# Frodo, Sam and the Anti-climax



## FIRELILY (Feb 20, 2004)

I have always felt sad and disappointed about the way Frodo and Sam were received/treated after they completed their journey with the Ring. I'm not speaking about how they were received back in the Shire either, where you'd expect the folk to not understand the implications of what they'd done. 
For me, it was so anticlimatic to have the members of the Fellowship and Elrond's house treat Frodo and Sam so casually upon their return. 
Yes, they were welcomed, but it was not a welcome befitting the two people who, against all odds and with immeasurable peril to themselves, SAVED their world!!! 
They were treated like they did the rest some ordinary favor, got a few pats on the back and life's back to usual. Even Merry and Pippin decide to "get one over" on ol' Frodo as his welcome back from hell!?! (As an aside, this to me sure doesn't make Merry & Pip seem all that more changed and matured after the trials they went through as most seem to assert.)
I just felt bad for them both and thought that, for Frodo in particular, this illustrated the start of a barrier of loneliness between him and even those who had been in the Fellowship.
This has always been a thorn in my side in regards to this book and what's worse is that, to me, it saddens the ending.
Thoughts?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Feb 21, 2004)

FIRELILY said:


> I have always felt sad and disappointed about the way Frodo and Sam were received/treated after they completed their journey with the Ring. I'm not speaking about how they were received back in the Shire either, where you'd expect the folk to not understand the implications of what they'd done.
> For me, it was so anticlimatic to have the members of the Fellowship and Elrond's house treat Frodo and Sam so casually upon their return.
> Yes, they were welcomed, but it was not a welcome befitting the two people who, against all odds and with immeasurable peril to themselves, SAVED their world!!!
> They were treated like they did the rest some ordinary favor, got a few pats on the back and life's back to usual. Even Merry and Pippin decide to "get one over" on ol' Frodo as his welcome back from hell!?! (As an aside, this to me sure doesn't make Merry & Pip seem all that more changed and matured after the trials they went through as most seem to assert.)
> ...



Excellent post.

You are right about Frodo's alienation from his fellow-creatures, but this arguably begins as soon as the burden of destroying the Ring is laid upon him by Gandalf in the Shire.

I'm not sure that Merry and Pippin's demeanour towards Frodo and Sam at the Field of Cormallen is a result of any lack of appreciation of the seriousness of Sam and Frodo's achievement in Mordor; rather, it may reflect the hobbitish habit of taking serious matters lightly--as evidenced in their march with the Uruk-hai. They have "grown", certainly, but as Merry says to Aragorn:



> . . . it is the way of my people to use light words at such times and say less than they mean. We fear to say too much. It robs us of the right words when a jest is out of place.


 
And while Frodo and Sam might be considered most directly responsible for "saving the world" by destroying Sauron, their task could not be achieved were it not for the endeavours of Gandalf, Aragorn, the armies of Rohan and Gondor, and so forth. Even Pippin and Merry had a part to play.


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 21, 2004)

I wasn't disappointed. Not much is said about their treatment at Rivendell; the hobbits were far more concerned about spending time with Bilbo, and celebrated his birthday on their first full day there (Frodo's as well, of course!). However, we get some indication of their respect in The Grey Havens where it says "With them went many Elves of the High Kindred who would no longer stay in Middle-earth; and mong them, filled with a sadness that was yet blessed and without bitterness, rode Sam, and Frodo, and Bilbo, and the Elves delighted to honour them."

I think the Elves, more than any other race, knew the importance of what the Hobbits had achieved; there still lived among them those who became aware of Sauron's treachery when he first put on the One Ring. They knew the full horror of its power and so appreciated all the more the courage and stoutheartedness of the Ringbearers.


----------



## 33Peregrin (Feb 21, 2004)

I think it ends wonderfully. Sad and wonderful. Maybe the hobbits did not get all the recognition they deserved, but is that what they wanted? They set out to save the Shire... that's what they wanted, to perserve and protect the things they loved. Of course, when Frodo came back to the Shire, it was different and so was he. He got the Highest honor- to leave Middle-earth with the elves. Still the hobbits didn't know, and they should have, or should they not have? Sam got the Shire. He was mayor 7 times, but didn't he leave Middle-earth too, when he was 99? 
The ending really is sad. I could start crying right now from thinking about it, but I am not going to. It's one of the reason's why I love LOTR so much.
And isn't that the way of the world? Do all good things get noticed? Do all people get the recognition they deserve?
After LOTR... I just notice when people do little things, make little sacrifices. I try to do something for them later, even if what they did wasn't for me. It's so interesting to see those things so often- and not so often.


----------



## Iluvatar (Feb 21, 2004)

One of the greatest things about Tolkien's writing for me is that they are so poignantly bittersweet. Tolkien understood that there are no happy endings. Because even if the good guys win, they eventually will get old, and they will eventually die. And if they don't die (the Elves) they develop a world-weariness that makes death look like a Gift. It's all throughb his writings, but the Grey Havens and the Tale of Beren and Luthien are the best examples. Also, look at the death of Elessar and its impact on Arwen in the appendiuces.


----------



## FIRELILY (Feb 23, 2004)

Iluvatar said:


> One of the greatest things about Tolkien's writing for me is that they are so poignantly bittersweet. Tolkien understood that there are no happy endings. Because even if the good guys win, they eventually will get old, and they will eventually die. And if they don't die (the Elves) they develop a world-weariness that makes death look like a Gift. It's all throughb his writings, but the Grey Havens and the Tale of Beren and Luthien are the best examples. Also, look at the death of Elessar and its impact on Arwen in the appendiuces.



Sigh. It's the bittersweet that haunts my feelings when I think of this story. I want to revisit the story in my thoughts and relive it-remembering conversations, descriptions and feelings- but it's always tinged with the sadness that colors the story. I guess when you experience that immersion into the emotions of the characters it's a praise in itself to the writer. But I don't want Frodo to be sad (ok, I'm getting carried away getting all teary as I write). Maybe this book being a fantasy makes the life-lessons seem to stand out more, makes them easier to acknowledge and feel.
I wanted comfort for Frodo and Sam and those who needed it most in the story but I know that it would be going against the very essence of the tale. Still, it pulls at my heartstrings that not even fictional characters that I've come to love can experience wonders in life without inevitable sadness.


----------



## Eledhwen (Feb 24, 2004)

If you want to consider recognition for the Hobbits, think of the reception Bilbo and Frodo would have got in the Blessed Realm, and Sam, arriving there many years later, greeted by Frodo, old but hale, as he got off the boat, and a host of the Elven folk. They would have had the honour of all those Elves, many of whom had suffered greatly because of Sauron. Their Elven companions on the road delighted to honour them, and they had a hand in the victory. The rest had even more reason to do so.


----------



## Saucy (Feb 29, 2004)

gd point but: would of frodo and sam wanted to be treated differently, mean all they seem to of wanted (mostly sam) was to go back to the shire and live normal lives like they used too. wich, really for frodo was never possible.


----------



## Gildor (Mar 3, 2004)

Most people could have had very little idea of what Frodo and Sam had acutally gone though. All they knew was that the hobbits had gone into Mordor and destroyed the One Ring...very much a great deed, but only a few probably understood enough about Mordor and the Ring itself to imagine just how horrible and painful the journey must have been.

There is a strong parallel between this and soldiers coming home from one of the World Wars. People generally knew that they been through a lot and done great things, but there was no way to fully understand the true heroism and sacrifice of their actions without actually having been there to witness it.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 4, 2004)

If you have the HoME books it is fascinating to read the various versions of The Scouring of the Shire as Tolkien worked on that chapter (I think it is in Sauron Defeated, but I am not at home right now to check). The early versions of the chapter have Frodo as a very traditional action hero, leading the hobbits in their uprising against Sharkey's (Saruman's) men. He even faces Saruman in single combat. All this changed in the rewrites with Frodo taking a less and less active role. We all know the final version in which Frodo's main role is to control the hobbits in their anger and the warrior roles are assumed by Merry and Pippin. And of course Frodo spares Saruman even when Saruman tries to kill him. As Saruman himself says, Frodo has grown tremendously. You might even say he is now reminiscent of Gandalf. The Scouring of the Shire and Frodo then leaving Middle Earth are among the things that separate LOTR from most of the rest of the fantasy genre. (Yes, along with the writing, the depth of the story, etc. etc.  ).


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 6, 2004)

Tolkien's unusual style of writing is clearly illustrated in the differences between the "awakening" in Rivendell and that which takes place in the tents of the King after the destruction of the Ring and the rescue from Mordor. 

In Rivendell, Frodo wakes last and we get to "see" his reaction to Gandalf's story about what had happened subsequent to his fall from the elf horse at the fords. Then Sam comes and joins his Master telling him all about what is being said of him and the others in the Last Homely House.

