XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   Lewis  spoke these staves:   
   >   
   > In message    
   >   Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> In message    
   >> Lewis  spoke these staves:   
   >>>   
      
   [Frodo and the Master Ring]   
      
   > I'll concede corrupted wasn't the right word, though I think we   
   > went a little beyond merely tempted when Frodo put the ring on.   
   > Frodo obviously was *not* corrupted since he remained himself   
   > after the destruction of the Ring. Broken, perhaps? I'm not sure   
   > what the right word is.   
      
   I'm sorry -- it's one of my pet issues, and I tend to bring it up   
   given half a chance, even when it's not really relevant to the   
   discussion at hand ;-)   
      
   Tolkien is, in his letters, quite specific that it is a matter of   
   temptation:   
      
       The final scene of the Quest was so shaped simply because   
       having regard to the situation, and to the 'characters' of   
       Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, those events seemed to me   
       mechanically, morally, and psychologically credible. But,   
       of course, if you wish for more reflection, I should say   
       that within the mode of the story the 'catastrophe'   
       exemplifies (an aspect of) the familiar words: 'Forgive us   
       our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us.   
       Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'   
         'Lead us not into temptation &c' is the harder and the   
       less often considered petition. The view, in the terms of   
       my story, is that though every event or situation has (at   
       least) two aspects: the history and development of the   
       individual (it is something out of which he can get good,   
       ultimate good, for himself, or fail to do so), and the   
       history of the world (which depends on his action for its   
       own sake) - still there are abnormal situations in which   
       one may be placed. 'Sacrificial' situations, I should call   
       them: sc. positions in which the 'good' of the world   
       depends on the behaviour of an individual in circumstances   
       which demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the   
       normal -- even, it may happen (or seem, humanly speaking),   
       demand a strength of body and mind which he does not   
       possess: he is in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall   
       to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will':   
       that is against any choice he could make or would make   
       unfettered, not under the duress.   
     Letter #181 to Michael Straight (drafts), prob. Jan. or Feb. 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.   
         Corinthians I x. 12-13 may not at first sight seem to fit   
       -- unless 'bearing temptation' is taken to mean resisting   
       it while still a free agent in normal command of the will.   
       I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the   
       Lord's Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us   
       from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen   
       is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed   
       in positions beyond one's power. In which case (as I   
       believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something   
       apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility   
       and mercy) of the sacrificial person.   
     Letter #191 to Miss J. Bum (draft) 26 July 1956   
      
         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).   
     Letter # 192 to Amy Ronald 27 July 1956   
      
   I do agree that there is more to it than merely crying 'temptation',   
   but I think the question is /how/ the Ring tempted Frodo, and how the   
   greater power of the Ring changed the manner and strength of the   
   temptation. In the end, Frodo gave in to the temptation to put on the   
   Ring simply because he no longer had the strength of will to resist   
   -- he was utterly spent.   
      
      
   Sorry again -- as I said, this /is/ one of my favourite issues and I   
   always tend to say far more than is necessary (or even wanted)  :-)   
   Feel free to ignore the above.   
      
      
   >>> It is also important that despite Frodo's ultimate failure, he   
   >>> is still rightfully hailed as a hero.   
   >   
   >> "I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure," says Tolkien   
   >> himself in letter #246 :-)   
   >   
   > I certainly never thought he was,   
      
   I guessed as much -- I merely wanted to show you that Tolkien agreed   
   with your reading of this ;)   
      
   > but I do think it is interesting and important how that all played   
   > out. How much weaker it would have been if he'd merely thrown the   
   > Ring in, or if Sam had had to do it, having less exposure to it.   
   > There are so many ways that could have played out and I don't   
   > think any other writer has done what Tolkien did there.   
      
   I quite agree.   
      
   > And I think anything else, any other ending to the Ring, would   
   > have been so much weaker it would have diminished the entire book.   
      
   Hear! Hear!   
      
   Out of curiosity, how do you think Jackson's version works?   
      
   The difference, of course, is that Jackson's Frodo fights desperately   
   for the Ring even after Gollum has bitten off the finger with the   
   Ring, whereas in Tolkien's version Frodo seems to more or less   
   collapse at that point.   
      
   Given what Jackson did with the Ring as such, I do think the scene   
   makes sense (though I think his portrayal of the Ring's active agency   
   is very different from Tolkien's, but that is not the issue here) --   
   in Jackson's version, Frodo does seem to be corrupted -- and perhaps   
   even controlled -- by the Ring (a corruption that, like all the other   
   works of the Ring, is unmade when the Ring is destroyed).   
      
   >> You really ought to read Tolkien's letters, where many of these   
   >> questions are answered.   
   >   
   > Well, yes. But.   
   >   
   > I've long resisted reading anything outside of the canon because   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)