# The Fate of the Ring



## Úlairi (Feb 23, 2009)

*The Fate of the Ring - J.R.R. Tolkien v Peter Jackson*

Eru created all his Children free; and thus with Free Will. Any intervention by a higher power whether directly or indirectly generates a tension in the concept of Free Will and God's granting of freedom through the action of Destiny, or Fate. There are continuous instances within _The Legendarium_ where the conflict between the two arise.

The _*Fate of the Ring*_ is one such instance.

In Letters Tolkien describes the (potentially indirect) intervention of Eru with the Fate of the Ring.



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_ - #_192: From a letter to Amy Ronald_
> 
> *Frodo deserved all honour because he spent very drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'* ...*
> **Actually referred to as the One...*


 
We can see "_the Writer of the Story's_" presence at Sammath Naur:



> _The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - Mount Doom_
> 
> *But Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the ring, a finger still thrust within its circle. It shone now as if verily it was wrought of living fire.*
> 
> *'Precious, precious, precious!' Gollum cried. 'My precious! O my Precious!' And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered or a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, and he was gone*.


 
It was through sheer serendipity or more correctly, the (indirect) intervention of Eru that wrought the final destruction of Sauron. I've found this many times to be extremely unfulfilling in the context that evil is self-destructive and as such would be a far more poignant image... and then New Line released _The Return of the King_ where we see a far darker portrayal of Frodo where he wrestles Gollum for the mastery of the Ring; and both in a sudden and final lust for the One Ring, abandon all notions of self in their domination by evil and pursue the Ring in its own Fate - its destruction. I found this to be a far more powerful image as the Ring wrought its own destruction instead of Ilúvatar; thereby conveying the strength of the maxim of the inevitability of evil destroying itself (and I'm sure Tolkien notes this _somewhere_? Quote please?!)

*Do you therefore think that Peter Jackson's ending may have been greater than that of Tolkien's?* 

Obviously there are going to be issues of who actually wrote it; the authenticity of the author and thus his ending being the *only* viable one - but considering that Tolkien even acknowledges that evil is ultimately nihilistic then Peter Jackson's ending is arguably far more fitting and its imagery more potent. 

The above poll is a public one so that we may see exactly what people preferred. I know I'm unashamed of what I'm going to choose! 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Bucky (Feb 24, 2009)

*Guess what I voted for....

I just watched the films for the first time in a year or two this weekend.

They are great cinematic works, but I found one thing bothered me more than the former things used to like what PJ had changed like "Go home" to Sam or Aragorn not wanting to be king or Sauron the Lighthouse or Frodo walking around in a daze in The whole Two Towers or the Ents not wanting to attack Isengard until Pippin tricks them & them Treebeard giving one yell & the other Ents appear out of nowhere or faramir wanting to take the Ring to Gondor or..... 

You get my point.....

These things used to drive me batty.
Now, I see them as changes a film maker made to increase tension in the movie, each individually released movie.

But, what bugged me, and REALLY bugs me about modern films, is the 'beyond belief suspension of reality'. Like, the usual ending of an action film: Our hero (heroes) with a handgun fights off a dozen enemies with machine guns & hand grenades for ten minutes without a single wound while picking them off one by one until he finally fights the last two martial arts experts by him (her) self at once in this incredible battle, taking enough blows to kill a person 25 times over. It all gets rather laughable instead of dramatic in my opinion.

And we see PJ do this on many occaisions, starting with a million & one orcs surrounding the Fellowship in Moria.
Then, Aragorn singlhandedly fights off well over 100 Uruk-Hai on Amon Hen (absurd that they insist on coming at him in single file).
Then does it have to be 300 old men & teenagers versus 10,000 at Helm's Deep? Wouldn't 2500 vs. 10,000 be sufficiant to be realistic but hopeless



Sometimes, I think, less is more in terms conveying reality.....

Like in the Nazgul attack on Weathertop. Aragorn throwing the torch into the Black Rider & setting him ablaze - come on now.....

Three Black Riders burning up. Did they just happen to have a supply of spare robes on them in case they damaged the ones they were wearing?
I think a more effective scene would've just had Aragorn swiping at them with the torch & having them flee when they can't get by, because the way PJ did it looked silly.


And in the scene in Sammath Naur, I think having Gollum just dance off the edge would've been better than the absurd 'fall off the cliff but hang on routine' that's been used 1000 times before. Not to mention Gollum swimming in the molten hot lava while he holds up the ring for about 5 seconds.... 


*


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 24, 2009)

Bucky said:


> *Guess what I voted for....*


 
Tell me it wasn't McCain! 



Bucky said:


> *They are great cinematic works, but I found one thing bothered me more than the former things used to like what PJ had changed like "Go home" to Sam*


 
That can be the intrinsic problem with _carte blanche _and full artistic freedom. It can generate a lot of unwanted, futile and ultimately redundant fissures between the adapted and the adaptor. I absolutely loved all the films *ducks out of the way lest someone throws the DVD's at him* and found the _go home, Sam _to be an extension of the poignancy of the friction that Gollum created between the best of friends and how it highlighted the inherent evil of the Ring working ever in the background against the Quest.



Bucky said:


> *or Aragorn not wanting to be king or Sauron the Lighthouse or Frodo walking around in a daze in The whole Two Towers or the Ents not wanting to attack Isengard until Pippin tricks them & them Treebeard giving one yell & the other Ents appear out of nowhere or faramir wanting to take the Ring to Gondor or..... *
> 
> *You get my point.....*


 
I'll give it to you on these one's though. 



Bucky said:


> *Now, I see them as changes a film maker made to increase tension in the movie, each individually released movie.*


 
And I agree with you completely here.