After the rescue from Mordor, it is _Sam_ who awakens last to speak with Gandalf and learn what has happened while Frodo awaits his servant's return to conciousness. I found that interesting indeed since as I read the tale for the first time, I thought that Tolkien would have us witness Frodo's awakening to the kudos and appreciation of those whom he had saved, but we never really get to know what happened when he awoke. We are only told that he in fact was awake and waiting to speak with Sam. 

Of course, there may be at least one good reason for this change. In Rivendell, Frodo has triumphed (albeit with the assistance of Aragorn, Glorfindel and the other hobbits). He remains true to the end and only his weakened condition causes him to fall not from grace, but from the saddle. On the other hand, in Mordor, Frodo actually _does_ fall from grace. He _claims_ the Ring and had it not been for Gollum's intervention, the entire quest would have failed. So perhaps we have been spared being privy to Frodo's acknowledgement of his failure to Gandalf at least. Certainly, he had succeeded more than he failed and he not gotten the Ring to Sammath Naur itself, Gollum's intervention would have been pointless. But still, the post-Mordor awakening is both factually and conceptually different from that of the post-Fords of Bruinen. 

I find these "inversions" of the ordinary story narrative indicative of how "different" Tolkien's writing style is from the ordinary story teller. Many times during my first reading of the book I had expected something quite different from that which was delivered by the author - not the least being Frodo's "failure" at Mt. Doom! But in fact, Tolkien's narrative style is far more "realistic" than one would expect given his subject and its setting! He actually does give us the "vagries of life" which take place during the actual living experience - and I believe that it is this "reality" which makes the book not only popular, but great. The reader is able to believe what has indeed come to pass actually _could_ come to pass.


----------



## Arwen48 (Mar 8, 2004)

I don't find that Sam and Frodo are treated shabbily after the destruction of Mordor.Don't forget as well as all the points that have already been raised, how they were honoured at the ceremony of the crowning of the king.
Also years later, Sam is awarded with the Star of the Dúnedain by King Elessar and his daughter is made lady of honour to Queen Arwen.

One of the greatest things about the story for me is the real-ness of the characters. They all have failings and weaknesses, even Aragorn, and that is what makes them so memorable. Frodo could never have fitted back into life in the shire, he had been through too much. If I may refer to a scene in the film, I think the moment added in by PJ when the 4 hobbits are back home in the inn with their tankards of beer, sums it up perfectly. They obviously feel so out of place and almost bored. Neither Pippin or Merry settled down to ordinary hobbit life again, and Sam was only able to because his character is so different from the others'.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 9, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott,

You make some excellent points. I fully agree that part of Tolkien's genius and one of the things that raises LOTR above a typical fantasy, or sword-and-sorcery, tale is that Tolkien does the unexpected many times. And of course many of his characters are much more complex than in the typical adventure tale. Tolkien, however, disagrees with you about Frodo's failure at Orodruin. In one of his letters he says that Frodo did not fail. The task he undertook was to take the Ring to the Cracks of Doom and at that he suceeded, using all his strength to accomplish that task. Tolkien says that at the place of its forging the power of the Ring would have been so great that *no one could have willingly destroyed it*. Tolkien decidely did not think that Frodo had "fallen from grace" in claiming the Ring for his own. Tolkien further states (I believe in that letter and others) that Bilbo's and later Frodo's pity in sparing Gollum were what led to Frodo's (and Middle Earth's) salvation.

I would suggest another reason for consideration of the difference between the "awakenings" at Rivendell and after the destruction of the Ring. At Rivendell, Frodo was still clearly *the hero* of the tale but by the end of the tale Tolkien had decided that Sam was *the central hero* and so had now shifted the focus of the tale to Sam and off Frodo. During their journey together after the splitting of the Fellowship, the story slowly focuses more and more on Sam. It is Sam who defeats Shelob and takes on the burden of the Ring when he believes Frodo to be dead. It is Sam who rescues Frodo from the Tower of Cirith Ungol. It is Sam who is most responsible for getting the two of them across Mordor to Mount Doom (Frodo has a more and more passive role in all this). It is Sam who literally carries Frodo on his back on the last leg of the climb up Mount Doom. Finally, it is Sam who gets the traditional "hero's reward" of living happily ever after.


----------



## -K- (Mar 9, 2004)

I think a portion of why Frodo finds it so impossible to start living again is as a result of some very deep psychological realities.

There simply is no reward befitting for what he did. I honestly don't think that there is anything that could be given to him that would fairly recompense him for his deeds. Even recieving the ability to enjoy the Shire again is not enough to truly reward Frodo for what he did. *Pause and re-read that.* It's not a matter of Frodo being rewarded with an appropriate ceremony, or object, or set of life circumstances. There is simply no 'middle-earthly' reward for him, and that is why he eventually goes on the ship to Valinor.

At first Frodo believes that he can again enjoy the Shire. When told that he can go with the Elves, he doesn't believe that he would want to.

Now, if you look at what happens after, he does try to enjoy the Shire once again. But he fails. Why is that? I believe it is the fact that his subconscious realises what his conscious mind cannot. If he begins to enjoy life in the Shire, he is selling himself short. By accepting such as his reward, he also is denying the true worth of his deeds.

And thus, Frodo himself chooses subconsciously not to enjoy the Shire again. Ironically, even as his conscious mind desires, and battles to do exactly the opposite. It is Frodo who chooses not to enjoy the Shire, as such is what is right.

He then sails away in a ship to the Blessed Realm. Which like it or not is clearly symbolic of the Christian teaching of ressurection.

The basis for this conclusion is as the result of years and years of therapy for depression that I have gone through. This is definately not factual, or based on anything that Tolkien wrote in specific. I have seen the reality of the subconscious and the conscious mind battling for entirely different goals in my own life. Indeed, most psychotherapy involves techniques that allow the subcoscious mind to be explored, and thus an alliance of will within oneself to be achieved.

Could Frodo have used psychotherapy and eventually become a united person again? (This would mean being able to enjoy the Shire) Well, no, the non-existence of such things is a good reason why not. Another is that his deed was a deed of complete self-sacrifice. His subconscious is correct, it would diminish the deed if he lived happily ever after.


----------



## duilwen (Mar 10, 2004)

i can (somewhat) see where you're coming from, *K.* 

i wish you'd have not been that adamant about christian resurrection. there is no proof for me, for any of the elements in your theory. but such is not the point.

was bilbo depressed, we might ask ?

are you implying that he goes to valinor to seek a reward worthy of his deeds ? to me, the weight of events past and sadness that he experiences has to do much more with having borne the ring for so long and suffered its strain, and struggled to fight it, than with an inner and subconscious disappointment for not being able to _reward himself_ in any way...

it's simply, so to speak, a soul maimed forever, and i don't think that anybody on middle-earth can have an idea of what it was to be under the ring's almost-dominion. 

so, as depression nowadays is oftentimes a mystery for the people living with the ill person, bilbo's pain is not apprehendable (is that even an english word ?) by the rest of his companions... nor by us.

and it's one of the greatest achievements of tolkien's work. to have been so imaginative, and so real at the same time. so anchored in real life and anti-hero issues.

edit : if i have misunderstood your post, forgive me... i tend to take english too literally at times...


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 10, 2004)

According to the works, mortals who receive permission to go into the West - Frodo, Bilbo, Sam and later we are told, Gimli - do not receive immortality. As Tolkien mentioned in one of his letters, it is called the Blessed Realm not because of the place itself, but because of those who abide there (the Valar and the Light Elves). 

Therefore, we know that mortals who go into the West _die_ just as they would have done had they remained in Middle-earth. So what is the point of going? In that blessed place and among those blessed companions, they find peace and, in Gimli's case, they are able to be with their closest companion (Legolas) until death. 

Now, as for the belief in a resurrection: certainly, Tolkien a Christian and a Roman Catholic believed in a resurrection of the body. In fact, in the parting words said between Galadriel and Treebeard, the Lady mentions the two - immortal and mortal - meeting again in those lands that had been consumed by the sea when Morgoth was overthrown - in other words, when the world had been made new. Of course, we know from the Silmarillion that there will be a "Second Music of the Ainur" and it is at that time - as Tolkien himself would have believed vis a vie the establishment of the Kingdom of God at the time of the Second Coming - that all that was good in Middle-earth would be "made new" and quite possibly - that which had been sundered, made whole once again. 

For the "great separation" between men and elves, the mortal and the immortal, refers to the time which passes until the world ends. That is what is meant when Tolkien wrote that in the end, even the Valar (never mind the elves) would envy men since they were doomed to abide in the world until the very end.

