News

A Tolkien Virgin: The Return of the King - Book VI - Chapter 4 - The Journey Continues

June 28, 2002
Submitted By Jonathan

Comment on This Email to a Friend Digg This

Book VI
Chapter 4
The Field of Cormallen

"But even while [Sam] spoke, to keep fear away until the very last, his eyes strayed north, north into the eye of the wind, to where the sky far off was clear, as the cold blast, rising to a gale, drove back the darkness and the ruin of the clouds..."So, they've all survived. All but Boromir, of the 9 Walkers that set out from Rivendell way back in Book II.

Pippin rescued by Gimli and Frodo and Sam rescued by the Eagles at the last.

Frodo wasn't right that he and Sam were at the end of all things, but certainly they were at the end of something. Then end of all things under Sauron and even the end of Sauron himself.

The sense of unreality that Frodo and Sam experience before the praise of all comes across well--it almost feels out of place. Then, I remember that they bore the ring to the Crack of Doom, that because they carried it so far through such peril and misery it was at last destroyed--thus saving the world from the designs of Sauron and bringing about his undoing.

But my praise of Frodo is tempered by the fact that he failed. He was unable to resist the lust of the Ring--he bore it to the end only to give in and claim it for his own. Without the intervention of Gollum the Ring probably wouldn't have been destroyed. The only thing Frodo did was carry the ring. He wouldn't have even gone the whole way to the very Crack of Doom without Sam. Sam is the great hero of the dark road to Mordor, not Frodo.

Sam defeated Shelob, kept the Ring from capture, rescued Frodo from Cirith Ungol, sacrificed water, food, and rest for Frodo and drove him on when he wouldn't have gone on on his own. Finally, Sam it was that carried Frodo up Mount Doom. Sam is a true hero. Frodo was gloomy, pessimistic, and gave up hope altogether. Sure, he did bear the Ring, a nightmarishly miserable task, I'm sure. But he failed. Utterly. The rings destruction is far less thanks to Frodo than it is to Sam and especially Gollum, without whom they wouldn't have gotten into Mordor at all and the Ring would not have been destroyed. So I acknowledge Frodo's hellish burden and tip my hat to him--but only slightly.

The physical effects of the destruction of the Ring were pretty awesome. "The Black Gate was hurled in ruin,"; the shadow shape of Sauron rising, impotent, then blown away by the wind; "the torment of Orodruin." Nice.

Sam's pondering about the story they were in as they were sure they were about to die, was affecting. Later, I was happy to see that Galadriel's gifts for Frodo and Sam had been recovered... that was fitting.

One problem I have is with the lay of Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Doom--besides the fact that Sam's name should appear somewhere in the title of the lay, maybe in the place of Frodo's. What exactly did it tell? Did the minstrel just make it up? Did he know all the facts? If so, he must've had a long conversation with Frodo in the morning while Sam slept. So, now we've got 5 chapters of "after the fact"--what could possibly fill 5 chapters (6 if you include this one) after the rings destruction?

till next time, keep thinking,

Mark-Edmond Howell
Kanazawa, Japan
far(out)

Comment on This Email to a Friend Digg This

Get more information on this article's topic here:
The Reading Room : A Tolkien Virgin :

Reader Comments

(Add a Comment)

... 144 Comments

to allow Gollum to redeem himself in some way (trial by fire ritual, which, though involuntary in itself, can be read as a literal deus ex machina, the intervention of the Valar's providence for the first time (if you discount Gandalf role as their seneschal). Though Sam makes great efforts, Frodo did bear the entire brunt of the rings malice for a period unimaginable for, say, a mortal man. It also proves the truth of Gandalf's earlier insight that 'evil may betray itself, and so good it does not intend'. The point is that a balance beyond that of the visible world is asserted, Sauron destroys himself through his own works and the damage he has wreaked on lesser creatures. The justice is far greater in scope that simply the dutiful carrying out of an errand, and may be seen as a universal cycle of eqilibrium.
That's all.

Comment by Sepulchrave - June 28, 2002 @ 2:28 AM
to allow Gollum to redeem himself in some way (trial by fire ritual, which, though involuntary in itself, can be read as a literal deus ex machina, the intervention of the Valar's providence for the first time (if you discount Gandalf role as their seneschal). Though Sam makes great efforts, Frodo did bear the entire brunt of the rings malice for a period unimaginable for, say, a mortal man. It also proves the truth of Gandalf's earlier insight that 'evil may betray itself, and so good it does not intend'. The point is that a balance beyond that of the visible world is asserted, Sauron destroys himself through his own works and the damage he has wreaked on lesser creatures. The justice is far greater in scope that simply the dutiful carrying out of an errand, and may be seen as a universal cycle of eqilibrium.
That's all.

Comment by Sepulchrave - June 28, 2002 @ 2:28 AM
I like the article. You provided your reasons well. When I read this chpater, I finally felt relieved.
I do not think Frodo failed. To carry the Ring all the way to Mt. Doom was almost impossible. He was brave and selfless enough to want to offer to take the Ring and go to Mordor alone, but Sam knew that he couldn't do it alone. Then, I don't think it's possible for Frodo to make his way to the end or give up the RIng without any help. It seems like once the Ring reaches where it was made, it gains all its power and totally takes over the mind. That happened to Isildur as well.
I think both Frodo and Sam should get as much credit: Frodo for offering to undertake such a task, and Sam for supporting him all the way. They should both be credited for so much sacrifice. You're also right: Gollum should receive some credit as well.

Comment by fishy071 - June 28, 2002 @ 3:05 AM
I like the article. You provided your reasons well. When I read this chpater, I finally felt relieved.
I do not think Frodo failed. To carry the Ring all the way to Mt. Doom was almost impossible. He was brave and selfless enough to want to offer to take the Ring and go to Mordor alone, but Sam knew that he couldn't do it alone. Then, I don't think it's possible for Frodo to make his way to the end or give up the RIng without any help. It seems like once the Ring reaches where it was made, it gains all its power and totally takes over the mind. That happened to Isildur as well.
I think both Frodo and Sam should get as much credit: Frodo for offering to undertake such a task, and Sam for supporting him all the way. They should both be credited for so much sacrifice. You're also right: Gollum should receive some credit as well.

Comment by fishy071 - June 28, 2002 @ 3:05 AM
It is curious that Frodo's "failure" resulted in the deatruction of the ring... I guess they could have had Gandalf bear the ring, but it is doubtful that he would have made it to the Cracks of Doom. More likely he would have ended up seated in the throne of Mordor.
And Sam was a true hero... as was Frodo, Boromir, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimili, and perhaps even Gollum. Get the picture? Everyone had their own part to play. Remember the advice that Frodo constantly received through the book? "Don't go alone." Frodo was never expected to go alone. He was not even expected to make it, really.
It was Frodo who took the challenge and bore the ring, who spared Gollum out of pity, and who shouldered the burden alone.
If Sam were the ringbearer, would Gollum even be alive? What would he do once he reached the cracks?
Frodo did not fail, he was rewarded by his strong heart and wise decisions.

Comment by sarge21 - June 28, 2002 @ 3:26 AM
It is curious that Frodo's "failure" resulted in the deatruction of the ring... I guess they could have had Gandalf bear the ring, but it is doubtful that he would have made it to the Cracks of Doom. More likely he would have ended up seated in the throne of Mordor.
And Sam was a true hero... as was Frodo, Boromir, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimili, and perhaps even Gollum. Get the picture? Everyone had their own part to play. Remember the advice that Frodo constantly received through the book? "Don't go alone." Frodo was never expected to go alone. He was not even expected to make it, really.
It was Frodo who took the challenge and bore the ring, who spared Gollum out of pity, and who shouldered the burden alone.
If Sam were the ringbearer, would Gollum even be alive? What would he do once he reached the cracks?
Frodo did not fail, he was rewarded by his strong heart and wise decisions.

Comment by sarge21 - June 28, 2002 @ 3:26 AM
I hardly think that Frodo failed. I agree with what sarge21 said:
My interpretation is that Frodo's moment of success was in The Taming of Smeagol (and Henneth Annun and several other times) where he spared Gollum's life. I would like to think that anybody, even Sam, who has borne the ring for so long would not be able to destroy it... it was an [I]impossible[/I] mission from the start.
Frodo's mercy and goodness to Gollum was what destroyed the ring, and it is important to note that Frodo was merciful even [I]while[/I] the ring was eating away at him.
If Sam had been the ringbearer and had chosen to kill Gollum, I'm won't say for sure that he would have thrown the ring in. Would not the ring have made him want to kill more, even out of "loyalty" to Frodo?
The power of the ring cannot be underestimated. If all the ring did was to make Frodo gloomy, pessimistic and hopeless, then I say that he resisted it well. Who knows what worse things it would do to someone else?

Comment by Keetah - June 28, 2002 @ 3:50 AM
I hardly think that Frodo failed. I agree with what sarge21 said:
My interpretation is that Frodo's moment of success was in The Taming of Smeagol (and Henneth Annun and several other times) where he spared Gollum's life. I would like to think that anybody, even Sam, who has borne the ring for so long would not be able to destroy it... it was an [I]impossible[/I] mission from the start.
Frodo's mercy and goodness to Gollum was what destroyed the ring, and it is important to note that Frodo was merciful even [I]while[/I] the ring was eating away at him.
If Sam had been the ringbearer and had chosen to kill Gollum, I'm won't say for sure that he would have thrown the ring in. Would not the ring have made him want to kill more, even out of "loyalty" to Frodo?
The power of the ring cannot be underestimated. If all the ring did was to make Frodo gloomy, pessimistic and hopeless, then I say that he resisted it well. Who knows what worse things it would do to someone else?

Comment by Keetah - June 28, 2002 @ 3:50 AM
In Rivendell, Gandalf told Frodo that "it has not been hard to read your mind and memory" while Frodo was asleep there, so I would guess that that's how the minstrel got the information for his song.

Comment by AragornBaggins - June 28, 2002 @ 5:51 AM
In Rivendell, Gandalf told Frodo that "it has not been hard to read your mind and memory" while Frodo was asleep there, so I would guess that that's how the minstrel got the information for his song.

Comment by AragornBaggins - June 28, 2002 @ 5:51 AM
The whole story of the Ring is about Good vs Evil on all fronts, not about who has the stamina to walk across Mordor. Frodo's deep inner goodness finally conquered the Ring, by sparing Gollum who destroyed it for him... you can call that checkmate if you like. Here's what Sam would have done, bearing the Ring with Frodo as his companion. He would have killed Gollum as soon as he appeared, found it impossible to get into Mordor, and eventually tried to use the Ring to keep his best friend safe. So he too would have failed, and utterly.
That said, both Frodo and Sam rank alongside Beren and Earendil as heroes of Middle Earth.

Comment by GreenKnight - June 28, 2002 @ 6:01 AM
The whole story of the Ring is about Good vs Evil on all fronts, not about who has the stamina to walk across Mordor. Frodo's deep inner goodness finally conquered the Ring, by sparing Gollum who destroyed it for him... you can call that checkmate if you like. Here's what Sam would have done, bearing the Ring with Frodo as his companion. He would have killed Gollum as soon as he appeared, found it impossible to get into Mordor, and eventually tried to use the Ring to keep his best friend safe. So he too would have failed, and utterly.
That said, both Frodo and Sam rank alongside Beren and Earendil as heroes of Middle Earth.

Comment by GreenKnight - June 28, 2002 @ 6:01 AM
Who is to say that Frodo's task was to actually cast the ring into the Fire? The goal of the Fellowship was to get the Ring to the Fire and have it destroyed. Frodo was only charged with being the RingBEARER, not the RingDestroyer. Indeed, Gollum was always an unofficial member of the Fellowship since he was with them for most of their journey.
Also, it was stated that no one else could've even BORNE the Ring so far, especially after having been wounded by the Nazgul. Indeed, Frodo fully met his assigned task, a responsibility he was fore-ordained to bear. Sam and Gollum each played their roles, when needed, but no one failed, it would seem.

Comment by Haole-feet - June 28, 2002 @ 6:05 AM
Who is to say that Frodo's task was to actually cast the ring into the Fire? The goal of the Fellowship was to get the Ring to the Fire and have it destroyed. Frodo was only charged with being the RingBEARER, not the RingDestroyer. Indeed, Gollum was always an unofficial member of the Fellowship since he was with them for most of their journey.
Also, it was stated that no one else could've even BORNE the Ring so far, especially after having been wounded by the Nazgul. Indeed, Frodo fully met his assigned task, a responsibility he was fore-ordained to bear. Sam and Gollum each played their roles, when needed, but no one failed, it would seem.

Comment by Haole-feet - June 28, 2002 @ 6:05 AM
I think you're missing the point. Would Sam have been allowed to stay Sam, if he had been the Ringbearer? Maybe then HE'd be the "pessimistic" one. And as far as claiming the Ring for his own - it wasn't Frodo speaking there - it was the RING. It has finally gotten to him. Yes, poor Frodo-The-Failure - only owned the ring 17 years, then went on a perilous quest without Gandalf, chased all over the place by Nazgul, encountering Willow Trees and Barrow Wights and being stabbed and nearly skewered in Moria and attacked by a friend, then stung by Shelob, taken captive and abused by orcs, then enduring hunger and thirst and sleep deprivation and fear of discovery, and the despair of knowing you're on a suicide mission, the whole world depends on you, and you may not be equal to the strength. And all the while the ring working on you, playing on your weaknesses, whispering into your consciousness, until you can see, remember, taste nothing but IT.
Yeah, what a WIMP that Frodo was . . . .how dare he just fall apart, let the Ring take over, there at Sammath Naur, where the Ring was forged, where its power is strongest, and he so spent, completely exhausted!
If Frodo had calmly been able to take the Ring off his finger and toss it in to the Cracks of Doom, we'd have to build an alter for him and name a temple after him, because he would have to be DIVINE!
"Only" carry the Ring - Aaaarrrgh!

Comment by Marea - June 28, 2002 @ 7:20 AM
I think you're missing the point. Would Sam have been allowed to stay Sam, if he had been the Ringbearer? Maybe then HE'd be the "pessimistic" one. And as far as claiming the Ring for his own - it wasn't Frodo speaking there - it was the RING. It has finally gotten to him. Yes, poor Frodo-The-Failure - only owned the ring 17 years, then went on a perilous quest without Gandalf, chased all over the place by Nazgul, encountering Willow Trees and Barrow Wights and being stabbed and nearly skewered in Moria and attacked by a friend, then stung by Shelob, taken captive and abused by orcs, then enduring hunger and thirst and sleep deprivation and fear of discovery, and the despair of knowing you're on a suicide mission, the whole world depends on you, and you may not be equal to the strength. And all the while the ring working on you, playing on your weaknesses, whispering into your consciousness, until you can see, remember, taste nothing but IT.
Yeah, what a WIMP that Frodo was . . . .how dare he just fall apart, let the Ring take over, there at Sammath Naur, where the Ring was forged, where its power is strongest, and he so spent, completely exhausted!
If Frodo had calmly been able to take the Ring off his finger and toss it in to the Cracks of Doom, we'd have to build an alter for him and name a temple after him, because he would have to be DIVINE!
"Only" carry the Ring - Aaaarrrgh!