Bucky said:


> *It all gets rather laughable instead of dramatic in my opinion.*
> 
> *And we see PJ do this on many occaisions, starting with a million & one orcs surrounding the Fellowship in Moria.*
> *Then, Aragorn singlhandedly fights off well over 100 Uruk-Hai on Amon Hen (absurd that they insist on coming at him in single file).*
> ...


 
That one p**sed me off quite a bit as well. I didn't have many issues with the battle scenes (I actually thought Helm's Deep was brillianty done ). I used to sit and nitpick them all the time but I can quite happily sit down and enjoy them as _films_ now - not a true adaptation but a separate work of art. 



Bucky said:


> *I think a more effective scene would've just had Aragorn swiping at them with the torch & having them flee when they can't get by, because the way PJ did it looked silly.*


 
I personally would have preferred Aragorn standing resolute and steadfast overcoming the fear that they attempt to instil. Tolkien describes Fear as their primary weapon and are actually diminished if such fear is overpowered as they have no great physical power (read _Letters_). 

Something like:

*Aragorn:* "_Go back to your master and tell him if he wants his trinket than he shouldn't send its thralls to recover it_!"



Bucky said:


> *And in the scene in Sammath Naur, I think having Gollum just dance off the edge would've been better than the absurd 'fall off the cliff but hang on routine' that's been used 1000 times before. Not to mention Gollum swimming in the molten hot lava while he holds up the ring for about 5 seconds.... *


 
Yes, but your misconstruing the context in which I placed the argument for PJ's alternative. The self-destructive nature of evil v the Power of Fate. I personally found that aspect to be far more compelling than having Eru stick his nose into the affairs of others once more. It truly was a cliffhanger! 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Alcuin (Feb 24, 2009)

Not prescription medication. No prescription required or available in most countries.


----------



## Turgon (Feb 24, 2009)

As a piece of cinema Jackson end really dragged for me - in fact I think he messed up a lot of the last film (RoTK) with his meddling. I prefer Tolkien's ending - it's much more climactic.

PJ got in a muddle with his meddle.



> Originally posted by *Bucky*
> Our hero (heroes) with a handgun fights off a dozen enemies with machine guns & hand grenades for ten minutes without a single wound while picking them off one by one until he finally fights the last two martial arts experts by him (her) self at once in this incredible battle, taking enough blows to kill a person 25 times over.



I _*really*_ want to see this film however!


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 24, 2009)

Alcuin said:


> Not prescription medication. No prescription required or available in most countries.


 
*tears off prescription from pad*

*Dr. Úlairi* is prescribing you a cocktail of caffeine, viagra, methamphetamines and electro-convulsive therapy to get you to post more than a few lines from now on! 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Alcuin (Feb 24, 2009)

_*Bwhaa*-ha-ha-ha!_ Beat you to it!!


​


----------



## Tyelkormo (Feb 24, 2009)

I daresay, no, I don't think that PJ's is better, because it actually gives purpose to violence against Gollum. 

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, *the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many*." Add to that the mercy of Frodo, who spared Gollum's life as well. The way Jackson describes the scene, the violence is merely postponed and the importance of mercy diminished.

As for the self-destructive power of evil, I think you overlook how evident it actually is in Tolkien's scene, Ulairi. It was the Ring who corrupted Gollum, the Ring who made him consider it his "Precious", who filled him with an all-overpowering urge to take possession of it. It completely "misjudged", if you want, where that would lead, namely that inches away from its return to Sauron, Gollum would seize it, and seeing the fulfillment of his urge falls into ecstatic triumph becoming oblivious to his surroundings and misstepping. The very urge the Ring instilled in Gollum in the end defeated it, and this was only made possible by the pity of Bilbo and the mercy of Frodo, both of which could have prevented this course of events. 

Eru doesn't need to "step in". As I said in another thread, he doesn't do micromanagement. All the bits are already in place. Had they been more selfish or more hateful, Bilbo and Frodo could have switched to a different track, but they don't. Cf. the reference Tolkien provides in that letter you cite to the quote: "Behind that, there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_ to find the Ring and _not_ by its maker"

Yes, Eru ist the "Writer of the story", but that doesn't mean he intervenes directly in the scene. It's more like the culmination of a plan, the last bits of the puzzle coming together. His "intervention" was bringing the players together. He "takes over" in that now, everything falls into place the way he intended.

Edited to add: Having just seen *Ithrynluin's *new Avatar, I can't resist to add a quote for illustration of my point: "The avalanche has already started - it is too late for the pebbles to vote"  
Of course, for a less aloof Eru, we could also give him a cigar and let him say "I love it when a plan comes together".


----------



## Bucky (Feb 24, 2009)

Tyelkormo said:


> I daresay, no, I don't think that PJ's is better, because it actually gives purpose to violence against Gollum.
> 
> "As for the self-destructive power of evil, I think you overlook how evident it actually is in Tolkien's scene, Ulairi. It was the Ring who corrupted Gollum, the Ring who made him consider it his "Precious", who filled him with an all-overpowering urge to take possession of it. It completely "misjudged", if you want, where that would lead, namely that inches away from its return to Sauron, Gollum would seize it, and seeing the fulfillment of his urge falls into ecstatic triumph becoming oblivious to his surroundings and misstepping. The very urge the Ring instilled in Gollum in the end defeated it, and this was only made possible by the pity of Bilbo and the mercy of Frodo, both of which could have prevented this course of events.
> 
> .



*Nicely put.....


They really are epic films in their own right....

As Enthusiasts of the books, it's easy to find fault though.

One thing that's always drove me crazy: The frenetic pace of editing the battle scenes (except Pellanor Fields). PJ cuts from one shot to the next so fast that I can hardly take in what I saw - well, mostly not at all. One second shots are too hard to focus on..... For my old mind anyhow.