Finally, it is well to remember that _our_ (the readers') "beliefs" do not matter here. We are merely trying to understand these works and as such, it is essential to understand what _Tolkien_ believed. One may agree (or disagree) with his worldview and belief system, but that does not alter it nor does it affect the message he is attempting to convey through his works. One may accept that message with joy or simply acknowledge its existence - or even, while acknowledging it, reject it outright on a personal level, but one cannot _change_ it.


----------



## duilwen (Mar 10, 2004)

i'm not sure this topic is really about whether tolkien intended 'the west' to be a symbol of, in short, 'resurrection' in a religious/christian/roman catholic meaning. 

besides, you say we are trying to understand his purposes, mrs maggot, but by no means can we be in the man's head/heart, so we will never know for sure how he intended it, surely ?  


that is the only reference i myself will make to any connection between tolkien and religion/christianity. i've read, on this forum and elsewhere, too many flaming (and sterile) threads that had been kindled by that topic.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 10, 2004)

duilwen said:


> i'm not sure this topic is really about whether tolkien intended 'the west' to be a symbol of, in short, 'resurrection' in a religious/christian/roman catholic meaning.
> 
> besides, you say we are trying to understand his purposes, mrs maggot, but by no means can we be in the man's head/heart, so we will never know for sure how he intended it, surely ?
> 
> that is the only reference i myself will make to any connection between tolkien and religion/christianity. i've read, on this forum and elsewhere, too many flaming (and sterile) threads that had been kindled by that topic.



The West is _not_ symbolic of the resurrection for if it were, then mortals going there would become _immortal_ - but we know that such is not the case! We _know_ that there will be a "Second Music of the Ainur"; reference to it (albeit very short) is found in The Silmarillion. We also know that elves and the Valar will become weary of their lives in Arda, yes _even in the Blessed Realm_. That must mean that the Blessed Realm - blessed as it is - cannot represent the perfection that Eru wishes His creation to obtain in the end. Hence, the "Second Music".

As for "not knowing what was in Tolkien's heart or making "connections" between the book/books and Christianity, let me only say this: Tolkien was creating a "Christian myth"; he himself declared very specifically in letters and essays, that he took great care to put nothing in his myth that would be directly contradictory to his Christian beliefs. He also noted that Middle-earth is _this_ world but ages before the Incarnation. Now, if that is problematic for some, then it is best that they simply read it "as is" without making any connection between the story and the author's worldview; this is certainly possible to do. And as I have said, one may well ignore or reinterpret to oneself anything that becomes problematic. However, having said that, it is also true that one may not fundamentally _change_ it with respect to the understanding of others. 

Many non-Christians - whether they are believers in other religions or non-believers - read and enjoy these books. There is no criteria vis a vie religion for any reader of this book or any other of Tolkien's works. On the other hand, _if one wishes to understand more fully what the author is saying_, then one simply cannot overlook or dismiss his belief system - whatever one may think about it.

It is certainly not my intention to use these books as a platform for evangelization. That is not my intention nor is it my desire. Recognizing a Christian worldview and its impact upon the believer's writings is no different than recognizing the worldview of any other author and its influence on his or her works. Pullman wrote "His Dark Materials" from a decidely atheistic worldview; one cannot escape from it nor can one understand the books unless one realizes the author's intention of conveying his worldview within his books. One may disagree with it. In fact, one may even find the books unsatisfying if one is a strong believer in another world view. Likewise, Lewis' books - both his "space" triology and Chronicles of Narnia - are decidely Christian in their thrust. Tolkien's works - created around the concept of "myth" - is considerably less _openly_ Christian, but that does not change the fact that the worldview - both moral and physical - arises from that belief system.


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 10, 2004)

The Blessed Realm, with its trees and mountains, etc., arose from the music and were realised by the Ainur. The second music, I imagine, would be a new creation the scope of which would include the Blessed Realm.

Also, I believe that the less openly Christian work of Tolkien is far more effective a tool than overtly Christian works for awakening spiritual longing; not least because, being void of religious symbolism (bar one gesture), people are not put off reading them.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 10, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> Finally, it is well to remember that _our_ (the readers') "beliefs" do not matter here. We are merely trying to understand these works and as such, it is essential to understand what _Tolkien_ believed. One may agree (or disagree) with his worldview and belief system, but that does not alter it nor does it affect the message he is attempting to convey through his works. One may accept that message with joy or simply acknowledge its existence - or even, while acknowledging it, reject it outright on a personal level, but one cannot _change_ it.
> 
> As for "not knowing what was in Tolkien's heart or making "connections" between the book/books and Christianity, let me only say this: Tolkien was creating a "Christian myth"; ...



Your posts almost invariably show that "the readers beliefs" do matter, at least in your case, because you constantly impose *your* beliefs on Tolkien's work. No one disputes that Tolkien was a devout Catholic and it would be silly and naive to contend that his (or any author's) personal beliefs did not have an effect on his writings. Recognizing this, however, is a far cry from insisting (as you do) that Tolkien's *intent* was to convey his religious beliefs in LOTR. It flies in the face of his many protests that such was not his intent and disagrees what what he stated his intent was.

You are constantly trying to make LOTR into an allegory, something that Tolkien himself explicitly rejected many times. (From Random House Webster's Dictionary: allegory -- the representation of spiritual, moral, or other abstract meanings through the actions of fictional characters that serve as symbols). Tolkien was *not* attempting to create a "Christain myth" as you contend, he was creating an "English myth". Quite a different intent. From Letter 131 in "The Letters of JRR Tolkien" we have the following passage that utterly refutes your claims:


> But an equally basic passion of mine _ab initio_ was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite. I was an undergraduate before thought and experience revealed to me that these were not divergent interests -- opposite poles of science and romance -- but integrally related. I am _not_ 'learned' in the matters of myth and fairy-story, however, for in such things (as fas as known to me) I have always been seeking material, things of a certain tone and air, and not simple knowledge. Also -- and here I hope I shall not sound absurd -- I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its own tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitve. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and expliitly contains the Christain religion.


There in that passage we have Tolkien's oft repeated statement of his denial of an intent at allegory (he is much more vehement in other writings), his clear statement that he was creating a myth for England (not a Christain myth) and finally his rejection of the Arthurian myths as English *because they are too explicitly Christian*! Given those explicit statements of Tolkien's you expect us to accept *your* contention that Tolkien did just what he states he did not do: create a "Christian myth"!


----------



## -K- (Mar 10, 2004)

duilwen said:


> i can (somewhat) see where you're coming from, *K.*
> 
> i wish you'd have not been that adamant about christian resurrection. there is no proof for me, for any of the elements in your theory. but such is not the point.
> 
> ...


first, i think it needs to be cleared up before this thread runs away with itself. i did not say that Valinor is symbolic of the ressurection, but of the Christian teaching of the ressurection.

Valinor itself is caught up in a ridiculously complex symbolism involving the Reign of God, Zion, and all the Christian teachings that stem from the ressurection. This is not by the will of Tolkien certainly. But rather, the effects of the Christian teaching in his mind have a translation into the fantasy world. I will not even attempt to explain this, only to say that as someone who also knows said teachings, that I see parralel ideas that unintentionally crept in.

We certainly cannot attempt to explain this process, none of us know the mind of Tolkien with that sort of intimacy.

As far as the going to Valinor to find a suitable reward, I certainly never said such a thing. Neither would I say that either Bilbo or Frodo was depressed. If Frodo was depressed, he *could* have recovered. I have seen enough people do so.

Rather I am saying that the truth is that there simply was no reward suitable for Frodo. And this truth was known to his subconscious mind. His subconscious mind made the *choice* not to enjoy the Shire again. It is an important way to look at it insofar as we see Frodo as a character of a higher quality. Had he not made this choice, where would the sacrifice of his actions be? The fact that he did not regain the Shire for himself makes his deeds selfless.


----------



## duilwen (Mar 10, 2004)

i agree, at least on one point *greenwood* ... 

we know of an author's worldview. by no means does this signify that this author will systematically try to instill this worldview, or parts of it that are very characteristic, such as religious beliefs, in their work.

i haven't read all tolkien's letters, and i am very ignorant compared to others, but to me, the symbolic of 'the west' is far from being christian. 

i mean to say, i have a 'personal' tolkien world inside of me. whether that world is 100 % in total appropriateness with what he intended to convey is _almost_ irrelevant.

i have a problem with cold and scholar analysis of one's work. they deprive me of the magic, and the work become without flesh, without real existence for me, just a string of words, sometimes arrogant to the layman, pretending to 'know it all'.


----------



## duilwen (Mar 10, 2004)

-K- said:


> As far as the going to Valinor to find a suitable reward, I certainly never said such a thing. Neither would I say that either Bilbo or Frodo was depressed. If Frodo was depressed, he *could* have recovered. I have seen enough people do so.




thanks for having clarified. and oops, i realise i mentioned bilbo when i meant frodo   

just for the sake of argument, you say that


> His subconscious mind made the choice not to enjoy the Shire again.