Comment by Marea - June 28, 2002 @ 7:20 AM
"So I acknowledge Frodo's hellish burden and tip my hat to him--but only slightly."
Of course we acknowledge Frodo's burden and his endless toil, but we can not relate to it.
Sam we can relate to, his burden is more realistic for us, in my opinion. His burden was his master, and his driving force was love. We can all understand the will and stamina needed to support someone we love, so we can relate to Sam's burden.
Frodo's burden was other-worldly, something we can not imagine because the Power behind the Ring is something we will never experience.
So I feel it unfair to give all praise to Sam and speak of nothing but failure about Frodo, or a slight tip of the hat.
I'm afraid if the roles were reversed the Ring would have overcome Sam long before the scene upon Orodruin. Sam's overwhelming desire for good and his simple mind would have been his bane had he carried the Ring. Some say the Ring had no effect upon him as shown in his brief encounter with the Ring. I disagree, as shown in those few minutes the Power of the Ring grasped the simple mind of Sam and showed him a world of good with a huge garden and people to tend his garden. Sam quickly dislodged the idea from his head because he didn't want a garden so large that he couldn't tend it himself, just a little patch is all he wanted. Sam was able to brush off this fleeting vision because his mind went back to simplicity, Frodo and the task. You can say this shows that the Ring didn't have much of an impact on Sam, but I believe this brief moment showed Sam's weakness to the Ring.
Frodo bore the Ring for a year through much peril and danger, getting closer and closer to Orodruin, the epicenter of Sauron's Power and the foundry of the Ring. This was a great burden to our poor hobbit Frodo, a burden that Sam would not have been strong enough nor wise enough to carry out.
So give more than respect for Frodo, though it is impossible to put yourself in place of his hairy feet. At least try to imagine the overwhelming effect of the Ring upon yourself and ask yourself if you would have been able to get that far with such a burden. I believe I would have fell to the Ring with a desire of good, and in the end destroyed.

Comment by Gwindor - June 28, 2002 @ 7:52 AM
"So I acknowledge Frodo's hellish burden and tip my hat to him--but only slightly."
Of course we acknowledge Frodo's burden and his endless toil, but we can not relate to it.
Sam we can relate to, his burden is more realistic for us, in my opinion. His burden was his master, and his driving force was love. We can all understand the will and stamina needed to support someone we love, so we can relate to Sam's burden.
Frodo's burden was other-worldly, something we can not imagine because the Power behind the Ring is something we will never experience.
So I feel it unfair to give all praise to Sam and speak of nothing but failure about Frodo, or a slight tip of the hat.
I'm afraid if the roles were reversed the Ring would have overcome Sam long before the scene upon Orodruin. Sam's overwhelming desire for good and his simple mind would have been his bane had he carried the Ring. Some say the Ring had no effect upon him as shown in his brief encounter with the Ring. I disagree, as shown in those few minutes the Power of the Ring grasped the simple mind of Sam and showed him a world of good with a huge garden and people to tend his garden. Sam quickly dislodged the idea from his head because he didn't want a garden so large that he couldn't tend it himself, just a little patch is all he wanted. Sam was able to brush off this fleeting vision because his mind went back to simplicity, Frodo and the task. You can say this shows that the Ring didn't have much of an impact on Sam, but I believe this brief moment showed Sam's weakness to the Ring.
Frodo bore the Ring for a year through much peril and danger, getting closer and closer to Orodruin, the epicenter of Sauron's Power and the foundry of the Ring. This was a great burden to our poor hobbit Frodo, a burden that Sam would not have been strong enough nor wise enough to carry out.
So give more than respect for Frodo, though it is impossible to put yourself in place of his hairy feet. At least try to imagine the overwhelming effect of the Ring upon yourself and ask yourself if you would have been able to get that far with such a burden. I believe I would have fell to the Ring with a desire of good, and in the end destroyed.

Comment by Gwindor - June 28, 2002 @ 7:52 AM
it's an unfortunate fact that our culture measures success only in terms of triumph and gain and a 'can-do' mentallity which is often shallow and self-deceptive and leads to a refusal to consider the value of less showy and emphatic emotions. Fodo's doom and desperation were part of what drove him on: someone who hadn't succumbed to despair would never have been able to bear the crushing burden of the Ring in Mordor. It was neccessary to stop resisting beacuse conscious resistence would have broken him utterely. There are examples in our own world of situations where the best form of resistence is achieved by relinquishing the struggle of the ego aaand passing beyond a combatative state. Frodo does this in Mordor.
Another problem with a contemporary reading of the events on Mount Doom is the perception that Frodo failed utterly when he claimed the Ring, but he had made sure (through his unfailing pity) that Gollum was there to bring about it's destruction, however unwitting either of them were in their respective roles. We cannot always be the absolute masters of our every fate; we do not make all the decisions governing our lives' outcomes however much we are told 'we can be whatever we want to be'. We can't: but it doesn't make us failures any more than it did Frodo.

Comment by pavelnash - June 28, 2002 @ 7:53 AM
it's an unfortunate fact that our culture measures success only in terms of triumph and gain and a 'can-do' mentallity which is often shallow and self-deceptive and leads to a refusal to consider the value of less showy and emphatic emotions. Fodo's doom and desperation were part of what drove him on: someone who hadn't succumbed to despair would never have been able to bear the crushing burden of the Ring in Mordor. It was neccessary to stop resisting beacuse conscious resistence would have broken him utterely. There are examples in our own world of situations where the best form of resistence is achieved by relinquishing the struggle of the ego aaand passing beyond a combatative state. Frodo does this in Mordor.
Another problem with a contemporary reading of the events on Mount Doom is the perception that Frodo failed utterly when he claimed the Ring, but he had made sure (through his unfailing pity) that Gollum was there to bring about it's destruction, however unwitting either of them were in their respective roles. We cannot always be the absolute masters of our every fate; we do not make all the decisions governing our lives' outcomes however much we are told 'we can be whatever we want to be'. We can't: but it doesn't make us failures any more than it did Frodo.

Comment by pavelnash - June 28, 2002 @ 7:53 AM
I agree totally with everyone who says that the Taming of Smeagol was Frodo's true triumph. Tolkien has written about how Frodo's mercy was responsible for the ring's destruction in one of his letters - I don't have access to it right now or I'd quote directly from it. No one but Frodo could have taken it that far. I agree, Sam may seem the greater one because we can relate to his dilemma while Frodo's burden is something none of us can never imagine. There were higher powers working here and the moment Frodo showed mercy to Gollum... you get the point.

Comment by nakulkr - June 28, 2002 @ 8:11 AM
I agree totally with everyone who says that the Taming of Smeagol was Frodo's true triumph. Tolkien has written about how Frodo's mercy was responsible for the ring's destruction in one of his letters - I don't have access to it right now or I'd quote directly from it. No one but Frodo could have taken it that far. I agree, Sam may seem the greater one because we can relate to his dilemma while Frodo's burden is something none of us can never imagine. There were higher powers working here and the moment Frodo showed mercy to Gollum... you get the point.

Comment by nakulkr - June 28, 2002 @ 8:11 AM
While I also have a higher opinion of Frodo than M-E has, that doesn't in any way deligitimize (is that a real word?) M-E'd interpretation. The problem stems from the fact that Tolkien wrote so little of the internal struggle that Frodo was dealing with. All that we (the reader) could see was what Sam could see. In fact, pretty much the whole of Book VI was written from Sam's perspective.
Earlier in the book Sam said to himself "I love him." Making Frodo the focus of the journey. As long as Frodo was alive he had hope and a purpose. To him, Frodo was the best person who ever lived (indeed in at least one passage Sam likened Frodo's wisdom to Gandalf's).
To be honest, I actually think Sam WOULD have been a better bearer of the Ring than Frodo. It is said that the Ring gave power relative to the "power" of the bearer. Well Frodo was really a "power" among hobbits. His knowledge of the world outside the Shire and his choices when confronted with the reality of the Ring shows a strength that the Ring would attempt to subvert. Heh, Sam would have told the Ring to stop being silly, he had work to do (witness the Sam the Gardener episode on the border of Mordor).
Anyway, in my opinion Sam is the most likable character and a definite hero, but Frodo is the tragic hero. The one who you root for, but find harder to like as time goes on. And in the end...err, I'll let you see for yourself. :-)
PS Well-written, M-E. Thanks for this entry and I look forward to reading the rest.
PPS Are there plans to do the Appendices as well?

Comment by Shular - June 28, 2002 @ 8:13 AM
While I also have a higher opinion of Frodo than M-E has, that doesn't in any way deligitimize (is that a real word?) M-E'd interpretation. The problem stems from the fact that Tolkien wrote so little of the internal struggle that Frodo was dealing with. All that we (the reader) could see was what Sam could see. In fact, pretty much the whole of Book VI was written from Sam's perspective.
Earlier in the book Sam said to himself "I love him." Making Frodo the focus of the journey. As long as Frodo was alive he had hope and a purpose. To him, Frodo was the best person who ever lived (indeed in at least one passage Sam likened Frodo's wisdom to Gandalf's).
To be honest, I actually think Sam WOULD have been a better bearer of the Ring than Frodo. It is said that the Ring gave power relative to the "power" of the bearer. Well Frodo was really a "power" among hobbits. His knowledge of the world outside the Shire and his choices when confronted with the reality of the Ring shows a strength that the Ring would attempt to subvert. Heh, Sam would have told the Ring to stop being silly, he had work to do (witness the Sam the Gardener episode on the border of Mordor).
Anyway, in my opinion Sam is the most likable character and a definite hero, but Frodo is the tragic hero. The one who you root for, but find harder to like as time goes on. And in the end...err, I'll let you see for yourself. :-)
PS Well-written, M-E. Thanks for this entry and I look forward to reading the rest.
PPS Are there plans to do the Appendices as well?

Comment by Shular - June 28, 2002 @ 8:13 AM
I wasnt going to comment on this thread, but that last bit about Frodo and divinity touched off a thought Ive had many times.
Sam *IS* the human hero of the story, in terms of our conception of how heroism functions based upon our shared human experience of flaw-- that is, he an exemplary hero because he overcomes by force of will his human flaws, his physical weakness, his propensity for fear, his instinct to self preservation. He's the same sort of hero as the men are, but with a more focused and singular motivation, his love for Frodo (as opposed to Boromir's love of kingdom or Aragorns love of civilization and love of hot, elvish fiance) And in my opinion, he is the greater hero of that kind, the human hero, as he is in far more precarious and alien circumstances than the are the men, ever.
Frodo is utterly different I think. Until the last moment, Frodo is a character almost entirely WITHOUT flaw. Frodo is, perhaps not divine, but far closer to divinity than anyone else in Middle-earth, and thats why the only godly character of the story, Gandalf, arranged the circumstances of the world from before he was born so that he could end up with the ring. Id even say it was presdestined. Part of the vision of the world that the Valar saw with utter and absolute clarity, and sent Gandalf to ensure. And like the young Dali Lama or John the Baptist Frodo is different in kind from birth, what the Hindus call Rishi-- "bearer of the ancient values", endowed innately with a unique and divine wisdom. Note that Frodo repeatedly demonstrates a unusual clarity of mind, openness to truth and wisdom that could rightly be described as Elvish. He attends to the words of Gandalf in having pity for Gollum, a truth he percieves immediately and lives fully for the remainder of the story. No matter how many times Frodo exposes Sam to that same truth, Sam never learns the lesson. And how is that the Elves trust the ring to Frodo when they wont trust it even to themselves? Doesnt it *have to be* that Frodo is one spiritually apart from all others in Middle Earth. Note that the Fellowship turns to the wisdom of the ringbearer on multiple occasions to make its decisions. There not tip-toeing around Frodo's ego here, like "well he *is* the ringbearer, its polite to ask him what he wants to do"-- this is the most powerful weapon in existence their talking about. They wouldnt trust these decisions to Frodo unless there was consensus that Frodo was a being apart.
Consider this lastly: Gandalf the Miaer, whom we generally concieve of as an angel incarnate, a godly being around whom a conversation of "divinity" would not be misplaced, CANT take on the ring. Doesnt have the spiritual will, the wisdom to bear it-- doesnt have the metal for it. What then *must* the spiritual potency, the quality of essence of Frodo to bear the thing ALL the way into Mordor. There is a symbiotic revelation here: Frodo's incredibly power of will and intrinsic quality of spirit and soul, and the truly unthinkable spiritual gravity of the ring.
That Frodo's central struggle is internal, such to the point that he's often oblivious about where he is with Sam in Mordor, should show us that his world, in a unique and separate way, is a spiritual world.
All of this to say that I believe Tolkien has done something astouding here. He has attempted to construct the struggle and ultimate failure of a "divine"
character with an intimacy typically not available to human readers. Sam is the human hero of the story, but Frodo is a higher soul incarnate and close enough for us to see its workings with amazing detail.

Or I could be off my nut.