I think the reason he did it that way is to show the chaos of war, but it's tough to absorb.*


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 24, 2009)

Tyelkormo said:


> I daresay, no, I don't think that PJ's is better, because it actually gives purpose to violence against Gollum.
> 
> "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, *the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many*." Add to that the mercy of Frodo, who spared Gollum's life as well. The way Jackson describes the scene, the violence is merely postponed and the importance of mercy diminished.


 
Ah, finally! A post that I can sink my teeth into. Everyone else seems too apathetic these days. Thanks for the effort, Celegorm.

Whilst I appreciate this argument I have to respectfully disagree. There is a myriad of reasons justifying the giving of *purpose *(or lack thereof) to violence against Gollum despite _the pity of Bilbo_ and _the mercy of Frodo_ (from a literary perspective - and I'm glad you've remained solely within the context of discussion here as well - tip of the cap). 

Frodo was finally overcome by the destructive nature of evil - he had fallen victim to the thralldom of the Ring - an allegory for temptation, evil and ultimately; sin (we can argue this point also, if you like). Frodo was thus no hero, but an anti-hero; his mercy (without the capital _m_ and you'll see why below) therefore dissipated through his subjugation to a complete vanishing point. He had failed his mission. He was not the Saviour of Middle-earth and thus his mercy ultimately fails with the failure of the Quest. Evil is triumphant. Gollum is victorious over Sméagol and is underserving of mercy. Frodo was not the only failure - so too, was Gollum. Now, I understand that it is through this domination by the Ring and the lust of Gollum that Frodo is redeemed - or delivered. However, Tolkien acknowledges that Frodo failed - but it was not a _moral _failure due to the sheer power of the Ring. It was at that crucial point impossible to deny. Tolkien then goes on to say:



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_ - #_246: From a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts)_
> 
> *His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.*


 
Now I realize on face-value this substantially supports your argument, Celegorm. However, one must consider that at the time Frodo's will is broken by the Ring whether violence has *any* _purpose_ (in this context) whatsoever - and it is here where I believe your placing too much relevance in the actions of Frodo after falling prey to the lust of the Ring. His actions are merely reactionary - his lust so overpowering that his actions cannot be judged or condemned. At this very point in time _Frodo's Mercy_ (capital _M_ here) becomes extrinsic - it exists outside of himself; as he is naught but a slave to the One Ring - a wraith. Whether he attacks Gollum or not is ultimately irrelevant in the context of violence overriding any Pity or Mercy granted to Gollum; because as that Mercy exists outside himself Frodo still _deserves_ Mercy nonetheless. And where does that Mercy come from? Eru Ilúvatar - Deliverance.

More importantly at this point Gollum has surrendered any entitlement - any proprietary right () existent within Mercy or Pity has been forfeited.



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_ - #_181: To Michael Straight [drafts]_
> 
> *Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him.*


 
Thus violenct action (even when it is not bereft of will) is justified due to Gollum's relinquishment. Through purporting the concept that mercy should be perpetual you are raising Frodo to the level of a Saviour - a hero; which, unfortunately, is furthest from the truth. Though his failure was indeed not _moral_; his failure was paramount - necessary and inexorable. Through continual display of mercy he would transcend the Ring and therefore _resist_ it; which is not in accord with the inherent nature of the Ring. No one could bear hurt to it; and no one could cast it into the Abyss - except for Tom (and that would make a great thread - although Tom may question why he must throw it into the Cracks of Doom). 



Tyelkormo said:


> As for the self-destructive power of evil, I think you overlook how evident it actually is in Tolkien's scene, Ulairi. It was the Ring who corrupted Gollum, the Ring who made him consider it his "Precious", who filled him with an all-overpowering urge to take possession of it. It completely "misjudged", if you want, where that would lead, namely that inches away from its return to Sauron, Gollum would seize it, and seeing the fulfillment of his urge falls into ecstatic triumph becoming oblivious to his surroundings and misstepping. The very urge the Ring instilled in Gollum in the end defeated it, and this was only made possible by the pity of Bilbo and the mercy of Frodo, both of which could have prevented this course of events.


 
At this point the Mercy and Pity had already been established. The Fate of the Ring depended upon them up until the point that Gollum rejected Pity and Mercy - which is why he must perish. I was close to criticizing an apparent misunderstanding of what Evil in such a discussion truly is (as 'good' still existed within the heart of Gollum) but I can see it was rectified in the last sentence. The possessive lust of the Ring permeated the being of all bearers and it is for this reason why I considered PJ's imagery at Mount Doom to be the greater as although Frodo, in unimaginable lust after the declaration of his lordship over the greatest power on the earth (in his own mind) is injured and dispossessed instantly. Instead of laying there in defeat he musters his new-found will, *enhanced *by the Ring (and now bent entirely toward it) to challenge the pretender once and for all. This possessive lust is therefore far more poignant as its instilment in both Frodo and Gollum leads ultimately to destruction. Eru (the Writer) is not present here. It is not truly a triumph of good over evil - but the achievement of the nihilism of evil. It ceases to exist through its own fulfilment. Good should not be present in a scene where good has ultimately failed. 



Tyelkormo said:


> Eru doesn't need to "step in". As I said in another thread, he doesn't do micromanagement. All the bits are already in place. Had they been more selfish or more hateful, Bilbo and Frodo could have switched to a different track, but they don't. Cf. the reference Tolkien provides in that letter you cite to the quote: "Behind that, there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_ to find the Ring and _not_ by its maker"


 
I understand this and agree with it to an extent. But I also truly think that this splits hairs in many ways. The world belongs to Eru and everything in it. The achievement of his purpose whether it be through the passage of time and the actions of freely created beings (the offspring of his thought) or whether he intervenes directly (which he does) is still entirely attributable to him. Sauron was defeated twice in both of these separate means to Eru's ultimate end. Either way, Eru still propogates his own design in Arda. Sauron thus was _meant _to be defeated - either way.