. when our mind refuses us enjoyment, and we can't live with it, don't we end in depression ?  at least at some level ? for there is a discrepancy between what we need (acknowledgement and reward) and what we allow ourselves to receive (none).


----------



## -K- (Mar 10, 2004)

duilwen said:


> thanks for having clarified. and oops, i realise i mentioned bilbo when i meant frodo
> 
> just for the sake of argument, you say that . when our mind refuses us enjoyment, and we can't live with it, don't we end in depression ?  at least at some level ? for there is a discrepancy between what we need (acknowledgement and reward) and what we allow ourselves to receive (none).


The difference between Frodo and a person who is depressed is simple. For a person with depression, the subconscious is at fault. For Frodo, his subconscious was in the right.

Let's say that Frodo again began to enjoy the Shire. Quickly, his fellow hobbits would forget him and what he had done. Even his good friends Pippin and Merry would slowly forget Frodo in the business of their own lives. Sam even would not have had time for him. With so many children and a career as Mayor. Frodo would be alone, not unloved, but alone.

Then Frodo would have been depressed. He would be at odds with the truth of his life.

Instead, he accepted the inevitability of losing the Shire. Instead he went to where he could feel happy, with Bilbo and the Elves in Valinor. Certainly he was not justly rewarded, but he found happiness in spite I am sure. This is because he accepted the truth in his life.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 10, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> Your posts almost invariably show that "the readers beliefs" do matter, at least in your case, because you constantly impose *your* beliefs on Tolkien's work. No one disputes that Tolkien was a devout Catholic and it would be silly and naive to contend that his (or any author's) personal beliefs did not have an effect on his writings. Recognizing this, however, is a far cry from insisting (as you do) that Tolkien's *intent* was to convey his religious beliefs in LOTR. It flies in the face of his many protests that such was not his intent and disagrees what what he stated his intent was.
> 
> You are constantly trying to make LOTR into an allegory, something that Tolkien himself explicitly rejected many times. (From Random House Webster's Dictionary: allegory -- the representation of spiritual, moral, or other abstract meanings through the actions of fictional characters that serve as symbols). Tolkien was *not* attempting to create a "Christain myth" as you contend, he was creating an "English myth". Quite a different intent. From Letter 131 in "The Letters of JRR Tolkien" we have the following passage that utterly refutes your claims:There in that passage we have Tolkien's oft repeated statement of his denial of an intent at allegory (he is much more vehement in other writings), his clear statement that he was creating a myth for England (not a Christain myth) and finally his rejection of the Arthurian myths as English *because they are too explicitly Christian*! Given those explicit statements of Tolkien's you expect us to accept *your* contention that Tolkien did just what he states he did not do: create a "Christian myth"!


You are confusing allegory with myth. Tolkien actually _did_ write a Christian allegory - Leaf by Niggle. However, his myth was _also_ Christian in its contents and worldview - and this is not _MY_ interpretation - or certainly not mine alone. 

The virtues contained in LOTR are _Christian_ virtues as are the vices the author presents, albeit they can also be found in other religions as well. Truth, loyalty, courage, fealty, love, empathy, selflessness etc. are the bedrock of Tolkien's heroes while falsehood, deceit, cowardice, treachery, pride, selfishness and cruelty are the stuff of which he forms his villains. There is none of modern culture's situational ethics or relativism about Tolkien; he is _not_ a "nihilist" or a "pragmatist" or a "relativist", but an "absolutist" - and that is a consequence of his faith. You may become as angry or upset as you wish with the messanger, but that does not change the message.


----------



## duilwen (Mar 10, 2004)

-K- said:


> The difference between Frodo and a person who is depressed is simple. For a person with depression, the subconscious is at fault. For Frodo, his subconscious was in the right.
> 
> Let's say that Frodo again began to enjoy the Shire. Quickly, his fellow hobbits would forget him and what he had done. Even his good friends Pippin and Merry would slowly forget Frodo in the business of their own lives. Sam even would not have had time for him. With so many children and a career as Mayor. Frodo would be alone, not unloved, but alone.
> 
> ...




alone ? do you know many people in real life who leave their friends alone and forget about them ? good grief, that's a heavy caricature...  i'm not sure that it's what would have happened had frodo enjoyed the shire... these beings are bond by much more than 'regular' friendship, and such bonds are never severed...

(but i can understand your point of view now. phew. finally. sorry for having been so dense).


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 10, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> The virtues contained in LOTR are _Christian_ virtues as are the vices the author presents, albeit they can also be found in other religions as well. Truth, loyalty, courage, fealty, love, empathy, selflessness etc. are the bedrock of Tolkien's heroes while falsehood, deceit, cowardice, treachery, pride, selfishness and cruelty are the stuff of which he forms his villains. There is none of modern culture's situational ethics or relativism about Tolkien; he is _not_ a "nihilist" or a "pragmatist" or a "relativist", but an "absolutist" - and that is a consequence of his faith. You may become as angry or upset as you wish with the messanger, but that does not change the message.



The "message" is yours. You are appropriating Tolkien's LOTR to push your message and justifying it on the basis that Tolkien was a devout believer as you obviously are. As I have said before, your insistence that you know Tolkien's true intent (in the face of his own words to the contrary on what his intent was) is as justifiable (and by that I mean totally unjustified) as those who claim that LOTR was really a homosexual fantasy because Sam and Frodo express love for each other.

Christianity does not have a monopoly on the values in Tolkien, nor does it have a claim of originality on them. Yes, Tolkien was Catholic and therefore Christian, that does not mean that he was not writing of universal virtues. That these virtues can only come from a specifically religious origin, or in this case a specifically Christian origin, is your personal view.


----------



## joxy (Mar 10, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> ....that does not mean that he was not writing of universal virtues. That these virtues can only come from....in this case a specifically Christian origin, is your personal view.


I have just double-checked Mrs M's posting: it includes the phrase "they can also be found in other religions". Taking that into account, your statement of what you consider Mrs M's view to be, as stated above, is illogical.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 10, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> The "message" is yours. You are appropriating Tolkien's LOTR to push your message and justifying it on the basis that Tolkien was a devout believer as you obviously are. As I have said before, your insistence that you know Tolkien's true intent (in the face of his own words to the contrary on what his intent was) is as justifiable (and by that I mean totally unjustified) as those who claim that LOTR was really a homosexual fantasy because Sam and Frodo express love for each other.
> 
> Christianity does not have a monopoly on the values in Tolkien, nor does it have a claim of originality on them. Yes, Tolkien was Catholic and therefore Christian, that does not mean that he was not writing of universal virtues. That these virtues can only come from a specifically religious origin, or in this case a specifically Christian origin, is your personal view.



Look, Greenwood. There really is no sense in your continuing to "address" my posts since either you aren't reading them (at least with any comprehension), or having read them, choose not to understand what I say however carefully I present it. You appear to believe that I am trying to "convert" you - first, on the film threads and then, when I gave up all attempts at reasoned discourse there, you have now come on the book threads and taken up where you left off. 

To begin with, _I am not trying to convince YOU of anything!_ That is a game that simply is not worth the candle, as the old saying goes. However, I take exception to having to define, re-define and re-re-define everything I say in hopes of forestalling your constant criticisms. Surely, you must also get tired of your constant carping. Therefore, let me suggest that you locate my profile and press your "ignore" button. That way, you don't have to be exposed to my opinions, conclusions, deductions and reasoned discourse - thus making you far happier in the long run. And, of course, I will do the same thing with you! This way, we are _all_ better off!


----------



## simbelmyne (Mar 10, 2004)

-K- said:


> The difference between Frodo and a person who is depressed is simple. For a person with depression, the subconscious is at fault. For Frodo, his subconscious was in the right.
> 
> Instead, he accepted the inevitability of losing the Shire. Instead he went to where he could feel happy, with Bilbo and the Elves...because he accepted the truth in his life.



I've also often wondered exactly WHY Frodo is unable to live in the shire after his return. He takes on incredible odds to save what he loves (the shire) and then abandons it when it is saved. He asks Sam to go with him on his last journey "wistfully" because he know Sam's heart is divided between Frodo and his family now. Maybe he IS depressed...knowing his life can never be like it was and unable to gather himself together to start over, so he decides to leave.

I guess he's the war veteren who can't get over his shellshock. Could his psychological wounds have healed if he had given it more of a chance? Or was his physical and emotional pain too great to overcome? just thoughts...

K, could you clarify what "accepting the truth in his life" means? Intriguing words but I can't quite figure them out. Thanks!