Comment by Elendil36 - June 28, 2002 @ 9:05 AM
I wasnt going to comment on this thread, but that last bit about Frodo and divinity touched off a thought Ive had many times.
Sam *IS* the human hero of the story, in terms of our conception of how heroism functions based upon our shared human experience of flaw-- that is, he an exemplary hero because he overcomes by force of will his human flaws, his physical weakness, his propensity for fear, his instinct to self preservation. He's the same sort of hero as the men are, but with a more focused and singular motivation, his love for Frodo (as opposed to Boromir's love of kingdom or Aragorns love of civilization and love of hot, elvish fiance) And in my opinion, he is the greater hero of that kind, the human hero, as he is in far more precarious and alien circumstances than the are the men, ever.
Frodo is utterly different I think. Until the last moment, Frodo is a character almost entirely WITHOUT flaw. Frodo is, perhaps not divine, but far closer to divinity than anyone else in Middle-earth, and thats why the only godly character of the story, Gandalf, arranged the circumstances of the world from before he was born so that he could end up with the ring. Id even say it was presdestined. Part of the vision of the world that the Valar saw with utter and absolute clarity, and sent Gandalf to ensure. And like the young Dali Lama or John the Baptist Frodo is different in kind from birth, what the Hindus call Rishi-- "bearer of the ancient values", endowed innately with a unique and divine wisdom. Note that Frodo repeatedly demonstrates a unusual clarity of mind, openness to truth and wisdom that could rightly be described as Elvish. He attends to the words of Gandalf in having pity for Gollum, a truth he percieves immediately and lives fully for the remainder of the story. No matter how many times Frodo exposes Sam to that same truth, Sam never learns the lesson. And how is that the Elves trust the ring to Frodo when they wont trust it even to themselves? Doesnt it *have to be* that Frodo is one spiritually apart from all others in Middle Earth. Note that the Fellowship turns to the wisdom of the ringbearer on multiple occasions to make its decisions. There not tip-toeing around Frodo's ego here, like "well he *is* the ringbearer, its polite to ask him what he wants to do"-- this is the most powerful weapon in existence their talking about. They wouldnt trust these decisions to Frodo unless there was consensus that Frodo was a being apart.
Consider this lastly: Gandalf the Miaer, whom we generally concieve of as an angel incarnate, a godly being around whom a conversation of "divinity" would not be misplaced, CANT take on the ring. Doesnt have the spiritual will, the wisdom to bear it-- doesnt have the metal for it. What then *must* the spiritual potency, the quality of essence of Frodo to bear the thing ALL the way into Mordor. There is a symbiotic revelation here: Frodo's incredibly power of will and intrinsic quality of spirit and soul, and the truly unthinkable spiritual gravity of the ring.
That Frodo's central struggle is internal, such to the point that he's often oblivious about where he is with Sam in Mordor, should show us that his world, in a unique and separate way, is a spiritual world.
All of this to say that I believe Tolkien has done something astouding here. He has attempted to construct the struggle and ultimate failure of a "divine"
character with an intimacy typically not available to human readers. Sam is the human hero of the story, but Frodo is a higher soul incarnate and close enough for us to see its workings with amazing detail.

Or I could be off my nut.

Comment by Elendil36 - June 28, 2002 @ 9:05 AM
I was writing my little thesis in response to Marea, and then all these posts went up the meantime.

Comment by Elendil36 - June 28, 2002 @ 9:07 AM
I was writing my little thesis in response to Marea, and then all these posts went up the meantime.

Comment by Elendil36 - June 28, 2002 @ 9:07 AM
I think that Sam is not the real hero, Frodo still is. Do you think Sam would have ever even taken on the burden in Rivendell if Frodo hadn't been there? How long do you think Sam woulda lasted if he was carrying the ring the whole time? No one could have kept going, simply went on, as far as Frodo did, no one. As Elrond said to him " This task was appointed to you, and if you do not find a way, no one will" not even Faramir could resist the ring without sworn oath, only Frodo. Frodo endured carrying the ring and the temptation when even Gandalf could not. Sam couldn't of done it either. To have brought the ring all the way to the cracks of doom was more than any other mortal soul could have done, and it was FRODO's, not Sam's pity that saved him and the ring in the end. If Frodo would have let Sam kill Gollum like he wanted to, the ring wouldn't have gotten destroyed.

Comment by daughterofpaladin - June 28, 2002 @ 10:44 AM
I think that Sam is not the real hero, Frodo still is. Do you think Sam would have ever even taken on the burden in Rivendell if Frodo hadn't been there? How long do you think Sam woulda lasted if he was carrying the ring the whole time? No one could have kept going, simply went on, as far as Frodo did, no one. As Elrond said to him " This task was appointed to you, and if you do not find a way, no one will" not even Faramir could resist the ring without sworn oath, only Frodo. Frodo endured carrying the ring and the temptation when even Gandalf could not. Sam couldn't of done it either. To have brought the ring all the way to the cracks of doom was more than any other mortal soul could have done, and it was FRODO's, not Sam's pity that saved him and the ring in the end. If Frodo would have let Sam kill Gollum like he wanted to, the ring wouldn't have gotten destroyed.

Comment by daughterofpaladin - June 28, 2002 @ 10:44 AM
It was only the first time he read the story - I think his opinions about Frodo would change upon further readings.

Comment by robo - June 28, 2002 @ 11:48 AM
It was only the first time he read the story - I think his opinions about Frodo would change upon further readings.

Comment by robo - June 28, 2002 @ 11:48 AM
Mark-Edmund,
I dont know if you recall, but a few entries of urs back, I asked why u couldn't read a lil faster. Well now u r so thank you very much. I enjoy reading other peoples oppinions about this book. Its weird though that you thik that it would be hard to fill 5 (or 6) chapters with after the factness. You read the hobbit didn't you? In that book there was two chapters of after the fact and that book was hardly as long as this trilogy/epic. It would be easy for a great author such as tolkien to fill more than 5 cahpters with details about the journy home, but thats not what he does. Oh no. That would be too easy for Tolkien. He works a whole little story into the end. Youll see. In my opinion, the last five chapters are the best in the entire trilogy.
3always
Megan

Comment by Goldberry_1420 - June 28, 2002 @ 12:08 PM
Mark-Edmund,
I dont know if you recall, but a few entries of urs back, I asked why u couldn't read a lil faster. Well now u r so thank you very much. I enjoy reading other peoples oppinions about this book. Its weird though that you thik that it would be hard to fill 5 (or 6) chapters with after the factness. You read the hobbit didn't you? In that book there was two chapters of after the fact and that book was hardly as long as this trilogy/epic. It would be easy for a great author such as tolkien to fill more than 5 cahpters with details about the journy home, but thats not what he does. Oh no. That would be too easy for Tolkien. He works a whole little story into the end. Youll see. In my opinion, the last five chapters are the best in the entire trilogy.
3always
Megan

Comment by Goldberry_1420 - June 28, 2002 @ 12:08 PM
How does the mythical armies in the LotR and the other books compare with real world numbers? Every time I read any sort of fantasy, they always describe the size of any army at some point, now I'm just curious as to how it would compare to real world numbers. Does anyone have the slightest idea where I'd find a website like that?

Comment by the_wandering_god - June 28, 2002 @ 1:00 PM
How does the mythical armies in the LotR and the other books compare with real world numbers? Every time I read any sort of fantasy, they always describe the size of any army at some point, now I'm just curious as to how it would compare to real world numbers. Does anyone have the slightest idea where I'd find a website like that?

Comment by the_wandering_god - June 28, 2002 @ 1:00 PM
I don't think, Tolkien's main concern was ' who is the hero and who is not' or ' should the reader praise or discredit Frodo'. The whole story is about the struggle between the power and weakness inside the souls of the characters(I think this is deeper than good vs evil, because every character has a unique mix of them. Remember Elrond saying 'nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron wasn't'). Tolkien saw two world wars, where heroism sometimes didn't mean anything else than staying alive. Again, remember Frodo watching the army of Mordor. First he cries in despair, thinking no one would learn about his quest, then he realizes the important thing is to do what he has to, people may know it or not. The same is for other characters. So, the right question would be 'Did everyone in the fellowship play his part in the story?'

Comment by ladyofeldar - June 28, 2002 @ 1:21 PM
I don't think, Tolkien's main concern was ' who is the hero and who is not' or ' should the reader praise or discredit Frodo'. The whole story is about the struggle between the power and weakness inside the souls of the characters(I think this is deeper than good vs evil, because every character has a unique mix of them. Remember Elrond saying 'nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron wasn't'). Tolkien saw two world wars, where heroism sometimes didn't mean anything else than staying alive. Again, remember Frodo watching the army of Mordor. First he cries in despair, thinking no one would learn about his quest, then he realizes the important thing is to do what he has to, people may know it or not. The same is for other characters. So, the right question would be 'Did everyone in the fellowship play his part in the story?'

Comment by ladyofeldar - June 28, 2002 @ 1:21 PM
I agree with Mark that Sam is more the hero here, while I would tip my hat more than slightly to Frodo.
It was clear at the outset from the scene with the ring at Frodo's hearth. Gandalf said not only that he could not destroy it, but also, that is he were forced to it would "break his mind". And, in my opinion, it did. His and Bilbo's. In fact, I believe Bilbo was nearly convalescing (sp) in Rivendell. The Ring had scarred him beyond recovery and Frodo, after the quest, was as well. Sure the trip to the Cracks of Doom nearly killed them, but Frodo's mind was breaking as much from the anticipation of destroying his one true love, the Ring, as from the journey.
Also, I believe Frodo "identified" with Gollum. He knew that swearing on the precious would hold Gollum because he was on the road to what Gollum had become in my opinion. And he knew it. There was more than Gandalf's advocacy of mercy between Frodo and Gollum.
The Ring is a cruel mistress, even to Sauron. The unfaithful *** hops on and off all of these fingers, but not one of them brought it back to him. The Ring has some control over its destiny and events seem to indicate that it was evading its master. (Am I completely off base for this interpretation of the Ring's relation to Sauron? It did not seem to want to be returned to him.)
There are a lot of heroics in this story, but Sam's rising to the occasion from being the lowlyest member of the fellowship. Definately not the aristocratic dandies that the other hobbits were at the start of the story.
Of course Sam is my favorite in the book, so I am biased. My favorite scene is when he gets to hear the orcs comiserating about the Elvish Warrior that is lose in their dungeon.

Comment by lopan - June 28, 2002 @ 1:24 PM
I agree with Mark that Sam is more the hero here, while I would tip my hat more than slightly to Frodo.
It was clear at the outset from the scene with the ring at Frodo's hearth. Gandalf said not only that he could not destroy it, but also, that is he were forced to it would "break his mind". And, in my opinion, it did. His and Bilbo's. In fact, I believe Bilbo was nearly convalescing (sp) in Rivendell. The Ring had scarred him beyond recovery and Frodo, after the quest, was as well. Sure the trip to the Cracks of Doom nearly killed them, but Frodo's mind was breaking as much from the anticipation of destroying his one true love, the Ring, as from the journey.
Also, I believe Frodo "identified" with Gollum. He knew that swearing on the precious would hold Gollum because he was on the road to what Gollum had become in my opinion. And he knew it. There was more than Gandalf's advocacy of mercy between Frodo and Gollum.
The Ring is a cruel mistress, even to Sauron. The unfaithful *** hops on and off all of these fingers, but not one of them brought it back to him. The Ring has some control over its destiny and events seem to indicate that it was evading its master. (Am I completely off base for this interpretation of the Ring's relation to Sauron? It did not seem to want to be returned to him.)
There are a lot of heroics in this story, but Sam's rising to the occasion from being the lowlyest member of the fellowship. Definately not the aristocratic dandies that the other hobbits were at the start of the story.
Of course Sam is my favorite in the book, so I am biased. My favorite scene is when he gets to hear the orcs comiserating about the Elvish Warrior that is lose in their dungeon.

Comment by lopan - June 28, 2002 @ 1:24 PM
"Legolas acheived least of the nine Walkers."
-J.R.R. Tolkien

Comment by Necronomicon - June 28, 2002 @ 1:37 PM
"Legolas acheived least of the nine Walkers."
-J.R.R. Tolkien

Comment by Necronomicon - June 28, 2002 @ 1:37 PM
Unless you think Tolkien didn't really know what he wrote :D
Letter 181 to Michael Straight (early 1956)
"The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostatized' – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a traitor, not honoured."

Letter 191 to Miss J. Burn (26 July 1956)
"If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved – by Mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury."
"No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us."

Letter 192 to Amy Ronald (27 July 1956)
"By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem even to have observed it. But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event. And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere 'fairy-story' ending in which the hero is indomitable? It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome – in themselves. 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."
"Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. 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'* (as one critic has said).
*Actually referred to as 'the One' in App. A III p. 317 1. 20. The Númenóreans (and Elves) were absolute monotheists."

Comment by Fatty_Bolger - June 28, 2002 @ 1:54 PM
Unless you think Tolkien didn't really know what he wrote :D
Letter 181 to Michael Straight (early 1956)
"The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostatized' – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a traitor, not honoured."

Letter 191 to Miss J. Burn (26 July 1956)
"If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved – by Mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury."
"No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us."

Letter 192 to Amy Ronald (27 July 1956)
"By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem even to have observed it. But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event. And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere 'fairy-story' ending in which the hero is indomitable? It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome – in themselves. 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."
"Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. 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'* (as one critic has said).
*Actually referred to as 'the One' in App. A III p. 317 1. 20. The Númenóreans (and Elves) were absolute monotheists."

Comment by Fatty_Bolger - June 28, 2002 @ 1:54 PM
I don't think I *got* the pure heroism of Sam upon first reading (back in my teens). Now it's so obvious.
The true end-game heroism of Frodo is much less obvious, and, I think, requires a re-reading or two in order to grasp fully. M-E had a hard time reading the chapters where Frodo & Sam stumbled through Mordor, a hard time appreciating the difficulty (or maybe just couldn't articulate his response to the horror of that part of the journey.)
M-E isn't going to be happy with Frodo's role (lack of active role), in the Scouring of the Shire, either. But maybe Frodo's gentle remonstrances to his hobbit buddies will awaken M-E's understanding of the changes of Frodo and his internal fortitude.
A thoughtful reader like M-E may enjoy the chapter-by-chapter discussions preserved in the Green Books, after this task is finished.

Comment by SonOfSaradoc - June 28, 2002 @ 1:59 PM
I don't think I *got* the pure heroism of Sam upon first reading (back in my teens). Now it's so obvious.
The true end-game heroism of Frodo is much less obvious, and, I think, requires a re-reading or two in order to grasp fully. M-E had a hard time reading the chapters where Frodo & Sam stumbled through Mordor, a hard time appreciating the difficulty (or maybe just couldn't articulate his response to the horror of that part of the journey.)
M-E isn't going to be happy with Frodo's role (lack of active role), in the Scouring of the Shire, either. But maybe Frodo's gentle remonstrances to his hobbit buddies will awaken M-E's understanding of the changes of Frodo and his internal fortitude.
A thoughtful reader like M-E may enjoy the chapter-by-chapter discussions preserved in the Green Books, after this task is finished.

Comment by SonOfSaradoc - June 28, 2002 @ 1:59 PM
Only a hobbit, be it Frodo or somebody else, could have carried the ring as far as they did. The ring tempts the bearer with power. The reason the hobbits -esp Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo - could bear the ring is that hobbits don't want power. They want their holes in the ground and their gardens and their pipeweed.
Even so, Sam was severly tempted during his brief stint as ringbearer. What must Frodo have gone through by carrying the ring on a daily basis? To endure through such temptation on a daily basis is what makes Frodo a bigger hero than Sam. However, neither could have made it alone.

Comment by Belegund - June 28, 2002 @ 2:29 PM
Only a hobbit, be it Frodo or somebody else, could have carried the ring as far as they did. The ring tempts the bearer with power. The reason the hobbits -esp Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo - could bear the ring is that hobbits don't want power. They want their holes in the ground and their gardens and their pipeweed.
Even so, Sam was severly tempted during his brief stint as ringbearer. What must Frodo have gone through by carrying the ring on a daily basis? To endure through such temptation on a daily basis is what makes Frodo a bigger hero than Sam. However, neither could have made it alone.

