagine how nice it would have been for Frodo (and everyone else involved) if he could have just stayed at Bag End with Sam and family. Just picture all the little Gamgee children sitting around 'Uncle Frodo's' feet listening to stories or romping about the Shire with him. Better still, Sam and Rosie would have had a live in babysitter! 

However, I think that JRRT was trying to make an important point. 'When things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.' Sad but true, it's happened many times. It's happening now.


----------



## Aldanil (Mar 10, 2002)

Quite so, Quercus!


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Mar 10, 2002)

Yes i think that it had to an end. It was great i think showing that everything in m.e doesn't end perfectley well. and the way in which they all parted that was good 2.


----------



## Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn (Mar 10, 2002)

Concerning Frodo's ultimate fate:

We know that Arwen had a choice: remain in M-E and suffer the fate of a mortal, or leave M-E with her father and live forever in the Undying Lands.

Frodo was given Arwen's place when she chose to remain in M-E. That suggests that he also received her immortality, not just a ticket on the grey ship.

This argument does not hold for others, such as Samwise and Gimli, though we could speculate that they received the places of Elrond's sons.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 10, 2002)

So, you can die in the undying lands? Don't you think the Valar would fix this? Grant immortality to their faith servants? They might not have, but it is a possibility. I always assumed they were going to immortality.

In fact, if you don't get immortality by going to the Undying lands, why were the Numenoreans in such a darn hurry to get there???

It figures that these Men at least thought they were going to get a ticket into eternal life. Were they just very deceived by Sauron?


----------



## Anarchist (Mar 10, 2002)

Well I don't believe that the ending was happy for Sam. As a matter of fact I believe the phrase "Well I am back" is one of the saddest in the book. Here, in a few words, Sam means that here he is, after all the things he went through to save Frodo's life, after all the suffering he felt, here he is, away from his true friend and alone. But still he draws a breath and decides to go on with his life and take care of his family with the hope that one day he will meet Frodo again. Well that's a sad ending.


----------



## Bill the Pony (Mar 10, 2002)

Donnie and HLG, Tolkien states in his letters that if mortals went to the 'immortal lands' they do not become immortal.
Letter # 154


> Thus Frodo (by the express gift of Arwen) and Bilbo, and eventually Sam (as adumbrated by Frodo); and as a unique exception Gimli the Dwarf, as friend of Legolas and 'servant' of Galadriel.
> I have said nothing about it in this book, but the mythical idea underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed for ever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to mortal earth, they can and will 'die' – of free will, and leave the world.



About the numenoreans wanting to go to Valinor, that's because Sauron deceived them. In a footnote to letter # 156 JRRT writes about Ar-Pharazon sailing to the West to become immortal:


> This was a delusion of course, a Satanic lie. For as emissaries from the Valar clearly inform him, the Blessed Realm does not confer immortality. The land is blessed because the Blessed dwell there, not vice versa, and the Valar are immortal by right and nature, while Men are mortal by right and nature. But cozened by Sauron he dismisses all this as a diplomatic argument to ward off the power of the King of Kings.


----------



## Harad (Mar 10, 2002)

What do you all think a "happy" ending is?

That all the characters that are "good" live without any sorrow for immortal lives and all the characters that are "bad" suffer either the death penalty or (if you are very liberal) life in the Hall of Mandos without possibility of parole?

What story is happy? Even "Cinderella" eventually fell into a rut with Prince Charming and died of a stroke at age 83.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 10, 2002)

Actually, I always thought Cinderella ended when she found out that Prince Charming was already married to Snow White... She then had him arrested for bigomy and got the kingdom all to herself... 

Very few books have an absolutely happy ending. Take the Pyridia Series (Lloyd Alexander), everyone left besides Tarin and Elowinee. I'm spelling that wrong. In Narnia all of Narnia is destroyed and all the good people get to go to heaven, but it is still sad that Narnia is destroyed. In Les Miserables the hero dies. Sure his little girl lived happily, but poor what's his name dies... What was his name? Jean! It was Jean! Jean dies... I LIKE the ending. It was nice. It is even nicer if you read the appendix.

Everyone always talks about how sad the tale of Aragorn and Arwen is, but I don't think it is. They were married and they died within a year or two of each other. Maybe it is sad that she wasn't immortal anymore, but I don't think it was. Maybe it's just because I'm a Christian and I don't find death after a long good life with someone you love all that sad. 