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 11, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> Look, Greenwood. There really is no sense in your continuing to "address" my posts since either you aren't reading them (at least with any comprehension), or having read them, choose not to understand what I say however carefully I present it. You appear to believe that I am trying to "convert" you - first, on the film threads and then, when I gave up all attempts at reasoned discourse there, you have now come on the book threads and taken up where you left off.
> 
> To begin with, _I am not trying to convince YOU of anything!_ That is a game that simply is not worth the candle, as the old saying goes. However, I take exception to having to define, re-define and re-re-define everything I say in hopes of forestalling your constant criticisms. Surely, you must also get tired of your constant carping. Therefore, let me suggest that you locate my profile and press your "ignore" button. That way, you don't have to be exposed to my opinions, conclusions, deductions and reasoned discourse - thus making you far happier in the long run. And, of course, I will do the same thing with you! This way, we are _all_ better off!



Mrs. Maggott,

Let's get a few facts straight:

1) Anyone going to our respective profiles and clicking on the "find all posts by" button will quickly see that I have been far more active on the book sections of this forum than you have been. Until a couple of days ago you virtually never left the film sections.

2) I was active on this particular thread discussing the thread's subject two days before you posted anything on it, so your charge of my following you to the book forum is as ludicrous as *some* of your Tolkien interpretations.

3) When you did join the discussion on this thread (as I said after I was already here) my first post in reply to you started with:


Greenwood said:


> Mrs. Maggott,
> 
> You make some excellent points. I fully agree that part of Tolkien's genius and one of the things that raises LOTR above a typical fantasy, or sword-and-sorcery, tale is that Tolkien does the unexpected many times. And of course many of his characters are much more complex than in the typical adventure tale.


I then went on in a quite polite way to point out that your view of Frodo having been a failure at Mount Doom was not shared by Tolkien himself and cited a letter of his in which he directly addressed the question. I went on to politely suggest an alternative interpretation of Tolkien's handling of Frodo waking in Rivendell and Sam waking after Mount Doom. I thought this section of the Forum was for reasoned discussions of the books and I was certainly trying to engage in one. You completely ignored my posts. I do not know if you didn't read them, didn't comprehend them, or felt that you couldn't answer my points. You then went on your usual tack of appropriating Tolkien's LOTR for your particular brand of Christianity, in the process mis-stating Tolkien's own statement of what his intent was in creating LOTR. As I have before, I objected to this hijacking of LOTR and took the time to type out a quote from Tolkien's letters that refutes your position. You have made no attempt to deal with Tolkien's own words. Instead you have attacked me and misrepresented easily verifiable facts.

4) As for your statement that I apparently believe that you are 'trying to "convert" ' me, I have never thought it. If you are referring to my religion (which I would suggest is an out of bounds subject for you to address at all), it would indeed be strange for me to think that you were trying to convert me since, like Tolkien and I suspect you, I am Catholic.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 11, 2004)

joxy said:


> I have just double-checked Mrs M's posting: it includes the phrase "they can also be found in other religions". Taking that into account, your statement of what you consider Mrs M's view to be, as stated above, is illogical.



My, my joxy! Are you lost? You've wandered away from the film section. Are you following me? Did someone call for help with the big, bad Greenwood?  

If you would take the time to read all the posts in this thread (there were only 27 when you jumped in) you would find that Mrs. M has claimed (post #18, since you like citations but always seem unable to find things yourself) that Tolkien intended LOTR to be a "Christian myth". If you would like to discuss Tolkien's view to the contrary, I have provided a substantial quote from his letters.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 11, 2004)

simbelmyne said:


> I've also often wondered exactly WHY Frodo is unable to live in the shire after his return. He takes on incredible odds to save what he loves (the shire) and then abandons it when it is saved.



Frodo was just too wounded and had suffered too much in accomplishing his goal of saving the Shire. In the Grey Havens chapter in ROTK when Sam says that he thought Frodo was going to enjoy the Shore "for years and years", Frodo responds:


> "So I thought too once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them. ... "


Your comparison with a soldier is apt, but not so much with a shell-shocked survivor, as with a soldier who sacrifice's himself to save his fellows and to protect his homeland. Frodo may not have been killed outright, but his wounds were still in a sense mortal. He has given up his life to save his beloved Shire and his friends. His only hope now of peace and healing from his wounds is across the sea in the West.


----------



## duilwen (Mar 11, 2004)

and again, greenwood, mrs maggot and joxy turning this thread into personal attacks.

i 
am
out 
of 
here.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 11, 2004)

simbelmyne said:


> I've also often wondered exactly WHY Frodo is unable to live in the shire after his return. He takes on incredible odds to save what he loves (the shire) and then abandons it when it is saved. He asks Sam to go with him on his last journey "wistfully" because he know Sam's heart is divided between Frodo and his family now. Maybe he IS depressed...knowing his life can never be like it was and unable to gather himself together to start over, so he decides to leave.
> 
> I guess he's the war veteren who can't get over his shellshock. Could his psychological wounds have healed if he had given it more of a chance? Or was his physical and emotional pain too great to overcome? just thoughts...
> 
> K, could you clarify what "accepting the truth in his life" means? Intriguing words but I can't quite figure them out. Thanks!


The answer to your question could be contained in Saruman's words to Frodo, "You have grown...." I think that Frodo _has_ "grown" as an individual and the ordinary life in the Shire (after he finishes what he believes to be his obligation to the people there) no longer holds him. Bilbo felt the same way as the Ring was beginning to possess him. The same old same old (as the saying goes) was becoming tiresome; he longed for something different. True, part of that was the influence of the Ring, but not all of it. Had that been the case, Gollum would have been driven out of his mountain refuge long before his 500 years of possession had ended!

There is, forgive me, a certain _spiritual_ element here. Both Bilbo and Frodo are no longer existing on the mundane plane, the earthly plateau of their fellow Shire-dwellers. Remember, they have been connected to a talisman of angelic power (true, that power was _evil_) but given that they were rather exceptional "people" to begin with (as opposed to Gollum which that power simply corrupted and distorted), by the time the Quest is through, neither of them is able to continue to exist in the earthly realm. Bilbo had already made the first steps in that journey when he abandons the Ring, leaves the Shire and travels to Rivendell, the first step on his journey. Thus the hobbits begin a journey in which even the Blessed Realm is merely a hiatus until they proceed - as is said in the Chronicles of Narnia - upward and inward.

Sam's possession of the Ring is not of long enough duration to totally separate him from his normal earthly longings (a family and the comradeship of his fellows) and so he remains in the material world. Only with the death of his wife does he seek the "next step" in _his_ spiritual journey. He is as Frodo once was when Bilbo - as he prepared to depart on the first step of his own journey - declared: "still in love with the Shire". In other words, he was not ready to begin his journey. Only when earthly pleasures and delights begin to pall does Sam set off.

We know that Frodo's inability to return to an ordinary life in the Shire is not due merely to his adventures since neither Merry nor Pippin - who underwent equally unusual adventures - have a problem readjusting to life in the Shire. Interestingly enough, however, in the end, they both return to those kingdoms to which they gave allegiance long before. In other words, if one considers the Shire as "normal life" by going to these more "elevated" kingdoms, they have merely taken smaller steps towards a "higher" life than were taken by those who actually bore the Ring.

The Shire represents our mundane earthly life but that is not saying anything against it. Indeed, it is in defense of this "normal" life that Frodo is willing to lay down his own life. For it is a great gift from God that we are to enjoy to the fullest. But there is much more than that in life - and afterlife. In the case of Bilbo, Frodo and finally Sam there is a connection with a talisman of angelic power that lifts them above the mundane whether they wish it or not. The result is, in the end, they simply cannot return to what they once were; spiritually, they have moved on.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 11, 2004)

I must, of course, again disagree with Mrs. M's attempt to make LOTR explicitly religious [Added in edit: And I should have said explicitly Christian] and point out that Tolkien himself disagrees with her position. In a letter to a reader (Letter #246) that starts out discussing Frodo's "failure" at Mount Doom (which as I said earlier Tolkien does not consider a failure and so states earlier in the letter), Tolkien goes on to discuss Frodo's passing into the West and why:


> 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. Arwen was the first to observe the signs, and give him her jewel for comfort, and thought of a way of healing 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. 'Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same, for I shall not be the same.' That was actually a temptation out of the Dark, a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned as a 'hero', not content with being a mere instrument of good. And it was mixed with another temptation, blacker and yet (in a sense) more merited, for however that may be explained, he had not in fact cast away the Ring by a voluntary act: he was tempted to regret its destruction, and still to desire it. 'It is gone for ever, and now all is dark and empty', he said as he wakened from his sickness in 1420.
> 
> 'Alas! there are some wounds that cannot be wholly cured', said Gandalf -- not in Middle-earth. Frodo was sent or allowed to pass over Sea to heal him -- if that could be done, _before he died_. He would have eventually to 'pass away': no mortal could, or can, abide forever on earth, or within Time. So he went both to a purgatory and to a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and in greatness, spent still in Time amid the natural beauty of 'Arda Unmarred', the Earth unspoiled by evil.
> 
> (italics in the original)