Tyelkormo said:


> Yes, Eru ist the "Writer of the story", but that doesn't mean he intervenes directly in the scene. It's more like the culmination of a plan, the last bits of the puzzle coming together. His "intervention" was bringing the players together. He "takes over" in that now, everything falls into place the way he intended.


 
_Akallabêth_???


*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## ltnjmy (Feb 24, 2009)

Thank you all for such great postings - it has been fascinating reading...


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 24, 2009)

ltnjmy said:


> Thank you all for such great postings - it has been fascinating reading...


 
Don't thank me! I'm just _stale, old _and ultimately _redundant_ unfortunately.  I'm basically just VHS - a dead form of entertainment...

Thank the younguns who breathe _new life _into the forums!

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Tyelkormo (Feb 24, 2009)

Úlairi said:


> Frodo was finally overcome by the destructive nature of evil - he had fallen victim to the thralldom of the Ring - an allegory for temptation, evil and ultimately; sin (we can argue this point also, if you like). Frodo was thus no hero, but an anti-hero; his mercy (without the capital _m_ and you'll see why below) therefore dissipated through his subjugation to a complete vanishing point.


 
I disagree on the first and consider the second irrelevant. Relevant is the mercy he showed before that point. Tolkien is explicit about his disagreement with the first. He stresses emphatically that Frodo did everything that was in his power. He is also quite surprised that some readers consider Frodo a traitor and stresses that no, it was his actions that allowed things to come to pass as they did.



> He had failed his mission. He was not the Saviour of Middle-earth and thus his mercy ultimately fails with the failure of the Quest.


 
Evidently not. Without his mercy, the conditions for the destruction of the Ring would not have been present. The Quest has not failed, it has been achieved - not directly by Frodo, but achieved nonetheless.



> Evil is triumphant. Gollum is victorious over Sméagol and is underserving of mercy. Frodo was not the only failure - so too, was Gollum. Now, I understand that it is through this domination by the Ring and the lust of Gollum that Frodo is redeemed - or delivered. However, Tolkien acknowledges that Frodo failed - but it was not a _moral _failure due to the sheer power of the Ring. It was at that crucial point impossible to deny.


 
Precisely. But this does not mean that evil is triumphant. Gollum is not evil, nor is Frodo. Sauron and the Ring are evil, but they do not triumph, except maybe for some fleeting seconds.



> Now I realize on face-value this substantially supports your argument, Celegorm. However, one must consider that at the time Frodo's will is broken by the Ring whether violence has *any* _purpose_ (in this context) whatsoever - and it is here where I believe your placing too much relevance in the actions of Frodo after falling prey to the lust of the Ring.


 
I didn't place any relevance on his actions at that point whatsoever, but solely at his actions BEFORE that point. That's the reason for our disagreement: You're looking at too small a timeframe.



> At this very point in time _Frodo's Mercy_ (capital _M_ here) becomes extrinsic - it exists outside of himself; as he is naught but a slave to the One Ring - a wraith. Whether he attacks Gollum or not is ultimately irrelevant in the context of violence overriding any Pity or Mercy granted to Gollum; because as that Mercy exists outside himself Frodo still _deserves_ Mercy nonetheless. And where does that Mercy come from? Eru Ilúvatar - Deliverance.


 
I think you're getting it backwards here. First of all, you're looking at a totally different timepoint than I when talking about mercy. Frodo had ample opportunity to kill Gollum, as had Sam, and it was Frodo who prevented Sam from following through with it. Had Frodo not shown that mercy but killed Gollum at some earlier point, then the conditions that brought about the destruction of the Ring could not have been completed.



> More importantly at this point Gollum has surrendered any entitlement - any proprietary right () existent within Mercy or Pity has been forfeited.


 
But he still has a role to play....



> At this point the Mercy and Pity had already been established. The Fate of the Ring depended upon them up until the point that Gollum rejected Pity and Mercy - which is why he must perish. I was close to criticizing an apparent misunderstanding of what Evil in such a discussion truly is (as 'good' still existed within the heart of Gollum) but I can see it was rectified in the last sentence. The possessive lust of the Ring permeated the being of all bearers and it is for this reason why I considered PJ's imagery at Mount Doom to be the greater as although Frodo, in unimaginable lust after the declaration of his lordship over the greatest power on the earth (in his own mind) is injured and dispossessed instantly. Instead of laying there in defeat he musters his new-found will, *enhanced *by the Ring (and now bent entirely toward it) to challenge the pretender once and for all. This possessive lust is therefore far more poignant as its instilment in both Frodo and Gollum leads ultimately to destruction. Eru (the Writer) is not present here. It is not truly a triumph of good over evil - but the achievement of the nihilism of evil. It ceases to exist through its own fulfilment. Good should not be present in a scene where good has ultimately failed.


 
But it hasn't, and that precisely is Tolkien's point as I see it. Plus, you're still looking at the wrong timepoint for the effect of mercy. And Tolkien is explicit that it is not through violence but through Pity that the quest is achieved, e.g. in letter 153, where he says "...it is the Pity of Bilbo and later Frodo that allows the Quest to be achieved..." and in letter 181, which is extremely pertinent to the discussion, he states "*But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury*. [Italics on pity by JRRT!] At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing anyone cd. have done for Frodo! *By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden*."