Comment by Belegund - June 28, 2002 @ 2:29 PM
Only that I agree whole-heartedly with Marea's comment...

Comment by Frodo14 - June 28, 2002 @ 3:09 PM
Only that I agree whole-heartedly with Marea's comment...

Comment by Frodo14 - June 28, 2002 @ 3:09 PM
... are well worth it. LOTR would be a far lesser book without them. Whatever you may imagine they contain -- yes, but also things you could never envision. :D Happy reading!
-Kushana

Comment by Kushana - June 28, 2002 @ 3:43 PM
... are well worth it. LOTR would be a far lesser book without them. Whatever you may imagine they contain -- yes, but also things you could never envision. :D Happy reading!
-Kushana

Comment by Kushana - June 28, 2002 @ 3:43 PM
I was pleasantly surprised to see another chapter up so soon, and a return to more analysis after the roller-coaster ride of the last three chapters. There was a lot to think about in this article. I want to thank Fatty Bolger for posting the Tolkien quotes; I'm only partway through the Letters, and hadn't run across all of them yet. Mark-Edmond was right that Frodo failed, even though the mercy he showed earlier allowed the Quest to succeed. This wasn't chance, Tolkien set him up with an impossible job. It is also interesting, going through the Letters, to run across alternative ways the Quest could have succeeded or failed. None of them involved Frodo succeeding on his own. I agree with Son of Saradoc that Mark-Edmond picked up a lot more on his first trip through this chapter than I did. With Shular, I still tend to give Frodo credit for doing all that he could do, though he was broken in the doing. And, with Shular, I'm interested to find out if this series will include the Appendices, which flesh out the story so much.
I know you have finished the book, Mark-Edmond, but somebody else reading this may not have, so I will be careful how I say this: Tolkien doesn't stop with the moment of triumph, he also shows consequences of the triumph. There's lots of good stuff to fill five more chapters.

Comment by RunawayRose - June 28, 2002 @ 4:12 PM
I was pleasantly surprised to see another chapter up so soon, and a return to more analysis after the roller-coaster ride of the last three chapters. There was a lot to think about in this article. I want to thank Fatty Bolger for posting the Tolkien quotes; I'm only partway through the Letters, and hadn't run across all of them yet. Mark-Edmond was right that Frodo failed, even though the mercy he showed earlier allowed the Quest to succeed. This wasn't chance, Tolkien set him up with an impossible job. It is also interesting, going through the Letters, to run across alternative ways the Quest could have succeeded or failed. None of them involved Frodo succeeding on his own. I agree with Son of Saradoc that Mark-Edmond picked up a lot more on his first trip through this chapter than I did. With Shular, I still tend to give Frodo credit for doing all that he could do, though he was broken in the doing. And, with Shular, I'm interested to find out if this series will include the Appendices, which flesh out the story so much.
I know you have finished the book, Mark-Edmond, but somebody else reading this may not have, so I will be careful how I say this: Tolkien doesn't stop with the moment of triumph, he also shows consequences of the triumph. There's lots of good stuff to fill five more chapters.

Comment by RunawayRose - June 28, 2002 @ 4:12 PM
Only a hobbit, be it Frodo or somebody else, could have carried the ring as far as they did. The ring tempts the bearer with power. The reason the hobbits -esp Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo - could bear the ring is that hobbits don't want power. They want their holes in the ground and their gardens and their pipeweed.
Even so, Sam was severly tempted during his brief stint as ringbearer. What must Frodo have gone through by carrying the ring on a daily basis? To endure through such temptation on a daily basis is what makes Frodo a bigger hero than Sam. However, neither could have made it alone.

Comment by Belegund - June 28, 2002 @ 4:59 PM
Only a hobbit, be it Frodo or somebody else, could have carried the ring as far as they did. The ring tempts the bearer with power. The reason the hobbits -esp Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo - could bear the ring is that hobbits don't want power. They want their holes in the ground and their gardens and their pipeweed.
Even so, Sam was severly tempted during his brief stint as ringbearer. What must Frodo have gone through by carrying the ring on a daily basis? To endure through such temptation on a daily basis is what makes Frodo a bigger hero than Sam. However, neither could have made it alone.

Comment by Belegund - June 28, 2002 @ 4:59 PM
...that's only because *no one* could have succeeded. One of the things that makes LOTR so satisfying, IMO, is that the quest itself was, in fact, impossible to fulfill. No one, not Frodo, nor Sam, nor Aragorn, nor Gandalf could ultimately have stood on the brink of the Crack of Doom and renounced the Ring -- *but* the wonderful touch in the whole matter is that the same power of the Ring over Gollum is exactly what leads to its destruction. A very deftly executed and well-thought-out plot device by Professor Tolkien.

Comment by Durin's Bane - June 28, 2002 @ 6:34 PM
...that's only because *no one* could have succeeded. One of the things that makes LOTR so satisfying, IMO, is that the quest itself was, in fact, impossible to fulfill. No one, not Frodo, nor Sam, nor Aragorn, nor Gandalf could ultimately have stood on the brink of the Crack of Doom and renounced the Ring -- *but* the wonderful touch in the whole matter is that the same power of the Ring over Gollum is exactly what leads to its destruction. A very deftly executed and well-thought-out plot device by Professor Tolkien.

Comment by Durin's Bane - June 28, 2002 @ 6:34 PM
In response to your analysis:
"The Ring is a cruel mistress, even to Sauron. The unfaithful *** hops on and off all of these fingers, but not one of them brought it back to him. The Ring has some control over its destiny and events seem to indicate that it was evading its master. (Am I completely off base for this interpretation of the Ring's relation to Sauron? It did not seem to want to be returned to him.)"
AFAICT, the Ring does want to return to Sauron (think of the numerous times it compels or tries to compel Frodo to put it on to give himself away) , but also recall that Gandalf tells Frodo in "The Shadow of the Past" that "Bilbo was *meant* to find the Ring, and *not* by its maker", and that in that sense, Frodo was also "meant" to have it.
While Iluvatar does not normally directly intervene in the affairs of Arda (Númenor being a rare exception, and only then at the Valar's direct request), ultimately He is the power (if not acting directly, then through the Valar and their agents (Gandalf and the remaining Noldorin exiles, et al) that "meant" Bilbo and Frodo to have the Ring that Gandalf is alluding to here. (Of course, ultimately, the whole saga of the Ring was laid out in the Music of the Ainur, but that's a different topic...)

Comment by Durin's Bane - June 28, 2002 @ 7:04 PM
In response to your analysis:
"The Ring is a cruel mistress, even to Sauron. The unfaithful *** hops on and off all of these fingers, but not one of them brought it back to him. The Ring has some control over its destiny and events seem to indicate that it was evading its master. (Am I completely off base for this interpretation of the Ring's relation to Sauron? It did not seem to want to be returned to him.)"
AFAICT, the Ring does want to return to Sauron (think of the numerous times it compels or tries to compel Frodo to put it on to give himself away) , but also recall that Gandalf tells Frodo in "The Shadow of the Past" that "Bilbo was *meant* to find the Ring, and *not* by its maker", and that in that sense, Frodo was also "meant" to have it.
While Iluvatar does not normally directly intervene in the affairs of Arda (Númenor being a rare exception, and only then at the Valar's direct request), ultimately He is the power (if not acting directly, then through the Valar and their agents (Gandalf and the remaining Noldorin exiles, et al) that "meant" Bilbo and Frodo to have the Ring that Gandalf is alluding to here. (Of course, ultimately, the whole saga of the Ring was laid out in the Music of the Ainur, but that's a different topic...)

Comment by Durin's Bane - June 28, 2002 @ 7:04 PM
I don't think the grand vision of gardens was the only time Sam was tempted; he later offers to share the ring with Frodo in Cirith Ungol. Is that not one of the biggest risks of the ring; the desire to take it in order to do good (in this case, to relieve Frodo of its burden for a while)?
There is an entire thread on the temptation of Sam, for those interested.

Comment by Leshii - June 28, 2002 @ 7:32 PM
I don't think the grand vision of gardens was the only time Sam was tempted; he later offers to share the ring with Frodo in Cirith Ungol. Is that not one of the biggest risks of the ring; the desire to take it in order to do good (in this case, to relieve Frodo of its burden for a while)?
There is an entire thread on the temptation of Sam, for those interested.

Comment by Leshii - June 28, 2002 @ 7:32 PM
The evil is never entirely destroyed. That fact is shown throughout the story. After Mogroth there is Sauron. After Sauron is defeated, but not killed, Isildur takes the ring. Isildur is slain by evil orcs. Then Smeogel finds the rings and kills his cousin. Years pass. Sauron come back in Dol Guldur. Saurman becomes evil but is defeated. Then the forces defeat the Witch King and Minis Tirith. So all the major evil is defeated except for Sauron, the remaining Nazgul and Gollum. But Frodo takes the ring as his own. But Gollum takes it and falls into the Cracks of Doom. Sauron dies, the Nazgul die, adn Gollum dies. But then there is Frodo. The ring is taken from him aginst his will, the very thing that Gandalf says would make a person go mad like Gollum. Frodos finger is bitten off and all is well. But look at what has happened. Who does Frodo now resemble. The ring was taken from him. Against his will. The creature that took the ring is killed. And Frodo loses a finger in the process. Frodo at this point in time starts to resemble Sauron. Gandalf says in the books that even Sauron himself was once good at one time. So even as a great evil is destroyed. Another small evil is being created. But Frodo is redeemed, and leaves middle earth before any evil can be done. I beleive that in the end all great stories, espically this one are about redemption. So dont judge Frodo to hard. For evil never dies.

Comment by Balin_Lord_of_Moria - June 28, 2002 @ 9:40 PM
The evil is never entirely destroyed. That fact is shown throughout the story. After Mogroth there is Sauron. After Sauron is defeated, but not killed, Isildur takes the ring. Isildur is slain by evil orcs. Then Smeogel finds the rings and kills his cousin. Years pass. Sauron come back in Dol Guldur. Saurman becomes evil but is defeated. Then the forces defeat the Witch King and Minis Tirith. So all the major evil is defeated except for Sauron, the remaining Nazgul and Gollum. But Frodo takes the ring as his own. But Gollum takes it and falls into the Cracks of Doom. Sauron dies, the Nazgul die, adn Gollum dies. But then there is Frodo. The ring is taken from him aginst his will, the very thing that Gandalf says would make a person go mad like Gollum. Frodos finger is bitten off and all is well. But look at what has happened. Who does Frodo now resemble. The ring was taken from him. Against his will. The creature that took the ring is killed. And Frodo loses a finger in the process. Frodo at this point in time starts to resemble Sauron. Gandalf says in the books that even Sauron himself was once good at one time. So even as a great evil is destroyed. Another small evil is being created. But Frodo is redeemed, and leaves middle earth before any evil can be done. I beleive that in the end all great stories, espically this one are about redemption. So dont judge Frodo to hard. For evil never dies.

Comment by Balin_Lord_of_Moria - June 28, 2002 @ 9:40 PM
first of all, this is not a Terminator movie. It's not a tidy ending for anyone's pleasure. I think, perhaps, the writer needs to get a good dose of The Silmarillion. Maybe 5 years worth. Frodo was part of a VERY large story and karma that had gone on for years...actually millennia....and for him to "lose it" at the end, is not an issue. The issue that is important is that the overall mission was accomplished. AND Gandalf, the mover of this event, KNEW that Gollum would be involved. And Frodo's integrity and compassion (read that again) is the very thing that allowed Gollum to survive in order to help at the end. This One Ring was not something one being could deal with. It took an effort that crossed many kindreds.
Bill Janis

Comment by Glamdringolorian - June 28, 2002 @ 11:26 PM
first of all, this is not a Terminator movie. It's not a tidy ending for anyone's pleasure. I think, perhaps, the writer needs to get a good dose of The Silmarillion. Maybe 5 years worth. Frodo was part of a VERY large story and karma that had gone on for years...actually millennia....and for him to "lose it" at the end, is not an issue. The issue that is important is that the overall mission was accomplished. AND Gandalf, the mover of this event, KNEW that Gollum would be involved. And Frodo's integrity and compassion (read that again) is the very thing that allowed Gollum to survive in order to help at the end. This One Ring was not something one being could deal with. It took an effort that crossed many kindreds.
Bill Janis

Comment by Glamdringolorian - June 28, 2002 @ 11:26 PM
...given to Gwaihir the Eagle so he could drop it into Mt. Doom on a casual fly-over? Would've saved Frodo all that doom and gloom.

Comment by Hacksaw16 - June 28, 2002 @ 11:33 PM
...given to Gwaihir the Eagle so he could drop it into Mt. Doom on a casual fly-over? Would've saved Frodo all that doom and gloom.

Comment by Hacksaw16 - June 28, 2002 @ 11:33 PM
First in answer to the_wandering_god's question. The armies of Gondor and it's allies would be on the scale of middle army smaller than even the European army of the First Cursade. The size of the army of Mordor would be about the same size as a modern day army. One thing to be noted is that I believe it is mentioned that the army that Strider takes to the black gate would not even be considered a vanguard of an army at the height of Gondor. This follows with the history of Rome. At Rome's height it's armies were about the same size as a mordern day army; but by the fall of the Western Roman empire it was not able to muster an army comparable to that of it's glory.
Enough of the History lesson, well I was going to say something good, but everyone elxe has stolen my fire. If I come up with something new I will post it.

Comment by Dethsever - June 29, 2002 @ 12:23 AM
First in answer to the_wandering_god's question. The armies of Gondor and it's allies would be on the scale of middle army smaller than even the European army of the First Cursade. The size of the army of Mordor would be about the same size as a modern day army. One thing to be noted is that I believe it is mentioned that the army that Strider takes to the black gate would not even be considered a vanguard of an army at the height of Gondor. This follows with the history of Rome. At Rome's height it's armies were about the same size as a mordern day army; but by the fall of the Western Roman empire it was not able to muster an army comparable to that of it's glory.
Enough of the History lesson, well I was going to say something good, but everyone elxe has stolen my fire. If I come up with something new I will post it.

Comment by Dethsever - June 29, 2002 @ 12:23 AM
Heh, Hacksaw, interesting question. I'm re-reading LotR again and I just got past the point in the book when Frodo, Sam, and Gollum have snuck past Minas Morgul. Well, Sauron's signal to the army to "move out" from the fortress was lightning flashing from the sky, and Minas Morgul responded with lightning going from the tower to the clouds above. No, I think Gwaiher would have ended up as so much KFC had he tried to fly across the borders of Mordor.