----------



## meneldor (Mar 11, 2004)

I have often thought of Frodos return to the shire as arelation to a veterans return from intense combat. My grandfather would say that he never felt the same again about where he lived, people he knew and the outlook in life in general. He shared a feirce loyalty to those whom he served with. When he left for the service at sixteen he an off to make a difference and be a hero. But after 4 years returned as one who was stripped of something. He said he never could really in depth discuss his emotions and inner most thoughts with one of his friends who had not gone over seas. Some veterans never speak of war period. Frodos return to the shire has stuck in my head always as one who returns from war. Frodo would have seen what a soldier would have seen during his tour of duty. Like the people living in the shire could not possibly relate to his journey and expierences. He saved the shire fro those living there, but when he returned he was not also the same frodo that left. He had seen the darkest side of the world as a soldier would have. How could possibly relate to those you return to?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 11, 2004)

The Definition of Myth according to an old unabridged dictionary, the type which would have been familiar to Tolkien:

2. A traditional story told about supernatural beings or the supernatural actions of animate beings or inanimate objects; specif. among primitive peoples, _the philosophy of creation and nature expressed in narrative form in which the activities of the universe are pictured as the conduct of personal beings, and the forces and objects of nature are personified, usually as gods, daemons, etc._

3. A parable; allegory.

Tolkien on his writings and beliefs:

“Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution _elements of moral and religious truth (or error),_ but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary ‘real’ world.” 

“After all, _I believe that legends and myths are largely made of ‘truth’, and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode_; and long ago certain truth and modes of this kind were discovered _and must always reappear_.

Letter to Milton Waldman probably written in late 1951

“For if as seems probable I shall never write any ordered biography – it is against my nature, _which expresses itself about things deepest felt *in tales and myths*_….”

Letter to Christopher Tolkien July 11, 1972

“It later appears that there had been a ‘hallow’ on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, _where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people_; but it had been forgotten. It was re-entered by Aragorn and there he found the sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. _It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings_ (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) _*THE WORSHIP OF GOD WOULD BE RENEWED, and HIS NAME (or title) BE AGAIN MORE OFTEN HEARD.*_ But there would be no _temple_ of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted.

But they were still living on the borders of myth – _or rather this story (LOTR) exhibits ‘myth’ passing into History_ or the Dominion of Men; for of course the Shadow will arise again in a sense (as is clearly foretold by Gandalf), but never again (unless it be before the great End) will an evil daemon be incarnate as a physical enemy; he will direct Men and all the complications of half-evils, and defective-goods, and the twilights of doubt as to sides, such situations as he most loves (you can see them already arising in the War of the Ring, which is by no means so clear cut an issue as some critics have averred): those will be and are our more difficult fate.

The Istari are translated ‘wizards’…_They are actually emissaries from the True West, and so mediately from *GOD*,_ sent precisely to strengthen the resistance of the ‘good’, when the Valar become aware that the shadow of Sauron is taking shape again.”

Draft of a letter to Robert Murray, S.J. November 4, 1954

These are _not_ mundane stories recounting instances of combat fatigue or psychological damage consequential to unpleasant life-experiences! Let those with eyes and (open) minds read and understand.


----------



## -K- (Mar 11, 2004)

simbelmyne said:


> I've also often wondered exactly WHY Frodo is unable to live in the shire after his return. He takes on incredible odds to save what he loves (the shire) and then abandons it when it is saved. He asks Sam to go with him on his last journey "wistfully" because he know Sam's heart is divided between Frodo and his family now. Maybe he IS depressed...knowing his life can never be like it was and unable to gather himself together to start over, so he decides to leave.
> 
> I guess he's the war veteren who can't get over his shellshock. Could his psychological wounds have healed if he had given it more of a chance? Or was his physical and emotional pain too great to overcome? just thoughts...
> 
> K, could you clarify what "accepting the truth in his life" means? Intriguing words but I can't quite figure them out. Thanks!


Consider for a while what it is that Frodo has done. He was not responsible for destroying the Ring. Someone quoted Tolkien in a thread on these boards as having said something along the lines of, *'no one* could willingly destroy the Ring, once at Mount Doom'. This includes, we can assume even one of the Ainur, such as Gandalf.

What Frodo did was he took it to the mountain. But more than that, he took *possession* of the Ring. Gandalf would pick the Ring up casually and throw it in the fire. He had no fear of touching it. However, when Frodo offered it to him for safe-keeping he refused outright. This is because it is possession of the Ring that warps a person, not touching it.

It is the possession of the Ring that Frodo suffered through. More than any of the other terrible things that happened to him, the possession of the Ring was what hurt him. And it is a pain that is known only to other Ring-bearers, Sauron, Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo, and Frodo. Whom in the Shire could share that sort of pain? As meneldor pointed out, it is similar to the pain experienced by soldiers coming home from a brutal war.

Now, surely Sam, Pippin, and Merry had also been involved in the war, as Frodo had. But they did not share his special pain. So as they were soldiers returning from war to their families, he was a soldier returning from a war to his three friends. Which of them could relate to what he went through.

Now, Sam, Pippin, and Merry loved Frodo. But he would still have ended up alone. Not because of a lack of care, but as a result of a lack of empathy. He would have been alone in this way, not unloved, but alone.

The truth is that Frodo would be alone in the company of anyone who was not also a Ring-bearer and would have empathy with him. So, clearly that is a good reason for him to leave the Shire and go with Bilbo across the sea.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 11, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott,

I think any reasonable person would not deny that Tolkien's deep religious faith is reflected in LOTR. I certainly have said that many times. That is a far cry from saying that Tolkien meant LOTR to be explicitly religious; he certainly did not mean for it to be explicitly Christian as the quotes I have previously given demonstrate.

There is nothing in any of the Tolkien quotes you have given that would make LOTR specifically Christian. A belief and worship in God is not exclusive to Christianity. It is common to many religions and predates Christianity by many millenia. Tolkien was quite careful not to include any specific Christian symbols. I will repeat what he said about his rejection of the Arthurian myths as English in his creation of LOTR as an English myth.


> For another and more important thing: it [the Arthurian legend] is involved in, and expliitly contains the Christian religion.


Tolkien was creating an "English myth" but he also specifically excluded Christian symbols making his story universal. The translation of LOTR into many languages and its broad acceptance into many cultures shows that Tolkien succeeded; probably more than he ever dared dream.


----------



## meneldor (Mar 11, 2004)

Mrs. Maggot if you fail to realize Tolkiens own personal experience of war reflected into this book,and strictly believe this as a religous work than you are blind and narrow minded. If this book was souly based on religion why did he not go as far as developing different sects of dominations in middle-earth as we have in the world today? Why didnt the hobbits have a religion of their own? Who did they worship? Why? Because it was not that important of a factor in the book. If the Silmarillion never would have been published this wouldnt even be an issue. If you only read the Lord of the Rings you do not get the impression that it is a book with underlying religous tones. It is a book widely distributed in every country all over the world. Why? because it deals with everyday issues like friendship, committment, heroism, greed and everything else we deal with in our lives. A person who reads the book after never have done so, doesnt think " Wow I just had a religous experience!"


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 11, 2004)

meneldor said:


> Mrs. Maggot if you fail to realize Tolkiens own personal experience of war reflected into this book,and strictly believe this as a religous work than you are blind and narrow minded. If this book was souly based on religion why did he not go as far as developing different sects of dominations in middle-earth as we have in the world today? Why didnt the hobbits have a religion of their own? Who did they worship? Why? Because it was not that important of a factor in the book. If the Silmarillion never would have been published this wouldnt even be an issue. If you only read the Lord of the Rings you do not get the impression that it is a book with underlying religous tones. It is a book widely distributed in every country all over the world. Why? because it deals with everyday issues like friendship, committment, heroism, greed and everything else we deal with in our lives. A person who reads the book after never have done so, doesnt think " Wow I just had a religous experience!"



Excuse me, but aside from my short "conclusion" regarding the information I posted, to what quote of mine are you referring? No one has said that Tolkien's life experiences do not enter into his work. But he himself said that his work was not about "real life" but rather, _about the presentation of great ideas of morals and religion couched in the mythic narrative_. Now, you can choose to ignore that and simply read his work on a mundane and superficial level; that is your right. But you cannot simply "excise" the author's own indication of his intentions because they don't suit you! 

And if you had indeed _read_ what I quoted, you would see exactly _why_ Tolkien does not have to, need to or _want_ to go into the things that you perceive as being "religious" in nature (denominations, etc.). And, by the way, that is an _extremely limited_ understanding of "religion" to begin with.