Tolkien here pretty much word by word describes what I said before: due to his mercy towards Gollum, a set of circumstances was created that allowed the achievement of the Quest - not by Frodo directly, but it WAS achieved.



> I understand this and agree with it to an extent. But I also truly think that this splits hairs in many ways. The world belongs to Eru and everything in it. The achievement of his purpose whether it be through the passage of time and the actions of freely created beings (the offspring of his thought) or whether he intervenes directly (which he does) is still entirely attributable to him. Sauron was defeated twice in both of these separate means to Eru's ultimate end. Either way, Eru still propogates his own design in Arda. Sauron thus was _meant _to be defeated - either way.


 
Sure, but that's the entire point I'm making in the philosophy threads: The fact that everything that happens has its UTTERMOST source in Eru doesn't mean that he is placing every single chesspiece on his own. 



> _Akallabêth_???


 
You have a funny idea of the meaning of "micromanagment" if you consider Akallabeth a counterexample to my point.


----------



## Illuin (Feb 24, 2009)

I would chime in here, but all that needs to be said has already been said; so I’m going to take the "apathetic" route. I agree with Úlairi and Tyelkormo wholeheartedly; because both of you are 100% correct in your own right; which is why I side with Bucky’s point of view .


----------



## Úlairi (Feb 26, 2009)

Some interesting stuff here, particularly from *Celegorm *(some of which needs addressing), but I won't be able to get back to it for a few days.

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Firawyn (Mar 11, 2009)

I voted "both equal"...or whatever it said. Why...well I'll tell you.

The Lord of the Rings is a work of art. The written word, and film are two different mediums, and therefore I do not think that can be judged against each other. 

Tolkien's version was great for the book.

PJ's ending was great for the film.


----------



## Starbrow (Mar 11, 2009)

The movie ending was good, except for Frodo hanging off the cliff. That kind of stuff has been overdone and I felt it cheapened the whole scene.


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 12, 2009)

Illuin said:


> I would chime in here, but all that needs to be said has already been said; so I’m going to take the "apathetic" route. I agree with Úlairi and Tyelkormo wholeheartedly; because both of you are 100% correct in your own right; ...


 
Alack and alas and alas and alack! I now see that perhaps the greatest post in this thread is the one quoted above! Illuin is the first of us to truly comprehend that Celegorm and I are talking about the *exact* *same thing*...

I believe this thread now to be one of the best I've posted due to Celegorm's excellent answer and mutual misunderstanding; which I in turn (in my pride) neglected to answer. Now that I have spent some time deliberating over it I realize that I too have misunderstood... This is why I have not posted here in so long and I thank Fir and Starbrow for bringing this to my attention once more.



Tyelkormo said:


> I disagree on the first and consider the second irrelevant. Relevant is the mercy he showed before that point. Tolkien is explicit about his disagreement with the first. He stresses emphatically that Frodo did everything that was in his power. He is also quite surprised that some readers consider Frodo a traitor and stresses that no, it was his actions that allowed things to come to pass as they did.


 
Tolkien and yourself obviously disagree with the first; as it is one of the fundamental postulations neceassary for this discussion; there needs to be two sides to every coin. I've never seen a thread entitled "_The Thread_ _of Agreeance_" Celegorm. 



> _The Letters of JRR Tolkien - _#_192: From a letter to Amy Ronald_
> 
> *In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted.*


 
My cogent point about Frodo being an anti-hero was perhaps a little too assertive. He was indeed a hero, but an unfortunate one. His _heroism_ was usurped by the malice and corruption of evil - the Ring and evil (Sauron and the Ring) was triumphant (but, as you say, for a fleeting moment). The irresistability of the Ring was, literarily, the conquering of Frodo's good - and his heroism (*not* himself) becomes _corruptible_; but *is not* _corrupted_. Frodo loses but is not lost...

The second point is not only relevant but significant. The reason I used _mercy _without the capital '_M_' is because Frodo's capacity for mercy is wholly destroyed whilst the Ring is extant after his claim to its lordship. This relates mostly to our mutual misunderstanding of the _timeframe _you constantly refer to below. But I will address this crux at a later point...



Tyelkormo said:


> Evidently not. Without his mercy, the conditions for the destruction of the Ring would not have been present. The Quest has not failed, it has been achieved - not directly by Frodo, but achieved nonetheless.


 
I've made the erroneous statement that the Quest failed when I actually meant not "*the failure of the Quest*" but "*his failure of the Quest*". The Quest did not fail Frodo; rather Frodo failed the Quest. 



Tyelkormo said:


> Precisely. But this does not mean that evil is triumphant. Gollum is not evil, nor is Frodo. Sauron and the Ring are evil, but they do not triumph, except maybe for some fleeting seconds.


 
You seem to be quite fond of looking for the hairs of my threads and splitting them as best you can. However, in the context of my erroneous statement above perhaps you can be forgiven as one error often leads to another . The state of being _triumphant_ and _triumphing_ are not interchangeable or mutually inclusive. The _triumph_ of evil is _achieved_; but not _realized_. But now you're just inducing me into splitting hairs... 

Of course Gollum is not evil; why do you think I, which you subsequently quoted in this post, posted this above?



Úlairi said:


> I was close to criticizing an apparent misunderstanding of what Evil in such a discussion truly is (as 'good' still existed within the heart of Gollum) ...


 


Tyelkormo said:


> I didn't place any relevance on his actions at that point whatsoever, but solely at his actions BEFORE that point. That's the reason for our disagreement: You're looking at too small a timeframe.