Comment by Shular - June 29, 2002 @ 6:43 AM
Heh, Hacksaw, interesting question. I'm re-reading LotR again and I just got past the point in the book when Frodo, Sam, and Gollum have snuck past Minas Morgul. Well, Sauron's signal to the army to "move out" from the fortress was lightning flashing from the sky, and Minas Morgul responded with lightning going from the tower to the clouds above. No, I think Gwaiher would have ended up as so much KFC had he tried to fly across the borders of Mordor.

Comment by Shular - June 29, 2002 @ 6:43 AM
"The only thing Frodo did was carry the ring."
Arrgh. What a very thoughtless statement.
"He was unable to resist the lust of the Ring--he bore it to the end only to give in and claim it for his own."
I very much think that everyone in Middle Earth, with the dubious exception of Tom Bombadil, will not be able to resist the ring at Mt Doom too.
You have greatly underestimated the power of the ring.

Comment by Deminymph - June 29, 2002 @ 6:51 AM
"The only thing Frodo did was carry the ring."
Arrgh. What a very thoughtless statement.
"He was unable to resist the lust of the Ring--he bore it to the end only to give in and claim it for his own."
I very much think that everyone in Middle Earth, with the dubious exception of Tom Bombadil, will not be able to resist the ring at Mt Doom too.
You have greatly underestimated the power of the ring.

Comment by Deminymph - June 29, 2002 @ 6:51 AM
JRRT considered having Gollum take the Ring from a Ring-possessed Frodo as a sign of his genuine moral reform for then he would have voluntarily cast himself into the Forge of Sauron. However, I think that he retreated from this idea, in part, because as a devout RC, he would have found noble, sacrificial suicide to be, at the very least, morally ambiguous.

Comment by Almacundo/*Auirandos - June 29, 2002 @ 9:32 AM
JRRT considered having Gollum take the Ring from a Ring-possessed Frodo as a sign of his genuine moral reform for then he would have voluntarily cast himself into the Forge of Sauron. However, I think that he retreated from this idea, in part, because as a devout RC, he would have found noble, sacrificial suicide to be, at the very least, morally ambiguous.

Comment by Almacundo/*Auirandos - June 29, 2002 @ 9:32 AM
There have been many excellent comments regarding the heroism of Sam and whether or not Frodo was a failure. I just want to bring up two quotes from the last chapter that struck me following my second reading of the trilogy (I admit I didn't catch them the first time).
Frodo to Gollum: "Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."
Since Gollum did indeed fall into the Fire, was this a) simple foreshadowing on Tolkien's part; b) A "prayer" to Eru/the Valar that was answered; c) A command by Frodo, as the Ringbearer, that caused Gollum, as a slave to the Ring, to fall in the Fire by design rather than accident. The Tolkien Letters seem to lean toward "b", however, I think "c" is also a possibility.
The second quote regarding Sam: "He knew all the arguments of despair and would not listen to them. His will was set, and only death would break it."
As was earlier stated, Sam was the human hero: dogged, determined and undefeated. Frodo was the divine hero: forgiving, self-sacrificing, and wise. Only they as a team could have achieved the quest. So Frodo was not a failure, only weak, as are all of us lost "in the mists of Arda Marred." As for the another way to destroy the Ring, yes, Sauron would have spotted Gwaihir in a second. Plus, the unbearable weight of the Ring probably would have brought him to ground soon after he crossed the borders of Mordor.
As for this chapter, no one's commented on Pippin. Was I the only one who as ecstatic to learn that he was saved from a crushing death under the troll?
Thanks for the quick post, Mark. While I don't always agree with you, I'm glad you've inspired this forum.

Comment by Aikanar - June 29, 2002 @ 10:21 AM
There have been many excellent comments regarding the heroism of Sam and whether or not Frodo was a failure. I just want to bring up two quotes from the last chapter that struck me following my second reading of the trilogy (I admit I didn't catch them the first time).
Frodo to Gollum: "Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."
Since Gollum did indeed fall into the Fire, was this a) simple foreshadowing on Tolkien's part; b) A "prayer" to Eru/the Valar that was answered; c) A command by Frodo, as the Ringbearer, that caused Gollum, as a slave to the Ring, to fall in the Fire by design rather than accident. The Tolkien Letters seem to lean toward "b", however, I think "c" is also a possibility.
The second quote regarding Sam: "He knew all the arguments of despair and would not listen to them. His will was set, and only death would break it."
As was earlier stated, Sam was the human hero: dogged, determined and undefeated. Frodo was the divine hero: forgiving, self-sacrificing, and wise. Only they as a team could have achieved the quest. So Frodo was not a failure, only weak, as are all of us lost "in the mists of Arda Marred." As for the another way to destroy the Ring, yes, Sauron would have spotted Gwaihir in a second. Plus, the unbearable weight of the Ring probably would have brought him to ground soon after he crossed the borders of Mordor.
As for this chapter, no one's commented on Pippin. Was I the only one who as ecstatic to learn that he was saved from a crushing death under the troll?
Thanks for the quick post, Mark. While I don't always agree with you, I'm glad you've inspired this forum.

Comment by Aikanar - June 29, 2002 @ 10:21 AM
very good comments to this article. Thank you all, I learned a lot. Just one thought which I had already at the first reading:
Why did Frodo fight so weakly against Gollum at the fires of mount doom? The ring gives power according to the bearers potential. Well considering Frodo?s potential and wielding the ring he should have beeen able to destroy that miserable, starved, exausted Gollum creature with a laughter.
Instead Sam witnesses a fight and and an unthinkable victory of Gollum!
For me that meant that Frodo was not fighting. He wanted the ring to be taken by Gollum. It was the ring itself who was fighting - using Frodo?s body and spirit of course but being resisted by all force that was left - yes finally overcome - but still left in Frodo?s mind. Only with the help of that internal struggle of his far, far superior opponent was Gollum able to win that fight and end do his part in the destruction of the ring.

Comment by ehn - June 29, 2002 @ 11:55 AM
very good comments to this article. Thank you all, I learned a lot. Just one thought which I had already at the first reading:
Why did Frodo fight so weakly against Gollum at the fires of mount doom? The ring gives power according to the bearers potential. Well considering Frodo?s potential and wielding the ring he should have beeen able to destroy that miserable, starved, exausted Gollum creature with a laughter.
Instead Sam witnesses a fight and and an unthinkable victory of Gollum!
For me that meant that Frodo was not fighting. He wanted the ring to be taken by Gollum. It was the ring itself who was fighting - using Frodo?s body and spirit of course but being resisted by all force that was left - yes finally overcome - but still left in Frodo?s mind. Only with the help of that internal struggle of his far, far superior opponent was Gollum able to win that fight and end do his part in the destruction of the ring.

Comment by ehn - June 29, 2002 @ 11:55 AM
After all, you guys have pretty much said it all, right? But I did enjoy Fatty_Bolger's quoting of the letters, going straight to the source and all. Have I already said that these articles should be published? This one was great though, you guys can't imagine my relief in knowing ME is not as antagonistic towards the story as he was a couple of articles ago!

Comment by Harpist_of_Rohan - June 29, 2002 @ 1:14 PM
After all, you guys have pretty much said it all, right? But I did enjoy Fatty_Bolger's quoting of the letters, going straight to the source and all. Have I already said that these articles should be published? This one was great though, you guys can't imagine my relief in knowing ME is not as antagonistic towards the story as he was a couple of articles ago!

Comment by Harpist_of_Rohan - June 29, 2002 @ 1:14 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you Marea. There is a certain scene later in the book that comes to mind. I won't spoil it for those who haven't read it, but it involves Pippin.
From the much quoted Letter 246:
Nonetheless, I think it can be observed in history and experience that some individuals seem to be placed in 'sacrificial' positions: situations or tasks that for perfection of solution demand powers beyond their utmost limits, even beyond all possible limits for an incarnate creature in a physical world – in which a body may be destroyed, or so maimed that it affects the mind and will. Judgement upon any such case should then depend on the motives and disposition with which he started out, and should weigh his actions against the utmost possibility of his powers, all along the road to whatever proved the breaking-point.
Frodo undertook his quest out of love – to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been – say, by being strangled by Gollum, or crushed by a falling rock.

Sam was very affected by the Ring. He starts having delusions of Samwise the Strong after he had the Ring for a few minutes. That's why after only a few hours he didn't want to give it back to Frodo and even after he did the memory of it gnawed at him so much that he finally asks to have it back even though he knew it would only do more harm. Sam would have claimed the Ring long before Mt. Doom. Sam is certainly a great hero in the story, and the quest could not have been achieved without him. But Frodo was by far the better Ringbearer. Sam had a different part to play, and he played it perfectly.
Frodo had the thing for 17 years and bore it closer and closer to the place where it was forged, as it grew stronger and stronger.
Another thought. Sam would have killed Gollum if Frodo had let him. THAT would have cause the quest to fail. Sauron could not be overthrown by strength of arms, be it Sam's Barrow sword or the army of Gondor led by Elendil's heir wielding Anduril. It was Frodo's mercy, moving in the opposite spirit of the enemy, that allowed the quest to succeed. Frodo answered malice with mercy, and Middle Earth was saved because of it.

Comment by Rosie_the_hobbit - June 29, 2002 @ 7:30 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you Marea. There is a certain scene later in the book that comes to mind. I won't spoil it for those who haven't read it, but it involves Pippin.
From the much quoted Letter 246:
Nonetheless, I think it can be observed in history and experience that some individuals seem to be placed in 'sacrificial' positions: situations or tasks that for perfection of solution demand powers beyond their utmost limits, even beyond all possible limits for an incarnate creature in a physical world – in which a body may be destroyed, or so maimed that it affects the mind and will. Judgement upon any such case should then depend on the motives and disposition with which he started out, and should weigh his actions against the utmost possibility of his powers, all along the road to whatever proved the breaking-point.
Frodo undertook his quest out of love – to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the breaking of his body would have been – say, by being strangled by Gollum, or crushed by a falling rock.

Sam was very affected by the Ring. He starts having delusions of Samwise the Strong after he had the Ring for a few minutes. That's why after only a few hours he didn't want to give it back to Frodo and even after he did the memory of it gnawed at him so much that he finally asks to have it back even though he knew it would only do more harm. Sam would have claimed the Ring long before Mt. Doom. Sam is certainly a great hero in the story, and the quest could not have been achieved without him. But Frodo was by far the better Ringbearer. Sam had a different part to play, and he played it perfectly.
Frodo had the thing for 17 years and bore it closer and closer to the place where it was forged, as it grew stronger and stronger.
Another thought. Sam would have killed Gollum if Frodo had let him. THAT would have cause the quest to fail. Sauron could not be overthrown by strength of arms, be it Sam's Barrow sword or the army of Gondor led by Elendil's heir wielding Anduril. It was Frodo's mercy, moving in the opposite spirit of the enemy, that allowed the quest to succeed. Frodo answered malice with mercy, and Middle Earth was saved because of it.

Comment by Rosie_the_hobbit - June 29, 2002 @ 7:30 PM
Alright. i read this article thing and i just HAD to answer.
LISTEN.
There are different kinds of heros. And in this story.. there were a number of heros.
anyway. I think Frodo's more of a hero than you think. HES THE RING BEARER. wouldn't it be JUST A LITTLE bit odd when bilbo passes the ring on to sam or something? Imagine this.. ur OWN relative saying.. "hey frodo.. hand this ring to sam on ur way out okay?" it just makes sense even more having him from the start. That way it seems more.. sensible. And besides.. sam wouldn't be a good ring bearer. Sure hes strong.. when he needs to be. He'll be like tom.. if he gets the ring.. he'll probably end up forgetting about it. (IF he resists the lust for it.) but also.. if you think about it, he's not that strong anyway. He only becomes strong FOR frodo.
but anyway.. i get what you mean by saying they should give sam more credit. BUt sam IS modest. He wants the best for his friends. If they made a book in the shire.. then sam would want frodo's name in big bright golden letters!!
FURTHERMORE.. NO ONE in the whole story could've done the quest alone. They rely on each other. Sam relys on frodo, frodo on sam. Without frodo, sam will just give up. He'll go back home and go gardening or something. Without sam, Frodo probably wouldn't even BE at mordor. Without the rest of the dudes of the fellowship.. who KNOWS where they'd be! They could all be dead in the mines by now!!

Comment by weirdone - June 29, 2002 @ 8:44 PM
Alright. i read this article thing and i just HAD to answer.
LISTEN.
There are different kinds of heros. And in this story.. there were a number of heros.
anyway. I think Frodo's more of a hero than you think. HES THE RING BEARER. wouldn't it be JUST A LITTLE bit odd when bilbo passes the ring on to sam or something? Imagine this.. ur OWN relative saying.. "hey frodo.. hand this ring to sam on ur way out okay?" it just makes sense even more having him from the start. That way it seems more.. sensible. And besides.. sam wouldn't be a good ring bearer. Sure hes strong.. when he needs to be. He'll be like tom.. if he gets the ring.. he'll probably end up forgetting about it. (IF he resists the lust for it.) but also.. if you think about it, he's not that strong anyway. He only becomes strong FOR frodo.
but anyway.. i get what you mean by saying they should give sam more credit. BUt sam IS modest. He wants the best for his friends. If they made a book in the shire.. then sam would want frodo's name in big bright golden letters!!
FURTHERMORE.. NO ONE in the whole story could've done the quest alone. They rely on each other. Sam relys on frodo, frodo on sam. Without frodo, sam will just give up. He'll go back home and go gardening or something. Without sam, Frodo probably wouldn't even BE at mordor. Without the rest of the dudes of the fellowship.. who KNOWS where they'd be! They could all be dead in the mines by now!!

Comment by weirdone - June 29, 2002 @ 8:44 PM
Something tells me...

...no.

Frodo was a hero of a calibre which most others could never match up to.

Comment by Anarfin - June 30, 2002 @ 1:15 AM
Something tells me...

...no.

Frodo was a hero of a calibre which most others could never match up to.

Comment by Anarfin - June 30, 2002 @ 1:15 AM
I just finished reading LOTR for the second time, and for the last 4 books I have enjoyed reading M-E's comments on the way. It has occured to me that his comments in many ways are same as many of my thoughts during/after reading it the first time - as a Tolkien virgin.
However, I read it differently when I now read it the second time. I also saw things differently the first time, when I had finished reading and got some distance to the whole story.
And I remember having exactly the same thoughts about Frodo and Sam as M-E describes in his comments. When the Ring was finally destroyed I was disappointed with Frodo, and I thought Sam was the true hero. However, I soon realised the depth in the task Frodo had, compared to the task Sam had.