Finally, I find this need to drive every vestige of spirituality, God and, yes, "religion" from any consideration of Tolkien's works to be frankly mystifying. Even where the author himself indicates that he is conveying moral and spiritual truths, there are so many people who simply cannot _abide_ the thought that this isn't just another sword-and-sorcery, Dungeons and Dragons story devoid of all but the most secular meaning. Why, for heaven's sake? What possible difference can it make for those who don't hold with the author's values to permit those who _do_ from finding them in his work?? Why is every mention of spiritual things taken as a personal insult or some indication that those who cannot and/or do not find such meaning are somehow unworthy or worse? I certainly have never said any such thing and I don't know of any believer who has, but I really do begin to wonder why so many people on this and other forums are so horrified by any interpretation of these works that goes beyond the mere mundane. 

No one is attempting to convert anyone to anything - unless, perhaps it is Tolkien himself (although I doubt it). However, I have every bit as much "right" to express not only _my_ opinion referable to these matters, but especially _the author's_ own words about the issue on this forum. For those who find it offensive, there is always the "ignore" button.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 11, 2004)

(I realize that Mrs. Maggott has probably put me on her ignore list, but for the sake of others reading the forum I must respond to her statements even if she is not reading my response.)

Mrs. Maggott,

Of course LOTR deals with great issues that involve morality and other universal questions. No one denies that. Nearly all great literature deals with at least some of those questions and issues. (I would say ALL great literature does, but I tend to refrain from such sweeping statements.) I think it is wonderful that you evidently find comfort and a reflection of your personal faith in LOTR. I certainly certainly have no intention of denying that to you. One of the problems that I (and I believe others) have with your statements is your insistence that 1) conveying these "morals" was Tolkien's sole or even primary intent in writing LOTR; and even more objectionable 2) your attempts to claim a primacy for these "morals" for Christianity as opposed to more universal human values.

You accuse others of being blind and you say:


Mrs. Maggott said:


> Why is every mention of spiritual things taken as a personal insult or some indication that those who cannot and/or do not find such meaning are somehow unworthy or worse?


Yet in the very same post you say:


Mrs. Maggott said:


> Now, you can choose to ignore that and simply read his work on a mundane and superficial level


Thereby being extremely condescending and insulting to all who don't accept your views. Since you don't seem to understand how insulting your statements are let me give you some dictionary defintions for your terms: mundane -- common; ordinary; banal AND superficial -- shallow; not profound or thorough. You are being highly offensive in your language and for you to deny it only compounds the offensiveness of your statements! The very phrasing of your denial of an intent to insult others when you say that some "cannot" see the meanings you claim is highly insulting with its implication that they do not possess the intellect or understanding that you have that reveals these things to you.

You have every right to your religious beliefs and opinions and no one, I hope, (certainly not I) has any intention or wish to deny you that right. However, if you are going to publicly discuss an *author's intent* then you must be prepared to face the opinions of those who disagree with your opinions. More importantly, you must be prepared to back up your opinions with evidence that is more objective than merely declaring that you know the author's intent. (I have taken the time and effort to find and present long quotations from Tolkien's letters to support my opinions. You have yet to directly respond to any of those quotations from Tolkien. You do, however, put statements in quotes and italics as if to indicate they are from Tolkien, but frequently without a citation as to where they come from.) Most importantly, you do not have the right to be insulting and condescending to those who do not share your opinions. The fact that there is an ignore button does not give you the right to be offensive.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 12, 2004)

LOTR is a very complex and subtle book. Like an onion, it has "layers". Upon first reading, the reader will get certain impressions. Upon later readings, those impressions may deepen and even change. Furthermore, there are other things that influence what one finds in the story: age and life experience make a difference. A 15 year old will get more subtle meanings from the story than a 10 year old and a 30 year old more subtle meanings still - and so on. It may mean that "first impressions" prove to be incorrect, but more probably, it may simply mean that they are _incomplete_ and that deeper and more subtle meanings come with time and familiarity. In some instances, a reader may _never_ reach a particular conclusion that another reader has reached - rather like those pictures that appear to be random dots which suddenly create another image when they are looked at in a certain way.

Of course, in attempting to find meaning in a story, it is always wise to see what they author intended for the reader to find there - but even so, it is possible that a reader may not find in the story what the author himself has put there. _There is nothing wrong with that._ If the reader finds something to his liking, that is his choice. However, that does not change the fact that such was _not_ the author's intention!

Is the glass half full - or half empty? It is both, depending upon the point of view of the observer. Differing interpretations don't necessarily break down to which is right and which wrong; they are simply _different_. A question was asked: why couldn't Frodo live as he had lived. Some suggested that it was because of his experiences and doubtless that played a role. Indeed, he speaks of his wounds and the fact that he will never heal. Though he doesn't say it, one gets the feeling that such will be the case as long as he remains in Middle-earth. That is why Arwen gives him her place on the ship going into the West where he may find healing and peace. 

But there may be other, different interpretations of these events which do not _invalidate_ the first conclusion, merely _deepen_ it. I will be 63 in May. It is not difficult to see why I bring to the story a different perspective including different life experiences. I have simply presented _another possible interpretation of the answer to the question that was asked_. I don't say that it is the _only_ one, but it certainly does meld with the author's intentions as he himself stated them. Tolkien did not write about "the real world". Ergo, one may have leave to doubt that the "meaning" of anything in the story is limited strictly to the worldly. Could those "worldly" solutionss be _part_ of the answer? Certainly. Are they necessarily going to the _whole_ answer? One must have leave to doubt it.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 12, 2004)

Mrs Maggott,

A most excellent post and analysis. I agree with your analysis nearly 100%!

I would say that it is a mark of nearly all truly great literature that it has the depth you refer to. That LOTR has that depth and complexity is what takes it far beyond a mere adventure or fantasy story. It is why, much as I love The Hobbit, I believe LOTR is a far greater book. The Hobbit is a great children's story; deeper and more complex than most children's stories, but LOTR is great literature. There is also something about LOTR that inspires a great love of it in many of its readers (and I place myself in that group). That is why we read it over and over during the course of our lives. (Personally, the only other fiction I have read repeatedly in the last four decades is Tolstoy's "War and Peace".) And because LOTR is so great, every time we read it, we see it differently because we ourselves are different. I would even say this would be true of Tolkien himself (in fact nearly all authors). We must, however, take care in reading our personal views into the author's words, even if we know that the author and we share many views and beliefs. We must also take care in how we express our different understanding of the author's words as we reread and grow older, with more life experiences that affect our view of an author's work.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 12, 2004)

Thank you GW for your kind words. I have tried to deduce from what Tolkien has said, what his intentions were rather than overlay my conclusions on his words. And as I have read the critiques and conclusions of other authors who have concentrated on the man - and found that many (not all, certainly) have reached a similar point of view, I did not believe that my rationale was all that incredible. Indeed, in my posts, I have frequently simply placed Tolkien's own words upon the page for others to read and interpret for themselves, albeit within the context of my own message.

Yes, you are right. The Hobbit is a wonderful book; a travelogue from the humdrum of daily life to a marvelous world of adventure and delight. But LOTR is a Middle-earthian odessy: part Homer, part Dante, part Beowulf - and all Tolkien. Those who read it as a mere tale of sword and sorcery are apt - like columnist Liz Smith - to dismiss it as a tale for adolescent boys. But all who read it with an open mind - and even more importantly, with a generous spirit - will find a treasure within. I am glad to see that you have certainly made that golden discovery and I wish you joy of it.


----------



## rs691919 (Mar 12, 2004)

Tolkien responded in several letters published by Humphrey Carpenter to readers commenting on Frodo's _failure_ at the Cracks of Doom. It has been pointed out correctly that the author stated that basically _no one_ could have destroyed the Ring at that point in time. 

However, he further goes on to extrapolate that this failure illustrates man's inability to resist incarnate evil. For Tolkien (at least) this is in essence a Christian (or Catholic) belief. [note: I'll need to look up the exact quotes when I get home!]. Tolkien does _not_ infuse the book with explicit Christian symbols. He does, however, infuse the book with implicit Christian themes. Frodo ultimately is saved because of his pity for Gollum--an undeniably Christian motif. Now, before everyone gets in a huff, this motif can of course be seen in other religions, and even by people who are not religious at all. But for Tolkien, the idea of mercy leading to salvation is rooted in Christianity. 

That does not imply a Christian allegory, but it does force us to view _The Lord of the Rings_ with Christianity as a kind of underlying basis for the morality contained within the story.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 12, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> Yes, you are right. The Hobbit is a wonderful book; a travelogue from the humdrum of daily life to a marvelous world of adventure and delight. But LOTR is a Middle-earthian odessy: part Homer, part Dante, part Beowulf - and all Tolkien. Those who read it as a mere tale of sword and sorcery are apt - like columnist Liz Smith - to dismiss it as a tale for adolescent boys. But all who read it with an open mind - and even more importantly, with a generous spirit - will find a treasure within.