Okay, thanks for the clearing up on the Numenor picture. I have a fatal flaw in that I didn't read any of the foot notes in the Unfinished Tales. It was just too confusing to flip forward and flip backward and flip and flip and flip and loose my place and get really confused...

I think a happy ending is when everyone either gets their true dream or realizes they really didn't want it after all and learns to live their life without it.

For instance, Aragorn got his Arwen and his kingdom and lived close enough to happily ever after.

Sam got a wonderful family and a beautiful home... that's close enough for me. I want a wonderful family and a beautiful home too. Anyway, you have to assume the guy was fairly happy in his marriage. He had like seven kids... 

I don't think he was deciding "to go on with his life and take care of his family with the hope that one day he will meet Frodo again." I think he was realizing that that was where he belonged with a daughter I am willing to bet anything he loved more than he loved Frodo. Frodo was his friend, but a daughter is a daughter!!!


----------



## Goldberry (Mar 10, 2002)

I'm sure Sam loved his daughter and the rest of his family. But why, after Rose died, did Sam then choose to leave his children and follow Frodo to the Undying Lands?

The sad elements for me were:
1. Frodo did not get to live a long and happy life in the Shire, and he was not recognized as the hero he was in the Shire. 
2. As Gimli foretold in RoTK, the Fellowship is never all together again.
3. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli never see Gandalf and Frodo again.
4. Aragorn passes on before Arwen is ready to pass on.
5. Elrond is parted from his daughter.
6. The elves diminish, grow weary of ME, and all leave.
7. The Ents never find the Entwives.


----------



## Goldberry (Mar 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Harad _
> *
> Even "Cinderella" eventually fell into a rut with Prince Charming and died of a stroke at age 83. *



If only she had kept doing her aerobics, she would have lived to be 95.


----------



## Roseberry (Mar 10, 2002)

It couldn't have ended any other way. One of the reasons this literary work affects everyone so deeply is because it recognizes at the most profound level the realities of good and evil. Frodo, having been exposed to such evil for so long, could not possibly have recovered to live a "normal" life. His going to the Havens was his reward; there was justice, but there couldn't have been a "happily ever after" without making the story empty & unreal. At the end, when Sam says, "I'm home," it's an affirmation that, in spite of the toll evil takes, good remains. Like in Moria, when Gandalf has to remind Frodo that evil is not the only influence; that he was MEANT to have the ring.

And whoa, Aldanil, your post back a ways with all the big words, was amazing! I felt like I should copy it down or something.

Off topic, how many posts do you have to make before you graduate from "Junior" member to "Senior" member? (No pride involved, just wondering).


----------



## Quercus (Mar 12, 2002)

Roseberry,

I know this probably seems rather petty, but I've been trying very hard not to let what happens in the movie confuse what actually happens in the book. Gandalf actually tells Frodo that he was MEANT to have the ring back in the Shire, long before they go to Moria. Otherwise, I agree with your statement.

And yes, Aldanil's writing is impressive. I have to keep my dictionry close at hand whenever I read his/her posts.


----------



## Goro Shimura (Mar 12, 2002)

> *Greenwood puts the matter of our Story's melancholy conclusion very well indeed; the bittersweet sadness of its ending is weft of the Tale in its deepest weaving, and helps lift LOTR to a level of mythopoeic resonance, literary merit, and moral truth which few if any of Tolkien's many imitators even come close to attaining.*


Is this the post you all are refering to??

Can anyone here define "mythopoeic?"

And what does the phrase "weft of the Tale in its deepest weaving" mean? (Does it have something to do with the conjugation of the verb "wraith???")


----------



## Roseberry (Mar 12, 2002)

Quercus-

You're right; my bad. Can't believe I remembered the movie facts over the book facts; need to go back & read again to clear my head! 
Guess I got weft behind.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 12, 2002)

mythopoeic -- the making or perpetuation of myths

weft -- a woven fabric or garment


I knew the definition of weft. I had to look up the exact definition of mythopoeic, but my guess from the context of Aldanil's post was close enough that my understanding didn't change after looking it up.

Aladanil -- thank you for the kind words about my post.


----------



## Goro Shimura (Mar 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *Sometimes great sacrifices have to be made and sometimes the people making the sacrifices don't get the benefits of those sacrifices.*


It does seem that in "all the other" stories... the goodguys win completely and with maybe only the loss of a couple of red suited security officers!!!

LotR does have a happy ending-- and yet, there is a price for it. And it's mixed in with the passing away of an entire Age....