Comment by Calenadan - June 30, 2002 @ 3:41 AM
I just finished reading LOTR for the second time, and for the last 4 books I have enjoyed reading M-E's comments on the way. It has occured to me that his comments in many ways are same as many of my thoughts during/after reading it the first time - as a Tolkien virgin.
However, I read it differently when I now read it the second time. I also saw things differently the first time, when I had finished reading and got some distance to the whole story.
And I remember having exactly the same thoughts about Frodo and Sam as M-E describes in his comments. When the Ring was finally destroyed I was disappointed with Frodo, and I thought Sam was the true hero. However, I soon realised the depth in the task Frodo had, compared to the task Sam had.

Comment by Calenadan - June 30, 2002 @ 3:41 AM
Frodo did not suceed in physically throwing the Ring into the fire but his actions earlier in the book are responsible for the Ring being destroyed.
When Frodo and Sam were on the verge of killing Gollum after they captured him; Frodo remembered Gandalf's words and pitying Gollum he spared his life when reason (and Sam ) told him otherwise.
So ultimately Frodo DID destroy the Ring.

Comment by steerpike - June 30, 2002 @ 6:14 PM
Frodo did not suceed in physically throwing the Ring into the fire but his actions earlier in the book are responsible for the Ring being destroyed.
When Frodo and Sam were on the verge of killing Gollum after they captured him; Frodo remembered Gandalf's words and pitying Gollum he spared his life when reason (and Sam ) told him otherwise.
So ultimately Frodo DID destroy the Ring.

Comment by steerpike - June 30, 2002 @ 6:14 PM
That Frodo "failed" is not an ingracious sacrilege, to be discounted forever from acknowledgement by fans. Although the Hobbit endured much in his travels, bearing a ring so awesome that not even Gandalf would seek its temptation, he did on some level fail. Indeed, it is true that without both Sam and Gollum, he would have become the next Ilsidur: lacking Sam, Frodo might have given into temptation along the way, or in many cases failed in different places; without Gollum, having sacrificed so much to reach Mount Doom, he would have only slipped on the Ring at the last moment and ensured Sauron's victory.
But isn't that what fleshes Frodo out as a character? The power not to overcome temptation, even though good prevails at the end, is a very human foible which makes the entire cast so much more interesting. Tolkien knew this as a writer. Imagine, then, if Frodo was able to overcome everything he had faced at the end by a single stroke of willpower, thus making the slip past the Dark Lord and his forces appear much easier than Tolkien previously articulated--thus making a much less-than-intriguing tale of final, absolute, uncontested victory by good.
However, Frodo's failure to overcome the power of the Ring also serves as a mirror for the readers. It serves as a reflection into the reality of life and how we all fail at some point or another, especially at crucial events. To have had those tiny companions absolutely prevail at the end would be a complete and utter denial of reality, emboldening the name "fantasy" when the genre has the potential to be so much better than on-the-surface fighting. Therefore, through Frodo's one slip at the end we see a lesson hard to learn: that we are not bullet-proof to temptation, in general evil, especially when the moment is counting heavily upon our actions. It absolves from the hands of Tolkien's intricate fantasy the name "Fantasy," as well as the cliched ending, "happily ever after." For as Frodo the Hobbit failed at the end, giving into temptation, though the 3rd Age was finished by victory over evil, it speaks to our age, how crippling temptation really is (for example, look at big corporate executives fleeing their failing companies in pursuit of big bucks, which serve at their own One Ring of Power, utterly destroying the organization and sending many out looking for jobs). In short, it drives away the fairy tale ending of "happily ever after" and really bases Tolkien's magnificent tale in reality in many ways.
Frodo both failed and won. So he is both a teacher and a hero. Could anyone want more of him?

Comment by Magus_Man - June 30, 2002 @ 6:15 PM
That Frodo "failed" is not an ingracious sacrilege, to be discounted forever from acknowledgement by fans. Although the Hobbit endured much in his travels, bearing a ring so awesome that not even Gandalf would seek its temptation, he did on some level fail. Indeed, it is true that without both Sam and Gollum, he would have become the next Ilsidur: lacking Sam, Frodo might have given into temptation along the way, or in many cases failed in different places; without Gollum, having sacrificed so much to reach Mount Doom, he would have only slipped on the Ring at the last moment and ensured Sauron's victory.
But isn't that what fleshes Frodo out as a character? The power not to overcome temptation, even though good prevails at the end, is a very human foible which makes the entire cast so much more interesting. Tolkien knew this as a writer. Imagine, then, if Frodo was able to overcome everything he had faced at the end by a single stroke of willpower, thus making the slip past the Dark Lord and his forces appear much easier than Tolkien previously articulated--thus making a much less-than-intriguing tale of final, absolute, uncontested victory by good.
However, Frodo's failure to overcome the power of the Ring also serves as a mirror for the readers. It serves as a reflection into the reality of life and how we all fail at some point or another, especially at crucial events. To have had those tiny companions absolutely prevail at the end would be a complete and utter denial of reality, emboldening the name "fantasy" when the genre has the potential to be so much better than on-the-surface fighting. Therefore, through Frodo's one slip at the end we see a lesson hard to learn: that we are not bullet-proof to temptation, in general evil, especially when the moment is counting heavily upon our actions. It absolves from the hands of Tolkien's intricate fantasy the name "Fantasy," as well as the cliched ending, "happily ever after." For as Frodo the Hobbit failed at the end, giving into temptation, though the 3rd Age was finished by victory over evil, it speaks to our age, how crippling temptation really is (for example, look at big corporate executives fleeing their failing companies in pursuit of big bucks, which serve at their own One Ring of Power, utterly destroying the organization and sending many out looking for jobs). In short, it drives away the fairy tale ending of "happily ever after" and really bases Tolkien's magnificent tale in reality in many ways.
Frodo both failed and won. So he is both a teacher and a hero. Could anyone want more of him?

Comment by Magus_Man - June 30, 2002 @ 6:15 PM
That Frodo "failed" is not an ingracious sacrilege, to be discounted forever from acknowledgement by fans. Although the Hobbit endured much in his travels, bearing a ring so awesome that not even Gandalf would seek its temptation, he did on some level fail. Indeed, it is true that without both Sam and Gollum, he would have become the next Ilsidur: lacking Sam, Frodo might have given into temptation along the way, or in many cases failed in different places; without Gollum, having sacrificed so much to reach Mount Doom, he would have only slipped on the Ring at the last moment and ensured Sauron's victory.
But isn't that what fleshes Frodo out as a character? The power not to overcome temptation, even though good prevails at the end, is a very human foible which makes the entire cast so much more interesting. Tolkien knew this as a writer. Imagine, then, if Frodo was able to overcome everything he had faced at the end by a single stroke of willpower, thus making the slip past the Dark Lord and his forces appear much easier than Tolkien previously articulated--thus making a much less-than-intriguing tale of final, absolute, uncontested victory by good.
However, Frodo's failure to overcome the power of the Ring also serves as a mirror for the readers. It serves as a reflection into the reality of life and how we all fail at some point or another, especially at crucial events. To have had those tiny companions absolutely prevail at the end would be a complete and utter denial of reality, emboldening the name "fantasy" when the genre has the potential to be so much better than on-the-surface fighting. Therefore, through Frodo's one slip at the end we see a lesson hard to learn: that we are not bullet-proof to temptation, in general evil, especially when the moment is counting heavily upon our actions. It absolves from the hands of Tolkien's intricate fantasy the name "Fantasy," as well as the cliched ending, "happily ever after." For as Frodo the Hobbit failed at the end, giving into temptation, though the 3rd Age was finished by victory over evil, it speaks to our age, how crippling temptation really is (for example, look at big corporate executives fleeing their failing companies in pursuit of big bucks, which serve at their own One Ring of Power, utterly destroying the organization and sending many out looking for jobs). In short, it drives away the fairy tale ending of "happily ever after" and really bases Tolkien's magnificent tale in reality in many ways.
Frodo both failed and won. So he is both a teacher and a hero. Could anyone want more of him?

Comment by Magus_Man - June 30, 2002 @ 6:16 PM
That Frodo "failed" is not an ingracious sacrilege, to be discounted forever from acknowledgement by fans. Although the Hobbit endured much in his travels, bearing a ring so awesome that not even Gandalf would seek its temptation, he did on some level fail. Indeed, it is true that without both Sam and Gollum, he would have become the next Ilsidur: lacking Sam, Frodo might have given into temptation along the way, or in many cases failed in different places; without Gollum, having sacrificed so much to reach Mount Doom, he would have only slipped on the Ring at the last moment and ensured Sauron's victory.
But isn't that what fleshes Frodo out as a character? The power not to overcome temptation, even though good prevails at the end, is a very human foible which makes the entire cast so much more interesting. Tolkien knew this as a writer. Imagine, then, if Frodo was able to overcome everything he had faced at the end by a single stroke of willpower, thus making the slip past the Dark Lord and his forces appear much easier than Tolkien previously articulated--thus making a much less-than-intriguing tale of final, absolute, uncontested victory by good.
However, Frodo's failure to overcome the power of the Ring also serves as a mirror for the readers. It serves as a reflection into the reality of life and how we all fail at some point or another, especially at crucial events. To have had those tiny companions absolutely prevail at the end would be a complete and utter denial of reality, emboldening the name "fantasy" when the genre has the potential to be so much better than on-the-surface fighting. Therefore, through Frodo's one slip at the end we see a lesson hard to learn: that we are not bullet-proof to temptation, in general evil, especially when the moment is counting heavily upon our actions. It absolves from the hands of Tolkien's intricate fantasy the name "Fantasy," as well as the cliched ending, "happily ever after." For as Frodo the Hobbit failed at the end, giving into temptation, though the 3rd Age was finished by victory over evil, it speaks to our age, how crippling temptation really is (for example, look at big corporate executives fleeing their failing companies in pursuit of big bucks, which serve at their own One Ring of Power, utterly destroying the organization and sending many out looking for jobs). In short, it drives away the fairy tale ending of "happily ever after" and really bases Tolkien's magnificent tale in reality in many ways.
Frodo both failed and won. So he is both a teacher and a hero. Could anyone want more of him?

Comment by Magus_Man - June 30, 2002 @ 6:16 PM
I spoke (wrote) in haste earlier when I said Sam would make a better ring-bearer. I am convinced that Frodo WAS the best man (hobbit) for the job.
That being said, when people speak of Frodo failing in his task, it is not meant as a criticizm of Frodo. Fordo deserves to be ranked up there with the great heroes of the past. As others have said, the task was impossible. But Frodo took it farther than anyone else could have. It is no moral judgement to say Frodo coudn't do the impossible.

Comment by Shular - June 30, 2002 @ 7:57 PM
I spoke (wrote) in haste earlier when I said Sam would make a better ring-bearer. I am convinced that Frodo WAS the best man (hobbit) for the job.
That being said, when people speak of Frodo failing in his task, it is not meant as a criticizm of Frodo. Fordo deserves to be ranked up there with the great heroes of the past. As others have said, the task was impossible. But Frodo took it farther than anyone else could have. It is no moral judgement to say Frodo coudn't do the impossible.

Comment by Shular - June 30, 2002 @ 7:57 PM
Frodo to Gollum: "Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."
Note that Frodo grasps the ring as he says this.
And much earlier, when Gollum asks to swear on the precious, Frodo says (paraphased from memory) if you say that again, I will put on the ring. Then you must obey me, even if I order you to cast yourself into a chasm, and such would be my command.
I think this is a bit more than just foreshadowing.

Comment by KalimacB - July 1, 2002 @ 5:54 AM
Frodo to Gollum: "Begone and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."
Note that Frodo grasps the ring as he says this.
And much earlier, when Gollum asks to swear on the precious, Frodo says (paraphased from memory) if you say that again, I will put on the ring. Then you must obey me, even if I order you to cast yourself into a chasm, and such would be my command.
I think this is a bit more than just foreshadowing.

Comment by KalimacB - July 1, 2002 @ 5:54 AM
Frodo didn't really fail in his task. He got it to Mt. Doom, which was as much as anyone hoped for, and if he faltered at the end, his mercy to Gollum actually aided his cause (as others have said). If he had dropped it at the roadside and went home, THEN he would have failed. We have to remember that Frodo had been starving, sleep deprived and wounded for weeks, and even if he had been healthy, there was no guarantee that he would be able to resist the Ring's power at its strongest. All that he had been through had chipped away at his willpower until there was nothing left at the Crack of Doom. The Ring won the fight, pure and simple.

Comment by Exile - July 1, 2002 @ 10:33 PM
Frodo didn't really fail in his task. He got it to Mt. Doom, which was as much as anyone hoped for, and if he faltered at the end, his mercy to Gollum actually aided his cause (as others have said). If he had dropped it at the roadside and went home, THEN he would have failed. We have to remember that Frodo had been starving, sleep deprived and wounded for weeks, and even if he had been healthy, there was no guarantee that he would be able to resist the Ring's power at its strongest. All that he had been through had chipped away at his willpower until there was nothing left at the Crack of Doom. The Ring won the fight, pure and simple.

Comment by Exile - July 1, 2002 @ 10:33 PM
Sam did not have to carry the Ring long and far like Frodo. He was certainly plenty pessimistic when he did have the Ring, although I always credited that to the fact that he thought Frodo had died. Frodo may have failed partly, in that he did not toss the Ring in, but from my point of view, it makes the story all that more powerful. How would you have liked the ending to be, "Then Frodo was brave and wonderful and threw the Ring into the Cracks of Doom and they all went home happy,"? Would that have been half as interesting? One of the things I really love about this book is the way it makes me feel. And one of the feelings that made the deepest impact on me was the gut-twisting, heart-wrenching agony I felt when I knew Frodo would fail. It adds alot of feeling to the book. I think that it was something for the overall good of the book.

Comment by luthienelflover - July 2, 2002 @ 6:31 AM
Sam did not have to carry the Ring long and far like Frodo. He was certainly plenty pessimistic when he did have the Ring, although I always credited that to the fact that he thought Frodo had died. Frodo may have failed partly, in that he did not toss the Ring in, but from my point of view, it makes the story all that more powerful. How would you have liked the ending to be, "Then Frodo was brave and wonderful and threw the Ring into the Cracks of Doom and they all went home happy,"? Would that have been half as interesting? One of the things I really love about this book is the way it makes me feel. And one of the feelings that made the deepest impact on me was the gut-twisting, heart-wrenching agony I felt when I knew Frodo would fail. It adds alot of feeling to the book. I think that it was something for the overall good of the book.

Comment by luthienelflover - July 2, 2002 @ 6:31 AM
Cold you have done any better? I couldn't have, and I doubt ANYONE here could.

Comment by luthienelflover - July 2, 2002 @ 6:33 AM
Cold you have done any better? I couldn't have, and I doubt ANYONE here could.