Mrs. Maggott,

Once again we are in agreement. Many of the mainstream critics (and some still do) dismissed LOTR for many years because they seemed unable to see past the elves and magicians to the fact that there was indeed a very complex and universal story beneath. Certainly, when I first read LOTR when i was ten or twelve I did not see all the complexities in it, but loved the excitement and adventure. As I reread it as I got older I saw more and more in it. I would say that if LOTR didn't have that depth and greatness I would not have kept going back to it. Now some four decades later it is certainly not the same story (to me) that it was when I first read it, and I would not be rash enough to say that I would not find something new the next time I read it (I have lost track of how many times). At the same time, I believe that someone reading it for the first time, at whatever age they are, can fall just as deeply in love with LOTR as I was and still am.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 12, 2004)

Many years ago when I was in high school (and no, Lincoln was _not_ President!), we put on the play, The Wizard of Oz. The play had three performances. The first performance was for the elementary school children, the second for the middle-schoolers and the last for the high school and adult audience. What I found fascinating was the way each group responded to the humor in the play. The little kids all got the sight-gags, the slapstick and the obvious "funny bits". The middle-schoolers got them as well, but they also laughed at lines that went "over the heads" of the younger children. Finally, the high school kids and adults didn't laugh at the obvious humor, the stuff that the grade-schoolers thought was funny, but they laughed at all the sophisticated puns and "in jokes" which went over the head of the two younger audiences. It was a study in how different ages respond to the same story/play and why. 

I think we can say the same thing about LOTR. I was 24 or so when I read it the first time and, of course, I enjoyed the basic quest tale - so much so that I went out and found a lot of _other_ "quest tales" such as Hiero's Journey and the Sword of Shannara(spelling?), the last of which was a rip-off of LOTR, no doubt! I also read many of the "White Gold" series, the name of the hero was, I think, Thomas Covenant. But none of these - except perhaps Hiero's Journey which made no pretense to higher literature and thus was quite enjoyable - made the impression that LOTR did. However, I got more out of the story as I grew older and had more life experiences to _bring_ to the book (a reader without any life experiences is not going to bring enough intellectual weight to story to get much out of it but the most superficial meaning!) I found more and more subtlety and sometimes even contradiction in the tale. But it is hard to reveal these insights to those who haven't had them or, frankly, aren't ready for them. Nonetheless for the sake of an interesting discussion, it's fun to try!


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 14, 2004)

rs691919 said:


> However, he further goes on to extrapolate that this failure illustrates man's inability to resist incarnate evil. For Tolkien (at least) this is in essence a Christian (or Catholic) belief. [note: I'll need to look up the exact quotes when I get home!]. Tolkien does _not_ infuse the book with explicit Christian symbols. He does, however, infuse the book with implicit Christian themes. Frodo ultimately is saved because of his pity for Gollum--an undeniably Christian motif. Now, before everyone gets in a huff, this motif can of course be seen in other religions, and even by people who are not religious at all. But for Tolkien, the idea of mercy leading to salvation is rooted in Christianity.
> 
> That does not imply a Christian allegory, but it does force us to view _The Lord of the Rings_ with Christianity as a kind of underlying basis for the morality contained within the story.



There is no doubt that many of the underlying themes of LOTR are grounded in JRRT's deep Christian (specifically Catholic) faith. But as you say many of these themes can be found in other faiths and also outside of organized religions. The key question that has been under discussion was Tolkien's *intent* when he wrote LOTR. His *intent*, as we can see from his public and private comments was not to make a Christian myth. Indeed, one might almost say LOTR is areligious. There is almost no trace of religious belief or worship in the Middle Earth of LOTR. Given Tolkien's devout faith and his statements about disliking allegory and his other statements, this lack can hardly be taken as accidental.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 14, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> There is no doubt that many of the underlying themes of LOTR are grounded in JRRT's deep Christian (specifically Catholic) faith. But as you say many of these themes can be found in other faiths and also outside of organized religions. The key question that has been under discussion was Tolkien's *intent* when he wrote LOTR. His *intent*, as we can see from his public and private comments was not to make a Christian myth. Indeed, one might almost say LOTR is areligious. There is almost no trace of religious belief or worship in the Middle Earth of LOTR. Given Tolkien's devout faith and his statements about disliking allegory and his other statements, this lack can hardly be taken as accidental.



Tolkien has explained why he does not include the "trappings" of religious worship in his works. However, the "religion/faith" presented in Tolkien's works are _moral in nature rather_ and in fact, the only external trapping of worship that appears _anywhere_ in The Silmarillion, The Hobbit or LOTR, is the worship *of ERU[/I] that takes place in Numenor in the Temple. But other than that, Tolkien presents no external appearance of religious observance or references to it. However, when Numenor became corrupt, the "high place" wherein Eru was worshipped became a place of horrible blasphemic rites including human sacrifice and that is the reason Tolkien comments in one of his letters:

"It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) - Aragorn [MM] - the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted." [Letters of JRRT - see earlier post for recipient]

It is short-sighted to dismiss the existence of any religious message in the works simply because the external signs of "religion" are - or appear to be - non-existent. Frodo calls upon the name of Elbereth when he is attacked by the Nazgul on Weathertop - and that name Aragorn states is "more deadly" to his attacker than Frodo's "material" knife. Such a "prayer" represents, in fact, a religious observance. It involves the use of a "holy name" (the name of the Queen of the Valar) against a patently demonic creature. If that isn't "religion", what is?*


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 14, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott,

Once again, I agree with much of what you say, but with just a few provisos and caveats.

I never said there was *no* trace of what might be termed religion or regligious observance in LOTR, but that there is "*almost* no trace of religious belief or worship in the Middle Earth of LOTR." Also note, we are specifically discussing LOTR here (though the same holds for The Hobbit -- probably even more for The Hobbit). The Silmarillion is indeed quite different as it deals with creation myths and it is far easier to find "religious" themes in such.

Now let us return to the question of whether *LOTR* is meant (the author's *intent*) to be a religious, and more importantly specifically a Christian, myth. As I have said before we have Tolkien's many statements (I will not repeat here the quotes I have already given) about his dislike of allegory, including in his Foreword to the Second Edition. I will add here the following from that Foreword:


> _The Lord of the Rings_ has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print ten years ago; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The *prime motive* was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. .....
> 
> As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the *intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.* ....
> 
> (*emphasis added)*


I choose to take the author at his word about his intent.

Now to return to your example of Frodo calling the name Elbereth on Weathertop. Granting for the sake of argument that this was a "prayer" and hence a "religious" observance I am unaware of Elbereth appearing in The Bible (New or Old Testament, nor in any Catholic catechism I eer studied). One might as well argue that the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten invoking the name Ra, or an ancient Greek invoking the name of Zeus was a sign of Christian religious observance.

Finally, let's look at the opening sentence of your post:


Mrs. Maggott said:


> Tolkien has explained why he does not include the "trappings" of religious worship in his works. However, the "religion/faith" presented in Tolkien's works are _moral in nature rather_ ....


First can you provide the exact quote of Tolkien you refer to? Our severest disagreement is the unspoken implications of the latter part of your quote above. Your implication is that because you find what might be termed "morality" in LOTR that "morality" is automatically of a religious nature and more specifically, Christian. This is the heart of our diagreement. In making all morality religious (and specifically Christian) you are imposing your own beliefs onto the tale. As has been said, much of this morality can be found in other religions than Christianity, some older and some with no connection whatsoever with Christianity and also in people with no religious beliefs at all.

I accept Tolkien's assertions that he *intended* to tell an exciting story that would engage and move his readers. I also accept his private statements that a goal was to create an "English" myth divorced from Christian symbols. In doing so he created a universal tale. Like all great literature, we all bring our own backgrounds and beliefs to it and can often find them reflected in it. That is a measure of the books greatness and how well Tolkien suceeded at making a universal story. We must, however, be careful about imposing our beliefs onto the story as the author's *intent*. I feel this is merely a tendency to bolster the claim that our own interpretation is the only correct one by stating that it was the author's also. It denies other readers the same freedom to enjoy and find things in the book that we have enjoyed.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 14, 2004)

When the time presents itself, I will once again look through my sources and "quote" Tolkien's assertion that his myth had Christian foundations - including one where he points out that it was ages before the _Incarnation_ which is the _ultimate_ Christian reference. But right now, I cannot take the time. However, when I do manage to research the matter with a little thoroughness, rest assured I will post same.

Thanks for your patience.


----------