<sigh>


----------



## Eonwe (Mar 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goroshimura _
> *with maybe only the loss of a couple of red suited security officers!!!*



HAHA! On Star Trek, you always knew who was going to get killed first: African-American security guard, Caucasian security guard, and the female security guard would get her shirt ripped. In that order.

I have enjoyed reading the recent posts here. Great stuff, to see what everyone's opinion is of the ending.

The hardest part for me to read is when the boat leaves, and Sam, Merry and Pippin look out over the sea at night, watching the boat disappear. Makes me cry. "I will not say do not weep, for not all tears are an evil".


----------



## Wood Elf (Mar 16, 2002)

*The ending is sad!..*

Hey,
I am rereading LotR a second time, and am at the end of RotK, and it is sad! The hobbits and Gandalf return to Bree and go to the Prancing Pony, and I almost expect Strider to be there in the corner of the room, hidden by his cloak, and he's not there. Instead he's the King of Gondor! Its just so odd to go past all the places that Frodo and Strider and the hobbits went by when they were first starting out. Geesh, at the Ford, when they were coming back, I half expected them to see a Black Rider again. Know what I mean? I suppose it is kinda bittersweet or something. Okay, I'm done blubbering...


----------



## Legolas_The Elf (Mar 16, 2002)

*Re: The ending is sad!..*



> _Originally posted by Wood Elf _
> *Hey,
> I am rereading LotR a second time, and am at the end of RotK, and it is sad! The hobbits and Gandalf return to Bree and go to the Prancing Pony, and I almost expect Strider to be there in the corner of the room, hidden by his cloak, and he's not there. Instead he's the King of Gondor! Its just so odd to go past all the places that Frodo and Strider and the hobbits went by when they were first starting out. Geesh, at the Ford, when they were coming back, I half expected them to see a Black Rider again. Know what I mean? I suppose it is kinda bittersweet or something. Okay, I'm done blubbering...  *



This thread was done already but its ok...u´r right..the ending is sad (even though I´m begginig to read ROTK) The feeling that it is going to be a sad ending can be feeled on the first chapters 
Example:The War is at hand-Theoden
Maybe it is to mean that "The last war is at hand....we must perish if we dont return"
Dont u think¿¿¿


----------



## Wood Elf (Mar 16, 2002)

Yes. Sorry that this type of thread was done already, it does kinda stink that cool adventures have to come to an end.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 16, 2002)

The other thread can be found at:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3119


----------



## Grond (Mar 16, 2002)

I have merged these two similar threads. A moderator's job is never done.


----------



## Wood Elf (Mar 16, 2002)

Thanks Grond, I was wondering where it went! I get a little teary eyed when Sam is standing there at the bank, with Merry and Pippin, watching the sea, after they left. That is (I think) the only time Sam is without Frodo. They have just been through so much together, and it seems to me the Shire-folk don't realize the half of what they have been through. Like when Rosie says to Sam, "If you've been with Mr. Frodo all this while, what do you want to leave him for, as soon as things look dangerous?" If only Rosie knew what Sam had been through!


----------



## Kiranor (May 22, 2016)

Goldberry said:


> I'm not so sure this is true. Frodo got to go to the Undying Lands, but doesn't it say somewhere in the Silmarillion that just going there doesn't make you immortal? I don't think Arwen's gem conveyed any immortality. I believe Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and Gimli were only permitted to spend the rest of their days their. Frodo was about 15 years older than Sam. It's very possible by the time Sam got to the Undying Lands, Frodo was already dead - Bilbo for sure. Gimli didn't go until much later, as dwarves live much longer, so it is doubtful he was reunited with his friends either.
> 
> It really is a very sad ending.


I believe it is a happy ending, because time is argued to flow differently in Valinor, which I believe. If this happens, then Sam, Gimli, and Legolas would have met the rest of The Fellowship (barring Aragorn, Boromir, Pippin, and Merry) in the Undying Lands, which in it of itself is proof that they meet up again.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 24, 2016)

I always took Merry, Pippin, Sam, and Frodo returning to the Shire and nobody batting one single eyelash towards them even in light of all that's happened to Armed Forces returning home to a mostly thankless world that has no idea of what they've been through.

Just my .2


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (May 25, 2016)

I've always found it fascinating that the Hobbits of the Shire and the people in Bree had no idea of how close the world as they knew it had almost been destroyed.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (May 25, 2016)

I know, right?? How daft can they be??

Ah Hobbits, always a source of fascination...


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Jun 25, 2016)

Do people really not get that _ALL_ of Tolkien's work on Middle-earth is that of a Tragedy, dealing with the Fall of Man, and the corruption of the world by Satan?