Comment by luthienelflover - July 2, 2002 @ 6:33 AM
I'd just like to say I think M.E. is hooked on Tolkien.
As for the characters and who sould get the credit in the end, it's true that Frodo failed, but so did Isildur.
Is he less great because he fell under the rings power ? I don't think so. It was a team effort. So Golum dies for everyones' sins including his own. And sam was wise enough to resist the rings effects,but he didn't have it for that long. Frodo had help ,but he took on the quest in the first place, a volunteer, out of the goodness of his own heart he resolved to do the imposable. Frodo is my hero even if Mr. Edmonds doesen't agree.
The Woodley over and out.

Comment by woodley - July 2, 2002 @ 1:32 PM
I'd just like to say I think M.E. is hooked on Tolkien.
As for the characters and who sould get the credit in the end, it's true that Frodo failed, but so did Isildur.
Is he less great because he fell under the rings power ? I don't think so. It was a team effort. So Golum dies for everyones' sins including his own. And sam was wise enough to resist the rings effects,but he didn't have it for that long. Frodo had help ,but he took on the quest in the first place, a volunteer, out of the goodness of his own heart he resolved to do the imposable. Frodo is my hero even if Mr. Edmonds doesen't agree.
The Woodley over and out.

Comment by woodley - July 2, 2002 @ 1:32 PM
I could have done better.
I'd have given the ring to Gwaiher and, regardless what others have said, I would have had him slip over to Mt. Doom quickly before he would have been detected. It's a quick flight for Gwaiher. Although the ring weighed down Frodo more and more as he approached the Mount, it didn't prevent him from moving altogether. Frodo had a direct attachment to the power of the ring, yet he could still walk. Therefore, since Gwaiher had the strength to carry a full grown adult, he certainly could have carried the ring, especially since it should have had no affect on an eagle. Gandalf, Aragorn and co. could have come up with a ruse to bring Sauron's eyes elsewhere and voila! The bird soars in high about Mt. Doom, swoops down and lets go of the package on target. KaBOOM. No more Dark Lord.

Comment by Hacksaw16 - July 2, 2002 @ 2:52 PM
I could have done better.
I'd have given the ring to Gwaiher and, regardless what others have said, I would have had him slip over to Mt. Doom quickly before he would have been detected. It's a quick flight for Gwaiher. Although the ring weighed down Frodo more and more as he approached the Mount, it didn't prevent him from moving altogether. Frodo had a direct attachment to the power of the ring, yet he could still walk. Therefore, since Gwaiher had the strength to carry a full grown adult, he certainly could have carried the ring, especially since it should have had no affect on an eagle. Gandalf, Aragorn and co. could have come up with a ruse to bring Sauron's eyes elsewhere and voila! The bird soars in high about Mt. Doom, swoops down and lets go of the package on target. KaBOOM. No more Dark Lord.

Comment by Hacksaw16 - July 2, 2002 @ 2:52 PM
I never thought of that . It surely would have been easier, but it's too simple something would have to be the fly in the ointment, or there'd be no story as well as no dark lord.
The Woodley

Comment by woodley - July 2, 2002 @ 3:30 PM
I never thought of that . It surely would have been easier, but it's too simple something would have to be the fly in the ointment, or there'd be no story as well as no dark lord.
The Woodley

Comment by woodley - July 2, 2002 @ 3:30 PM
The Trilogy would be about 80 pages long.
Frodo and the other little ones would be on their way home from Rivendell, Elrond and Galadriel would be packing their things for a trip to the west, and Gandalf would resume his little-known taboo role as Radagast's sugar daddy.

Comment by Hacksaw16 - July 3, 2002 @ 11:39 AM
The Trilogy would be about 80 pages long.
Frodo and the other little ones would be on their way home from Rivendell, Elrond and Galadriel would be packing their things for a trip to the west, and Gandalf would resume his little-known taboo role as Radagast's sugar daddy.

Comment by Hacksaw16 - July 3, 2002 @ 11:39 AM
Gwaihir was more than just an eagle. He was somewhat of a power in Middle-earth. He may have refused the ring just as Gandalf and Elrond did.

Comment by steerpike - July 3, 2002 @ 5:13 PM
Gwaihir was more than just an eagle. He was somewhat of a power in Middle-earth. He may have refused the ring just as Gandalf and Elrond did.

Comment by steerpike - July 3, 2002 @ 5:13 PM
As Galadriel stated in Book Two, the Ring channels its power through the bearer's supernatural strength and will to dominate others. These two characteristics were not (or little) found in Hobbits, making Frodo especially resistant to the ring. Gwaihir, coming from a long line of eagles, the eyes and ears of Manwe on Middle Earth, probably possessed some supernatural strength (hence the eagles' ability to be in the right place at the right time!) and certainly, as a lord among eagles, possessed the desire to lead others, if not dominate them.
I presume the weight of the Ring is tied to its seduction of the bearer's will. As Gwaihir flys closer to Mount Doom, the weight of the Ring would grow exponentially based on his supernatural power and his own hunger for power. I would assume, therefore, that flying would be difficult. Also, Frodo, the individual most resistant (after Tom Bombadil) to the call of the Ring, claimed it for his own after years bearing the burden. Gwaihir probably would quickly have fell under the Ring's power and refused to destroy it. Thus, Sauron would have either defeated Gwaihir and regained the Ring or Gwaihir would have conquered Mordor and would become the new Dark Lord. (Would they have called him "Big Bird?" Sorry, bad joke).
So far as I know, Tolkien never answered this plot line criticism, so all of this is after the fact rationalization. As Hacksaw16 says, had Tolkien used the Eagles to destroy the Ring, the novel would be only 80 pages long. There would have been no exploration of the themes of friendship, loyalty, sacrifice and determination. And we wouldn't be wasting our time debating such issues as the LOTR would never have been published -- who would want to read such a lame novel. ("I read this book which about the a powerful ring and after 60 pages about how terrible it is, they give it to this bird who destroys it a couple of days.") Thank goodness Tolkien didn't take the easy way out.

Comment by Aikanar - July 4, 2002 @ 12:19 AM
As Galadriel stated in Book Two, the Ring channels its power through the bearer's supernatural strength and will to dominate others. These two characteristics were not (or little) found in Hobbits, making Frodo especially resistant to the ring. Gwaihir, coming from a long line of eagles, the eyes and ears of Manwe on Middle Earth, probably possessed some supernatural strength (hence the eagles' ability to be in the right place at the right time!) and certainly, as a lord among eagles, possessed the desire to lead others, if not dominate them.
I presume the weight of the Ring is tied to its seduction of the bearer's will. As Gwaihir flys closer to Mount Doom, the weight of the Ring would grow exponentially based on his supernatural power and his own hunger for power. I would assume, therefore, that flying would be difficult. Also, Frodo, the individual most resistant (after Tom Bombadil) to the call of the Ring, claimed it for his own after years bearing the burden. Gwaihir probably would quickly have fell under the Ring's power and refused to destroy it. Thus, Sauron would have either defeated Gwaihir and regained the Ring or Gwaihir would have conquered Mordor and would become the new Dark Lord. (Would they have called him "Big Bird?" Sorry, bad joke).
So far as I know, Tolkien never answered this plot line criticism, so all of this is after the fact rationalization. As Hacksaw16 says, had Tolkien used the Eagles to destroy the Ring, the novel would be only 80 pages long. There would have been no exploration of the themes of friendship, loyalty, sacrifice and determination. And we wouldn't be wasting our time debating such issues as the LOTR would never have been published -- who would want to read such a lame novel. ("I read this book which about the a powerful ring and after 60 pages about how terrible it is, they give it to this bird who destroys it a couple of days.") Thank goodness Tolkien didn't take the easy way out.

Comment by Aikanar - July 4, 2002 @ 12:19 AM
There are a lot of people out to defend Frodo. All these defenders stress the effect of the ring on Frodo and how horrible it was. To them Frodo isn't a failure because he bore the ring to the very edge of the fire. A task unimaginabely terrible. A feat in and of itself heroic. Something that no other person alive would likely have been able to do. But, that doesn't change the fact that Frodo did fail.
People want to say that he succeeded as the ringBEARER because he bore the ring to the Cracks of Doom. But that wasn't the quest. Frodo's job was to take it to the Cracks of Doom and throw it in. The whole point of him taking it to the Cracks of Doom was for him to throw it in to the fire and destroy the ring. And he didn't do that. He failed.
Let's say a doctor attempts to save the life of a patient in the only way possible, a complicated surgery with little chance of success. But, the patient dies during the last few minutes of the surgery--the most difficult part. Well, you might not sue him for malpractice, but you wouldn't call him a hero for it, either. The doctor did his best, but his best wasn't good enough. In the same way, we can love Frodo for his initial selflessness, and for attempting to succeed at a task Tolkien calls "impossible." We may be awed by what he endured before he gave up. But that doesn't change the fact that he did not achieve what he set out to do--destroy the ring.
True, Frodo's kindness to Gollum earlier made it possible for Gollum to unwittingly destroy the ring in the end, but that result (the rings' destruction) was totally inadvertant and completely unintentional.
Let's say a doctor saves the life of a patient, and the patient goes on to murder his children in a crazed fit. Well, the doctor can't be held responsible for the children's deaths even though their murder was the direct result of his actions--namely, saving the life of the man who went on to murdered them. In the same way, we can't praise Frodo as a hero for doing something that inadvertantly (although directly) resulted in the rings' destruction. But we can call him a failure for claiming the ring as his own, which he most certainly did do.
I respect Frodo for the burden he bore. His selflessness and kindness are admirable. But that doesn't change the facts. Tolkien admits it and so should you. Tolkien's perspective (as we can see in the letters quoted above by Fatty_Bolger) is that although Frodo failed, the cause was triumphant, and that's what is important.
Tolkien writes: "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."
Not the "hero."
It was the combination of Frodo, Sam and Gollum together that brought about the ring's destruction, and so I have to agree with the Virgin in that there is too much emphasis on Frodo. Let's give credit where credit is due: to all THREE of our heros at the Cracks of Doom.

Comment by tsukiinu - July 4, 2002 @ 1:52 AM
There are a lot of people out to defend Frodo. All these defenders stress the effect of the ring on Frodo and how horrible it was. To them Frodo isn't a failure because he bore the ring to the very edge of the fire. A task unimaginabely terrible. A feat in and of itself heroic. Something that no other person alive would likely have been able to do. But, that doesn't change the fact that Frodo did fail.
People want to say that he succeeded as the ringBEARER because he bore the ring to the Cracks of Doom. But that wasn't the quest. Frodo's job was to take it to the Cracks of Doom and throw it in. The whole point of him taking it to the Cracks of Doom was for him to throw it in to the fire and destroy the ring. And he didn't do that. He failed.
Let's say a doctor attempts to save the life of a patient in the only way possible, a complicated surgery with little chance of success. But, the patient dies during the last few minutes of the surgery--the most difficult part. Well, you might not sue him for malpractice, but you wouldn't call him a hero for it, either. The doctor did his best, but his best wasn't good enough. In the same way, we can love Frodo for his initial selflessness, and for attempting to succeed at a task Tolkien calls "impossible." We may be awed by what he endured before he gave up. But that doesn't change the fact that he did not achieve what he set out to do--destroy the ring.
True, Frodo's kindness to Gollum earlier made it possible for Gollum to unwittingly destroy the ring in the end, but that result (the rings' destruction) was totally inadvertant and completely unintentional.
Let's say a doctor saves the life of a patient, and the patient goes on to murder his children in a crazed fit. Well, the doctor can't be held responsible for the children's deaths even though their murder was the direct result of his actions--namely, saving the life of the man who went on to murdered them. In the same way, we can't praise Frodo as a hero for doing something that inadvertantly (although directly) resulted in the rings' destruction. But we can call him a failure for claiming the ring as his own, which he most certainly did do.
I respect Frodo for the burden he bore. His selflessness and kindness are admirable. But that doesn't change the facts. Tolkien admits it and so should you. Tolkien's perspective (as we can see in the letters quoted above by Fatty_Bolger) is that although Frodo failed, the cause was triumphant, and that's what is important.
Tolkien writes: "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."
Not the "hero."
It was the combination of Frodo, Sam and Gollum together that brought about the ring's destruction, and so I have to agree with the Virgin in that there is too much emphasis on Frodo. Let's give credit where credit is due: to all THREE of our heros at the Cracks of Doom.

Comment by tsukiinu - July 4, 2002 @ 1:52 AM
A roman legion was comprised of between 3000 and 6000 infantrymen and about 200 cavalry, and so equates to the force taken to the Black Gate.
During the english Civil War, armies ranged in size from a few hundred to about 20,000 (that is, an army fielded at a single battle - each side would have formed a number of such armies).
The present day British Army is comprised of two fighting Divisions (not technically Armies) each comprised of three or four Brigades, and each Brigade of about 5000 men. see www.army.mod.uk
So Rohan sent a Brigade ("6000 spears") to Minas Tirith. However, they were all cavalry, and equate to the cavalry equivalent of 30 roman legions - no wonder Gondor wanted Rohan to arrive above all other help.
Sauron's forces are not actually numbered, but the impression I had was that the siege forces at Minas Tirith were about ten times the garrison, itself about 7000 at the time? But Sauron's total force was much larger, but was never fielded as a single entity. Much of it was in reserve for the occupation that would follow victiry at Minas Tirith.

Comment by davidw - July 4, 2002 @ 5:17 AM
A roman legion was comprised of between 3000 and 6000 infantrymen and about 200 cavalry, and so equates to the force taken to the Black Gate.
During the english Civil War, armies ranged in size from a few hundred to about 20,000 (that is, an army fielded at a single battle - each side would have formed a number of such armies).
The present day British Army is comprised of two fighting Divisions (not technically Armies) each comprised of three or four Brigades, and each Brigade of about 5000 men. see www.army.mod.uk
So Rohan sent a Brigade ("6000 spears") to Minas Tirith. However, they were all cavalry, and equate to the cavalry equivalent of 30 roman legions - no wonder Gondor wanted Rohan to arrive above all other help.
Sauron's forces are not actually numbered, but the impression I had was that the siege forces at Minas Tirith were about ten times the garrison, itself about 7000 at the time? But Sauron's total force was much larger, but was never fielded as a single entity. Much of it was in reserve for the occupation that would follow victiry at Minas Tirith.

Comment by davidw - July 4, 2002 @ 5:17 AM
While you make some valid points, Tsukiin, I have to disagree with a couple things.
First of all, why can't we say that Frodo failed AND he's a great hero? Is a hero always someone who succeeds?
Second, you talk about a doctor doing everything he can to save a person, but the person still dies. You say you wouldn't call the doctor a hero for it. I would.
Heroism isn't measured by results, it's measured by sacrifice and selflessness (or at least I believe it should be). Also, a hero's status is very subjective. Someone might be a "hero" to "freedom fighters", and a terrorist to others.
Frodo and Sam are heroes, Aragorn, Gandalf, Merry, Pippen, even (to a lesser degree) Gimli and Legolas, are heroes. Boromir was flawed, but died a hero. Theoden was a hero...
In fact, LotR is so full of heroes it almost becomes unbelievable (if you take my meaning) and those who aren't heroes in the book are villains. Not much room for middle ground there. But now I'm going off on a tangent.