 
And you're perfectly correct about one thing: there is indeed a reason for our disagreement - the understanding of the _timeframe_.
You and I Celegorm *are agreeing about the same crux!!! *I've posted statement such as this which you've overlooked:



Úlairi said:


> At this very point in time _Frodo's Mercy_ (capital _M_ here) becomes extrinsic - it exists outside of himself; as he is naught but a slave to the One Ring - a wraith.


 


Úlairi said:


> Frodo was thus no hero, but an anti-hero; his mercy (without the capital _m_ and you'll see why below) therefore dissipated through his subjugation to a complete vanishing point.


 
*This *is why I differentiated between *m*_ercy_, being Frodo's ability or capacity to be merciful (which in this discussion is placed in the context of Frodo's subservience to the Ring); and *M*_ercy_ being the previous actions and choices of Frodo in allowing Gollum to continue on the Quest when he could have acted in _violence _toward him. I've read all the extracts about the _Pity _and _Mercy _of Frodo toward Gollum and this is why I stated above, that at the time when Frodo was enslaved by under the dominion of the Ring that his _Mercy _survives and becomes _extrinsic _in nature, as this _Mercy _could never be subject to the power of the Ring; and that his _mercy _dissipates to a vanishing point. You've maintained the importance of only one timeframe of mercy and pity; considering the other to be irrelevant and pointless. I have maintained the importance of *both *timeframes.



Tyelkormo said:


> I think you're getting it backwards here. First of all, you're looking at a totally different timepoint than I when talking about mercy. Frodo had ample opportunity to kill Gollum, as had Sam, and it was Frodo who prevented Sam from following through with it. Had Frodo not shown that mercy but killed Gollum at some earlier point, then the conditions that brought about the destruction of the Ring could not have been completed.


 
And I hope you can now see that the timepoint I'm attending to is the exact same as yours - Frodo's *M*_ercy_. If there's one thing I'm beginning to learn, with the help of Ciryaher's PM's (thanks mate, and I mean this ) is that I need to reduce the semantic complexities of my posts. I agree completely with all of what you've said here Celegorm as I said the exact same thing in the quote you criticized. Where we disagree is on the fulfilment of the Quest and how the self-destructive nihilistic nature of evil is, I believe, a more effective and poignant ending than the _consumption of Gollum_. I prefer the consumption of both. This is why the argument has been deterred from the correct course as it is necessary to discuss the timeframe after Frodo's lordship of the Ring.



Tyelkormo said:


> But he still has a role to play....


And with one fell stoke of the keyboard you've dismissed the most important point made in the entirety of my post. But this too must be addressed below...



Tyelkormo said:


> But it hasn't, and that precisely is Tolkien's point as I see it. Plus, you're still looking at the wrong timepoint for the effect of mercy. And Tolkien is explicit that it is not through violence but through Pity that the quest is achieved, e.g. in letter 153, where he says "...it is the Pity of Bilbo and later Frodo that allows the Quest to be achieved..." and in letter 181, which is extremely pertinent to the discussion, he states "*But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury*. [Italics on pity by JRRT!] At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing anyone cd. have done for Frodo! *By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself and relieved of his burden*."


 
_...continued below_...


----------



## Úlairi (Mar 12, 2009)

..._continued_...

And finally the we come to the most significant issue in contention. When should mercy be effected? 

Frodo is *deserving *of mercy due solely to his Mercy and Pity for Gollum. Mercy begets mercy. Gollum, and this point you've chosen to ignore, has relinquished any entitlement to mercy or pity. Any violence against him is thus justifiable; but this is beside the point. The Mercy and Pity of Frodo has become beyond and extrinsic of his own being; as more importantly Frodo's previous being is also beyond his state of lustful servitude to the dominion of the Ring. Frodo ceases to be Frodo Baggins from Bag End as he is now a slave to the One Ring. The most important aspect of all of this is that Frodo can no longer be held accountable for his actions as he ceases almost to be sentient and moves from protagonism to agency. He (and Gollum) are now simply agents of the Ring - _Ringwraiths _but in a different sense; Frodo has claimed lordship over the Ring whereas Gollum has not. The Ring has now consumed Frodo and Gollum entirely. Violence against Gollum is therefore an inevitable consequence of lust and mercy will be effected whether it be through the violence of Frodo or the obliviousness of Gollum. This is why Tolkien incessantly contextualizes the climactic pinnacle of the tale into the line from Our Lord's Prayer: "_but deliver us from evil_". Frodo's deliverance occurs through the nihilism of evil; and the point that you have made about Gollum's lust for the Ring blinding him also being the nihilistic self-destruction of evil is quite valid. Tolkien's and Peter Jackson's endings are thus both workable. However, the quintessential crux of this difference of opinion is that I still forceably contend that Eru has intervened in a far more blatant fashion; a fashion which Peter Jackson diminished. You and I both agree as to the _micromanagement_ of Eru (and my _Akallabêth_ statement should have had a smiley on the end as it was intended to be a mild joke). The culmination of events through the Mercy and Pity of Bilbo and Frodo eventuated into the destruction of the Ring and these events are utterly crucial to the Story. But once we reach Sammath Naur and see our beloved protagonist overpowered that Mercy and Pity has eventuated to its ultimate extent - they are already there at the very Crack of Doom. I simply believe it to be far more poignant imagery that Frodo and Gollum wrestle for possession (but not mastery) of the Ring as through violence we see the effects of lust and dispossession. Gollum and Frodo are possessed by the Ring and the nihilitic fulfilment of evil is more powerfully presented through violence because of evil's temporary triumph. As I have stated before violence is inexorable, as Frodo would have attempted to use the Ring against Sauron, and is infact literarily superior; as the violence of Frodo would portray the fission or splintering of himself into a Frodo that has achieved good through Mercy and one subject to evil which enhances the concepts of mercy and pity as Frodo has now abandoned them. Evil is transcendant at this point (and only through Eru can be overcome) and Frodo and Gollum enamoured by it would fight until one has the Ring and the other can never attain it - another contest between Déagol and Sméagol. Do not forget that this too, is a circumstance that culminated in the destruction of the Ring. 