I am not terrifically religious, but Tolkien was/is, and those themes were carried into Middle-earth.

And thus, while Good Triumphs (as Eru Ilúvatar says "... nought may be done for ill that does not turn ultimately to my ends"), it's victory is always bittersweet, because it comes at great cost.

As for Gollum/Smeagol's death.... That was his redemption. Smeagol saves Middle-earth from Sauron by doing something that Frodo cannot (even though it was Frodo's curse of Gollum that led to Gollum's fall into the Sammath Nuar). Yet in doing so, Gollum freed himself from the Ring with his death.

Tolkien's work is always so complicated, and one needs always remember the metaphysical underpinnings of everything.

Tolkien's work is crushingly sad, as it is the passing away of the greatest creations known to have existed or been accomplished, and shall not be made again until the Universe is re-made anew without "sin" (The Taint of Morgoth).

But you have to remember that even Morgoth will be ultimately redeemed.

MB


----------



## ILegolasElda (Nov 8, 2016)

Wow I really liked the ending for not being the ordinary "happy ending" and showing the losses they all get when destroying the ring. But it's terrible that the elves and dwarfs (and ents and whatever kind of tolkiens creations) fade in ME and that only humanity and some reminders of the old days remain. 

It's kind of good that Sam isn't going with Frodo, atleast for Rosie and his children, and may he ll sail ther one day...


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Nov 8, 2016)

He does sail there, after Rosie's death.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Nov 11, 2016)

Unknown to many, LotR was not supposed to end with the famous phrase “Well, I’m back”. Tolkien had foreseen an epilogue to end the book with an image of Sam in later years, among his children and Rose. He is reading for them from the red book, then announces the coming visit of the king from who he had received a letter. His later departure to the Undying Lands is also hinted there.

Tolkien was eventually persuaded not to include the epilogue he had prepared. This explains why the last book ends somewhat abruptly. Whether this decision was right or wrong is obviously a matter of personal taste. Personally, I very much enjoyed reading that epilogue.

You can find this epilogue in its full text (there’s actually more than version, but with few changes) in the HoME (book 9 “Sauron Defeated” - Part one “the End of the third Age” - Chapter IX “The Epilogue”).


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Nov 11, 2016)

Wow! Really? I'm going to have to check that out.


----------



## Gigantor (Apr 5, 2017)

Gnashar_the_orc said:


> Did you like the ending of 'Lord of the Rings'? I certainly didn't. For two reasons:
> a) Gollum dies.
> b) I feel that all of a sudden, the magic that Tolkien had created, has perished in a blink of an eye. I understand that by the Elves, Dwarves etc. leaving Middle-Earth and by the destruction of the orcs, goblins etc., Tolkien wanted to say that now humanity has inherited the earth, which leads us to modern times. This I find tragic. Tragic for the reader, the fan you would say, to see that all the wonderful world of Middle-Earth to be altered in that way to explain history. I think reading Tolkien's books is a passage to another world, where you don't have to worry about your own personal problems as you are enchanted by the beauty and complexity of Middle-Earth. I find it sad that it should end that way as the reader admits to himself that there is no such thing as Elves, Hobbits and Ents, a reader who while reading these books actually thinks that they do.
> 
> I hope you got the message of what I am trying to say here.


I wish LOTR could have continued and not stopped when it did.


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Apr 18, 2017)

Something that I saw others, at the beginning of this thread saying:

That Gollum/Sméagol is a "Hero."

That is a bit misguided, is it not?

A "Hero" is typically defined as:

_• A person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities._

This is from the "New American Standard" dictionary.

And if we refer to Tolkien's dictionary, the _Oxford Dictionary_, we have the following definitions:

1 A person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.
_‘a war hero’_


1.1 The chief male character in a book, play, or film, who is typically identified with good qualities, and with whom the reader is expected to sympathize.
_‘the hero of Kipling's story’
_
1.2 (in mythology and folklore) a person of superhuman qualities and often semi-divine origin, in particular one whose exploits were the subject of ancient Greek myths.

1.3usually as modifier The best or most important thing in a set or group.
_‘jumpsuits are hands down our hottest hero piece right now’
‘the hero of the range is the daily face peel’
_​

Gollum/Sméagol does not fit any of these.

• He is not admired for his courage.