Comment by Shular - July 4, 2002 @ 10:24 AM
While you make some valid points, Tsukiin, I have to disagree with a couple things.
First of all, why can't we say that Frodo failed AND he's a great hero? Is a hero always someone who succeeds?
Second, you talk about a doctor doing everything he can to save a person, but the person still dies. You say you wouldn't call the doctor a hero for it. I would.
Heroism isn't measured by results, it's measured by sacrifice and selflessness (or at least I believe it should be). Also, a hero's status is very subjective. Someone might be a "hero" to "freedom fighters", and a terrorist to others.
Frodo and Sam are heroes, Aragorn, Gandalf, Merry, Pippen, even (to a lesser degree) Gimli and Legolas, are heroes. Boromir was flawed, but died a hero. Theoden was a hero...
In fact, LotR is so full of heroes it almost becomes unbelievable (if you take my meaning) and those who aren't heroes in the book are villains. Not much room for middle ground there. But now I'm going off on a tangent.

Comment by Shular - July 4, 2002 @ 10:24 AM
Well, to be totally honest Shular, I have to admit that I agree with you that Frodo failed AND is a hero at the same time. I guess it's just that the Frodo-fanatics don't generally want to admit that Frodo indeed failed, but there great proofs for why they believe he succeeded are not convincing for me.
On top of that, Sam and even Gollum played such important roles in the destruction of the ring that it irks me that Frodo gets all the attention.
Finally, although I appreciate Frodo's sacrifice, I found that by the end of the book Frodo was so gloomy and negative(regardless of the very good reasons for it) that I just didn't like him any more. My dislike for him won over my pity for him. I guess I'm an anomaly and a cold-hearted bastard.
But more than anything, I'd like to stress again that the most important thing isn't whether Frodo succeded or not, but that the cause succeeded. In this, at least, I think I can find some agreement out there among other fans.

Comment by tsukiinu - July 7, 2002 @ 8:05 AM
Well, to be totally honest Shular, I have to admit that I agree with you that Frodo failed AND is a hero at the same time. I guess it's just that the Frodo-fanatics don't generally want to admit that Frodo indeed failed, but there great proofs for why they believe he succeeded are not convincing for me.
On top of that, Sam and even Gollum played such important roles in the destruction of the ring that it irks me that Frodo gets all the attention.
Finally, although I appreciate Frodo's sacrifice, I found that by the end of the book Frodo was so gloomy and negative(regardless of the very good reasons for it) that I just didn't like him any more. My dislike for him won over my pity for him. I guess I'm an anomaly and a cold-hearted bastard.
But more than anything, I'd like to stress again that the most important thing isn't whether Frodo succeded or not, but that the cause succeeded. In this, at least, I think I can find some agreement out there among other fans.

Comment by tsukiinu - July 7, 2002 @ 8:05 AM
I would like to thank ME for his reviews, and for the many other comments submited by the many fans ot Tolkien, many of whom are much more intimate with the total story and details of Middle Earth. While I don't agree always with ME, it is obvious that his reviews have been very successful based on the many thoughtful comments that have been generated
I agree with Balin_Lord_of_Moria in his comment "evil is never destroyed entirely" . Also note: Tolkien does not say that Sauron, or later Saruman, actually died. The grey cloud that was Saruman's essence was blown from the west so it could not return to the land of the Valar. Likewise, Sauron's cloud was blown to the east. Earlier, Sauron brought himself together at Dol Guldur after many years after having lost the ring. Does the evil of Sauron, and Saruman, still exist in Middle Earth, but in a weaked dispersed state. Evil that can still do harm among the weaker wills of the humans of Middle Earth.

Comment by jwinpa - July 12, 2002 @ 5:34 PM
I would like to thank ME for his reviews, and for the many other comments submited by the many fans ot Tolkien, many of whom are much more intimate with the total story and details of Middle Earth. While I don't agree always with ME, it is obvious that his reviews have been very successful based on the many thoughtful comments that have been generated
I agree with Balin_Lord_of_Moria in his comment "evil is never destroyed entirely" . Also note: Tolkien does not say that Sauron, or later Saruman, actually died. The grey cloud that was Saruman's essence was blown from the west so it could not return to the land of the Valar. Likewise, Sauron's cloud was blown to the east. Earlier, Sauron brought himself together at Dol Guldur after many years after having lost the ring. Does the evil of Sauron, and Saruman, still exist in Middle Earth, but in a weaked dispersed state. Evil that can still do harm among the weaker wills of the humans of Middle Earth.

Comment by jwinpa - July 12, 2002 @ 5:34 PM
in underestimating the power of the ring. While I agree that Frodo couldn't have done it with out sam, if Sam had had the ring from the beginning, he would have probably have put it on at the very start, when he and Frodo first met a Nazgul.
The power of the ring is so intense for anyone-- by power, of course, but also by how strong a will you have. While Sam had no real wish for power, his will was weak, and he wouldn't be able to fight against the ring. Frodo gained wisdom, stregnth, compassion, and a will stronger that even that of the ring, until it was at it's strongest, @ Mt. Doom.
Frodo was a hero.
True, he did not throw the ring in, but to be a hero is not nessesaly to do the impossible all alone, it is:
"to invest with heroic attributations, intentions, or actions."
ME, your other problem is your lack of empathy. You are blind to the power, the truth and what it must have been like-- yet he pushed on. And he wasn't pessimistic, he was a realist, and I respect that.
Tolkien did the last book largely from Sam's perspective, because that is what people see from the outside-- what things seem, not always what they are.
Not that I am any better at seeing the truth.
I agree more than anything with Marea.
To only carry a ring, is to only sign your will, give it to your worst enemy, and jump off a cliff.
If you're lucky.

Comment by Lily_Took - August 11, 2002 @ 8:20 AM
in underestimating the power of the ring. While I agree that Frodo couldn't have done it with out sam, if Sam had had the ring from the beginning, he would have probably have put it on at the very start, when he and Frodo first met a Nazgul.
The power of the ring is so intense for anyone-- by power, of course, but also by how strong a will you have. While Sam had no real wish for power, his will was weak, and he wouldn't be able to fight against the ring. Frodo gained wisdom, stregnth, compassion, and a will stronger that even that of the ring, until it was at it's strongest, @ Mt. Doom.
Frodo was a hero.
True, he did not throw the ring in, but to be a hero is not nessesaly to do the impossible all alone, it is:
"to invest with heroic attributations, intentions, or actions."
ME, your other problem is your lack of empathy. You are blind to the power, the truth and what it must have been like-- yet he pushed on. And he wasn't pessimistic, he was a realist, and I respect that.
Tolkien did the last book largely from Sam's perspective, because that is what people see from the outside-- what things seem, not always what they are.
Not that I am any better at seeing the truth.
I agree more than anything with Marea.
To only carry a ring, is to only sign your will, give it to your worst enemy, and jump off a cliff.
If you're lucky.

Comment by Lily_Took - August 11, 2002 @ 8:20 AM
in underestimating the power of the ring. While I agree that Frodo couldn't have done it with out sam, if Sam had had the ring from the beginning, he would have probably have put it on at the very start, when he and Frodo first met a Nazgul.
The power of the ring is so intense for anyone-- by power, of course, but also by how strong a will you have. While Sam had no real wish for power, his will was weak, and he wouldn't be able to fight against the ring. Frodo gained wisdom, stregnth, compassion, and a will stronger that even that of the ring, until it was at it's strongest, @ Mt. Doom.
Frodo was a hero.
True, he did not throw the ring in, but to be a hero is not nessesaly to do the impossible all alone, it is:
"to invest with heroic attributations, intentions, or actions."
ME, your other problem is your lack of empathy. You are blind to the power, the truth and what it must have been like-- yet he pushed on. And he wasn't pessimistic, he was a realist, and I respect that.
Tolkien did the last book largely from Sam's perspective, because that is what people see from the outside-- what things seem, not always what they are.
Not that I am any better at seeing the truth.
I agree more than anything with Marea.
To only carry a ring, is to only sign your will, give it to your worst enemy, and jump off a cliff.
If you're lucky.

Comment by Lily_Took - August 11, 2002 @ 8:21 AM
in underestimating the power of the ring. While I agree that Frodo couldn't have done it with out sam, if Sam had had the ring from the beginning, he would have probably have put it on at the very start, when he and Frodo first met a Nazgul.
The power of the ring is so intense for anyone-- by power, of course, but also by how strong a will you have. While Sam had no real wish for power, his will was weak, and he wouldn't be able to fight against the ring. Frodo gained wisdom, stregnth, compassion, and a will stronger that even that of the ring, until it was at it's strongest, @ Mt. Doom.
Frodo was a hero.
True, he did not throw the ring in, but to be a hero is not nessesaly to do the impossible all alone, it is:
"to invest with heroic attributations, intentions, or actions."
ME, your other problem is your lack of empathy. You are blind to the power, the truth and what it must have been like-- yet he pushed on. And he wasn't pessimistic, he was a realist, and I respect that.
Tolkien did the last book largely from Sam's perspective, because that is what people see from the outside-- what things seem, not always what they are.
Not that I am any better at seeing the truth.
I agree more than anything with Marea.
To only carry a ring, is to only sign your will, give it to your worst enemy, and jump off a cliff.
If you're lucky.

Comment by Lily_Took - August 11, 2002 @ 8:21 AM
and people interested in this debate, could I talk to you further? For an easier way to communicate I can get you all through e'mail, in a more personal talk.
Contact me at: qualara@hotmail.com
hope to hear from you.

Comment by qualara - August 11, 2002 @ 8:33 AM
and people interested in this debate, could I talk to you further? For an easier way to communicate I can get you all through e'mail, in a more personal talk.
Contact me at: qualara@hotmail.com
hope to hear from you.

Comment by qualara - August 11, 2002 @ 8:33 AM
I think the reading of Sam as the "real" hero is way off. Just as an analogy, think of a boxer(Frodo) and his corner man(Sam).
The boxer is out there getting pummeled and pounded and finally staggers back to the corner saying "I can't take it any more, throw in the towel"
The corner man cleans him up and says "Sure you can, you can win, have faith you can do it"
When the the fight is done, who was the hero? The guy who never once complained (the corner man)? Frodo was getting metaphysically pummelled in ways that Sam could not have understood and might not have been able to bear. He got a glimpse in his one hour or so of ring bearing and even that affected him. How would he have turned out after 20 years?

Comment by Beorning - October 9, 2002 @ 8:37 AM
I think the reading of Sam as the "real" hero is way off. Just as an analogy, think of a boxer(Frodo) and his corner man(Sam).
The boxer is out there getting pummeled and pounded and finally staggers back to the corner saying "I can't take it any more, throw in the towel"
The corner man cleans him up and says "Sure you can, you can win, have faith you can do it"
When the the fight is done, who was the hero? The guy who never once complained (the corner man)? Frodo was getting metaphysically pummelled in ways that Sam could not have understood and might not have been able to bear. He got a glimpse in his one hour or so of ring bearing and even that affected him. How would he have turned out after 20 years?

Comment by Beorning - October 9, 2002 @ 8:37 AM
Tolkien himself addressed the issue of Frodo's "failure" in Letter #246. He defends Frodo quite vehemently in this letter.

Comment by loopdog - October 28, 2002 @ 4:01 PM
Tolkien himself addressed the issue of Frodo's "failure" in Letter #246. He defends Frodo quite vehemently in this letter.

Comment by loopdog - October 28, 2002 @ 4:01 PM
i think, way up there kalimacb has an insight

Frodo, in those two commands to gollum, and doubting himself, provides an insurance policy to make sure the ring is destroyed

even at the possible loss of his own life

even the frodo fans i think underestimate the guy

Comment by rmac - November 22, 2002 @ 8:51 AM
i think, way up there kalimacb has an insight

Frodo, in those two commands to gollum, and doubting himself, provides an insurance policy to make sure the ring is destroyed

even at the possible loss of his own life

even the frodo fans i think underestimate the guy

Comment by rmac - November 22, 2002 @ 8:51 AM
"I though you were dead! But then, I thought I was dead myself. Is everything sad going to come untrue?"

Comment by FlamerOfUdun - December 17, 2002 @ 8:17 PM
"I though you were dead! But then, I thought I was dead myself. Is everything sad going to come untrue?"

Comment by FlamerOfUdun - December 17, 2002 @ 8:17 PM
Frodo: failure or hero?

M-E: "Oh, he didn't throw it in, he's rubbish, he was only physically + mentally exhausted and stabbed and stung and having his mind eaten away and attacked and nearly dead of fatuge and captured and nearly eaten by a giant spider and beaten up and hungry and thirsty and weary and just generally maltreated, and he couldn't even throw it in!"

Sheesh. Give the poor guy some credit.

Yeah, I agree he couldn't have done it without Sam + Gollum, but he got there in the end, and thats more than a lot of people could have done (I know I couldn't: it would have been Weathertop, Nazgul, Ring, oh no! she's been Wraithified!).

Plus, would you prefer the ending in the book or,
"and Sam saw Frodo silhouetted against the fire, rigid, then he spoke out in a strong voice, indeed stronger than Sam had heared him use: 'ah, there you are, I've done it now we can get on with the Happily Ever After' "

I reckon everyone whose said he failed should ask themselves: well, could I have done it?

Comment by Elen-Sila - March 12, 2003 @ 9:08 AM
Frodo: failure or hero?

M-E: "Oh, he didn't throw it in, he's rubbish, he was only physically + mentally exhausted and stabbed and stung and having his mind eaten away and attacked and nearly dead of fatuge and captured and nearly eaten by a giant spider and beaten up and hungry and thirsty and weary and just generally maltreated, and he couldn't even throw it in!"

Sheesh. Give the poor guy some credit.

Yeah, I agree he couldn't have done it without Sam + Gollum, but he got there in the end, and thats more than a lot of people could have done (I know I couldn't: it would have been Weathertop, Nazgul, Ring, oh no! she's been Wraithified!).

Plus, would you prefer the ending in the book or,
"and Sam saw Frodo silhouetted against the fire, rigid, then he spoke out in a strong voice, indeed stronger than Sam had heared him use: 'ah, there you are, I've done it now we can get on with the Happily Ever After' "

I reckon everyone whose said he failed should ask themselves: well, could I have done it?

Comment by Elen-Sila - March 12, 2003 @ 9:08 AM

News

A Tolkien Virgin: The Return of the King - Book VI - Chapter 4 - The Journey Continues

Reader Comments

Leave a Comment