What now requires discussion is this concept of the conflict between Eru's intervention in overcoming evil, the irresistable lust of the Ring acting upon Frodo and Gollum and free will. Essentially the distinction of the conflict of free will and God; and free will and Satan. Eru is outside Arda and the Story; but evil resides within Arda. This is why I conceptually see the destruction of evil through evil instead of the destruction of evil through good as the greater ending. Both are achieved through the good of the protagonist and this is the most significant point. Frodo's choice led to the destruction of the Ring and was rewarded for it. Timeframe one encapsulates timeframe two. Good triumphs over evil in both circumstances but in my preference it does so without Eru's intervention and restriction of free will. Middle-earth was saved by Eru either way; but Eru is not _present _in evil (and I can see where this discussion could be going). The nihilism of evil achieves Eru's purpose which is a far greater picture than Eru overriding evil and rewarding good. Instead of _deliver us from evil_; _evil's futility will deliver us_. 

There is so much more I wish to say but I've been neglecting my studies (as I'm quite sick at the moment) to the point that I'm imperilling myself. I need to go away and think more of this as I haven't quite said what I wish to say yet...

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Tyelkormo (Mar 12, 2009)

Úlairi said:


> ..._continued_...
> 
> And finally the we come to the most significant issue in contention. When should mercy be effected?
> 
> Frodo is *deserving *of mercy due solely to his Mercy and Pity for Gollum. Mercy begets mercy. Gollum, and this point you've chosen to ignore, has relinquished any entitlement to mercy or pity. Any violence against him is thus justifiable; but this is beside the point.


 
No, it's not, because this statement is, in fact, crucial to our disagreement, and I do not see any foundation for it.



> This is why Tolkien incessantly contextualizes the climactic pinnacle of the tale into the line from Our Lord's Prayer: "_but deliver us from evil_".


 
Actually, he cites far longer, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil". And for good reason.

Immediately after the Prayer, Jesus continues (citing Matthew):

"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

In the chapter right before, he states
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

and the chapter right after The Lord's Prayer commences
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."

We are to forgive, and not to resist evil. Judgment is reserved for HIM, not for us. If we are to forgive and not to resist, then there is only one way for us to be protected from Evil, as illustrated by the request in the Lord's Prayer: "but deliver us from Evil": It is only up to HIM to do that. Not up to our actions. And Tolkien states that not the least, this is because there are points and conditions, in which evil is beyond resistance - that is why we have to pray not to be led into temptation, lest we might reach a point where we cannot resist anymore.

I have not "ignored" the point that Gollum was beyond mercy or pity and violence against him was justifiable, because I reject this to be the case - the notion is anathema to the philosophy at issue. Tolkien states he was "lost" - that does not mean violence against him was justifiable.

Quite the contrary, showing an attack on Gollum and showing that *only* through such an attack the Ring is destroyed negates the philosophical foundation and turns it into its precise antithesis. It doesn't matter that we have corruption fighting corruption here, the key point is that it is violence and resistance that leads to the defeat of Evil. It doesn't matter because the notion that Frodo toppling Gollum over the edge solves the issue implies immediately that Sam (who not the least was partially responsible for Gollum missing his last chance to begin with) could have toppled him likewise. 



> Frodo's deliverance occurs through the nihilism of evil; and the point that you have made about Gollum's lust for the Ring blinding him also being the nihilistic self-destruction of evil is quite valid. Tolkien's and Peter Jackson's endings are thus both workable.


 
I disagree, because there is nothing nihilistic about Gollum's lust. I think this is your fundamental problem, you're fixated on the issue of nihilism, when evil, as Tolkien describes it, is not nihilistic at all. It does not seek to negate, it seeks to possess and to rule. And thus it is possessiveness that ultimately defeats evil, not nihilism. The issue of nihilistic evil is a profound misunderstanding, and one that Jackson fell for as well. When he has Saruman say that the age of man is coming to an end and when he, in interviews, states that Saruman and Sauron are both bent on genocide, he's missing the point. They're not interested in genocide. War is just a means for them to get what they want, not an end in itself and killing a necessity to ensure compliance by others.



> I simply believe it to be far more poignant imagery that Frodo and Gollum wrestle for possession (but not mastery) of the Ring as through violence we see the effects of lust and dispossession. Gollum and Frodo are possessed by the Ring and the nihilitic fulfilment of evil is more powerfully presented through violence because of evil's temporary triumph.


 
I believe you overlook that in the case of deliverance through violence, a _nihilistic_ evil would not have triumphed merely temporarily. It would have perpetuated itself.



> What now requires discussion is this concept of the conflict between Eru's intervention in overcoming evil, the irresistable lust of the Ring acting upon Frodo and Gollum and free will. Essentially the distinction of the conflict of free will and God; and free will and Satan. Eru is outside Arda and the Story; but evil resides within Arda. This is why I conceptually see the destruction of evil through evil instead of the destruction of evil through good as the greater ending. Both are achieved through the good of the protagonist and this is the most significant point.


 
The destruction of evil through evil action describes evil action as a necessity and not as an evil. The moral point is fundamentally lost.



> Good triumphs over evil in both circumstances but in my preference it does so without Eru's intervention and restriction of free will.


 
Without restriction of free will? You require that everyone has lost his free will to begin with, because otherwise the last excuse for the evil actions would be missing.