– Indeed, he is a Coward. At every point in his life where he is the least bit threatened he turns into a "_*Pitiful*_," shrieking, wailing, crying worm begging for his life; done only so that he might remain alive to recover his "_Precious,_" and then visit a Murderous Revenge upon everyone he thinks has wronged him via cowardly strangling them from behind while invisible, running off if he slips up in the least little bit.

• He has no "Outstanding Achievements."

– His obtaining the 'Ruling Ring' was by an act of Murder.
– His losing the 'Ruling Ring' was due to chance and an act of treachery in which he intended to again commit Murder.
– His leading Frodo and Samwise to Mordor was largely a ruse to stall for time while he figured out how to get the 'Ruling Ring' back again; which he tried to do via an attempted act of Murder and deceit.
– His seizing of the 'Ruling Ring' from Frodo in the Sammath Naur was by biting off Frodo's finger in an attempt to run away with the ring, an act which, had he succeeded, would have delivered the 'Ruling Ring' right into the hands of Sauron, dooming the entire world to Darkness and Evil.
– His Falling *INTO* the Sammath Naur was due to a curse placed upon him by Frodo when he attempted to Murder Frodo on the slopes of Orodruin. His taking the ring from Frodo wasn't for the purpose of destroying it.

• He has no "Noble Qualities."

– He is absolutely selfish.
– He is dirty.
– He is a liar.
– He is a Murderer.
– He betrays _EVERYONE_ he has ever known or met.

• He is not the "Chief Character."

– Indeed, he is only peripherally pertinent to the main characters, save Frodo and Sam (or Sauron).
– And his ultimate purpose as a character is to bite Frodo's finger off to take his "_Precious_" back, after which he falls into the Sammath Naur by what is either his Doom, due to the Command Frodo gave him at their last meeting prior to the Sammath Naur, where Frodo uses the power of the 'Ruling Ring' over Gollum/Sméagol: "Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall cast yourself into the Fires of Doom.", or an accident/his doom, where he was fated to slip and fall.

• The Reader does not "Sympathize" with Gollum/Sméagol.

– The reader is largely revolted, or pities Gollum/Sméagol.
– And the reader usually rejoices when Gollum/Sméagol "slips" and falls into the Sammath Naur, destroying the 'Ruling Ring', thinking that Gollum/Sméagol finally "Got what he deserved."

• Gollum/Sméagol is not superhuman or of semi-divine origin. And he is only partially the subject of a "myth."

– The BEST that can be said about him is that his unusually long life, due to the 'Ruling Ring' is "_Superhuman._"
– But Gollum/Sméagol can *never* be suspected of being of "Semi-Divine origin.
– If Gollum/Sméagol's presence as a subject of a "myth" makes him a "Hero," then every Orc in Middle-earth is also a "Hero."
______________________________________________________________________________________________


And "Heroism" is something that is "intentional," not accidental.

We think of Heroes as people who put themselves in danger, or sacrifice their own lives to save others. And they do so knowing that this is what they are doing:

_"I will likely die if I do this, but I cannot sit by while others will be hurt or die when I know that my sacrifice will save countless others."_

Gollum/Sméagol spent his entire life making sure that he never accepted responsibility for a single thing, much less risked himself for another's benefit.

He is not the "Hero."


He is the instrument of Doom or Fate. He is an unwilling sacrifice whose own Evil was his undoing and the savior of the world.

But he is no Hero.

MB


----------



## Rilien (Apr 18, 2017)

Going back to the original post for a moment...



Gnashar_the_orc said:


> Did you like the ending of 'Lord of the Rings'? I certainly didn't. For two reasons:
> [.....]
> b) I feel that all of a sudden, the magic that Tolkien had created, has perished in a blink of an eye. I understand that by the Elves, Dwarves etc. leaving Middle-Earth and by the destruction of the orcs, goblins etc., Tolkien wanted to say that now humanity has inherited the earth, which leads us to modern times. This I find tragic. Tragic for the reader, the fan you would say, to see that all the wonderful world of Middle-Earth to be altered in that way to explain history. I think reading Tolkien's books is a passage to another world, where you don't have to worry about your own personal problems as you are enchanted by the beauty and complexity of Middle-Earth.
> [.......]



I found the link with our world (the world we live in) something that gives a little bit of that magic to our boring, everyday lives. Yes it is sad that everything from the stories is gone and has faded, but here we are, continuing along the same trajectory...

As has been said above in this thread, all of Tolkien's stories deal with loss over time. It was a prominent feature of the world he created, and it's no less a prominent feature of the world we live in now. I think that's one important reason (of several) why these books resonate with so many people.


----------