> Middle-earth was saved by Eru either way; but Eru is not _present _in evil (and I can see where this discussion could be going). The nihilism of evil achieves Eru's purpose which is a far greater picture than Eru overriding evil and rewarding good. Instead of _deliver us from evil_; _evil's futility will deliver us_.


 
There's a profound difference between the nihilism of evil and the futility of evil. Futility is non-productive. When the nihilism of evil "triumphs", then evil obviously triumphs, even if it is brought down in doing so. What you're calling for is the equivalent of the ending of Fincher's _Seven_. This is fundamentally contrary to the philosophy we're dealing with. _Seven _is a stunning movie. But it's not Tolkien.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 18, 2009)

In _Morgoth’s Ring_, in the essay on “Motives”, I recall that Tolkien wrote that Morgoth was nihilistically evil: he begrudged the existence of any will other than his own, and had he been victorious in the War of Wrath, he would ultimately have destroyed his own forces. Sauron, according to Tolkien, never reached such a stage, but desired domination and control of others. (I think I recall that he also attributed to Sauron a distorted sense that he was doing this for “good” in the sense that “order” is “good”, and that his ends justified his means; I will happily be corrected if someone wants to reread the essay and post the requisite citations.) 

Frodo was in fact deserving of Mercy in that he practiced Mercy: Mercy and forbearance saved him, as Gandalf said when he rebuked Frodo for wishing Bilbo had killed Gollum in “Shadow of the Past”. At least, Frodo was as deserving of Mercy as mortals can be: a wise friend of mine once told me that, “*Mercy is not getting what we do deserve; Grace is getting what we don’t deserve.*” Frodo could not _earn_ Mercy: none of us can. That is the nature of mercy: it can only be freely given by someone in a position to grant it to you. The same is true of grace: and moreover, particularly where grace is concerned, the person who gives you grace must be more powerful than you, at least when it is granted, because _by the definition of grace_ he has something you need, do not have, and cannot obtain on your own. And without anything religious in saying it, none of us can _ever_ earn either grace or mercy: we can only receive them, and occasionally, we can give them to others. 

Had he killed Gollum, Frodo would not have been in any position to receive Mercy: having succumbed to the Ruling Ring, he would have been met by the Nazgûl, as Tolkien explains in _Letters_, and detained long enough for Sauron himself to arrive and retrieve his dingus from the little usurper. Had Frodo not exercised mercy, he could not subsequently have received it at the one moment in which it was most important.

As for Frodo himself, I take it from Tolkien’s explanations in _Letters_ that he was unable to readjust to life in the Shire, and to some degree selfishly hoping for the kind of local adulation and affection that Sam, Merry, and Pippin received. His departure to Eressëa was _purgatorial_: as a mortal, he could not remain there, but had eventually to die; but before his death, he might receive healing and some semblance of peace and restoration. He was a person put in a position in which the forces bearing down upon him were greater than the ability of mortals to bear, he was overcome, and there was really never hope that he would avoid being overcome: it was only by Mercy that he succeeded in delivering the Ring to the place in which it was accidentally destroyed through the lust of another Ring-bearer, a lust that, ironically, the Ring _always and deliberately_ inspired to ensure its own survival; and so by Mercy, Frodo survived. But I think Tolkien makes it clear that Frodo’s final journey to live with the Elves was less than what he had hoped for, and yet his hope for cure.

Tolkien also remarks in _Letters_ that some people were enraged by Frodo’s failure at the Cracks of Doom and view him as a traitor and even worthy of execution.


----------



## Ash Nazg (May 14, 2010)

I'd like to add, insignificant as it may be, that PJ was largely aware of the difference in themes between his ending and Tolkien's. In the extended edition of the Return of the King there is a short bit in the special features where he talks about this. Jackson says that Frodo wrestling with Gollum was mostly done for cinematic purposes so that Frodo doesn't appear too much as a "bystander"- to mitigate the damage this could do to Tolkien's theme, he tried to put the emphasis of the scene on Frodo attempting to regain the ring, not him attacking Gollum. The idea being that neither Gollum nor Frodo care much about their opponent, as all their will is bent on and controlled by the ring. Seen that way, neither Frodo nor Gollum can be seen as having acted violently against each other in that scene. Think of it as them focusing so much on the Ring that they are no longer aware of their surroundings, which results in Gollum's plunge into obliteration.


----------



## Eledhwen (May 22, 2010)

I understood that the wrestling match at the Cracks of Doom was performed for cinematic purposes, but it was just another scene showing what PJ failed to grasp about the whole story - that the success of the mission hinged on mercy and pity. 

In the film, it's mentioned in Moria, about Bilbo's pity sparing Gollum and he may have a part to play yet. Although PJ mentioned the pity written into the books, I do not think he understood it, because the final act of pity was Sam's - who earlier would have dispatched Gollum's life with little qualm.

Here's the pity path after Bilbo's initial encounter: Gollum was treated with kindness during his arrest with the Elves, which allowed for his escape, and his eventual meeting with Frodo in the Emin Muil, where Frodo's mercy allowed them to be guided safely across the Dead Marshes. Gollum then received mercy again at the hands of Faramir who had the creature at his mercy, but gave the decision to Frodo. Released once more, Gollum guided Frodo and Sam to the stairs of Cirith Ungol. Then, even after what Gollum intended to be a deadly betrayal and a further attack, Sam Gamgee took pity on Gollum, on the slopes of Orodruin, when he could justly have slain him and had only his own conscience to stay his hand. This final act of mercy enabled the quest to be successfully completed. Gollum was a miserable creature, deserving of death by most reckonings, but being spared many times over, it allowed the desperate misery of his addiction to The Ring to finally save Middle-earth when Frodo couldn't.


----------

