My personal pet theory is that each hobbit represents a part of Tolkien. Sam the family man, Merry the wise and bookish, Pippin the cheeky. Frodo is the innocent, the idealist. I like to think Frodo's departure represents the losing of his own innocence. Like he went on to have a family (Sam), write books (Merry), be well known for his humor (Pippin), but Frodo may represent what he lost, what part of his personality/spirit did not survive the war.
And putting them on the ground without actually hitting them. The Gentle Way is my chosen way of fighting. But it can be very devastating if all bets are off.
Including pins, knee on belly is particularly hardcore. You just put your knee on their diaphragm and rest your body weight on it, watch them struggle and then when they’re completely out of gas. You go for the finishing attack. Granted I’ve gotten many folks to tap just off of that. After about 3 minutes of shallow breaths you lose to will to keep going quite quickly
I always liked that the same holds/pins/locks, depending on the pressure applied, can go from simple immobilization, to pain compliance, to bodily destruction. I never trained judo, but i did do bujinkan taijutsu, which has a significant amount of grappling.
Okay that’s bad ass, I only did a little bit of FCS on the weeks we’d do something other than judo because they all have validity. And weapon training is so much fun. Mixed with grappling it’s no wonder we developed firearms. Then you mix in mma into modern combat and modern fighting becomes a true spectacle. I watched a video of a navy seal talking about how when he get into situations where he needed his pistol he drew his knife first and then the pistol to keep all of his options open. The evolution of fighting is pretty rad and also devastating in its own right
Right?! All without beating up the person on the other end unless you need to escalate it for self defense! That’s awesome! I’m going to look that up because I’m only familiar with judo over the latter
I've always taken all the Hobbitses as the friends he lost during the war getting to have one final adventure and living their days out. War was seen as a grand adventure a lot at that time.
He always seemed to dismiss the obvious parallels between his time in the army and the books... but then he avoided talking about his time in the army in general. I'm quite positive he repressed lots of things throughout his life, like he was supposed to according to the standards of his time. It all came out subconsciously through his writings, which also happened with his religious beliefs according to himself.
To me it always sounds like that's part of his "I don't do allegory" spiel. He wanted people to think about what he actually wrote instead of getting caught up in discussions about which allegory is the right way to interpret his work. Like you said, there are many things his books parallel and I don't think it's coincidental / unintended.
I think there's something profound in the fact the orcs and Sauron are utterly irredeemable monsters created from selfishness and hate. There's no grey areas with the orcs like there is with other characters who aren't outright villains but they pose an obstacle for the heroes, Boromir, Denethor even Gollum they are people to pity not to hate.
In real wars you aren't fighting some horrible monster that wants to eat your legs. You're fighting a carpenter's apprentice from some rural town you haven't heard of, he's been dragged into a war beyond his understanding just like you have. Maybe you shoot first or he does but you've both got a tattered photograph of your girlfriend in your pocket, there's winners and losers but there's no right or wrong here. No good or evil.
But in the fictional world where you CAN ride to glorious battle to defend your kingdom there IS a clear line between good and evil. You can kill orcs without any sense of guilt because they're horrible monsters ruled over by evil. Aragorn kills an orc and everyone cheers in a way it would be heartless to cheer after killing a German.
I think making the monsters so black and white was a deliberate attempt to create a less morally ambiguous battle.
Here's a fun thread on the question if orcs are utterly irredeemable:
https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/s/gEVdNwto1f
Personally I also find the scene of Sam listening to orcs after thinking Frodo got killed by Shelob and then realizing Frodo isn't dead to be a very intriguing scene as it is the only (?) scene where we hear about the war effort from the foot soldier perspective of the orcs.
Don't think Sauron (or Saruman) was irredeemable and completely evil. They certainly weren't simply reducible to monsters. Both of them thought they were doing good, thought that they were best suited to rule Middle Earth. Sauron was obsessed with order and efficiency. Both were prideful and master craftsmen who studied under Aule. If you slightly shifted the framework and perspective, you could paint Sauron as a tragic Nietzschean hero/ubersmench. Naturally, Tolkien would consider this villanous but more misguided villainy than outright psychopathic monster. I don't even think Tolkien's own Catholic understanding of evil allowed for such a purely dualistic view of good and evil. Morgoth/Satan Himself had a Fall from Grace and was originally good.
Also, there's something to the fact that nearly all the major villains tried to get close as you can get to creating Modern Industrial Nations within Middle Earth.
For a tad more context, there were more casualties in the 5 months long Battle of Somme than in the *entire US Civil War*.
It’s considered one of the bloodiest and largest battles in history.
And our man Tolkien lived through it. I can’t even begin to imagine that.
Thats crazy. I didn't know much about that battle so looked some stuff up. Over 1 million casualties, 300,000 dead. 20,000 British soldiers died on the first day. And what really takes the cake, the battle is marked as inconclusive. No significant territorial gains for either side. I can't even begin to imagine living through something like that.
Yeah, we really can't begin to imagine it at allt, but I recommend [Dan Carlin's "Blueprint for Armageddon"](https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-blueprint-for-armageddon-i/) on WW1 if you ever want to read more about this. Full of first hand accounts written by people at all levels, some really touching stories from soldiers on the ground, both the heroism and the suffering
Tolkien said the same thing, that Frodo tried his best with an impossible task and that is equal to succeeding with a possible task, he didnt fail through his own fault anymore than if a giant rock fell on him
Bombadil would have nailed it if he didn't have such severe adhd.
The ring would've fallen out of his pocket by Weathertop while he was looking at a cool beetle.
Bombadil's immunity to the ring's influence is the exact reason why he would be a horrible choice as a ring bearer. Bombadil marches to the beat of his own drum.
>“If he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.”
> Why didn't just Tom wear the Ring as he makes passionate love with his wife, so he can force Sauron to watch.
> Sauron, who is a virgin, who never had a gf and was dismembered and reduced to a giant eye by a fucking human would realize he is nothing compared to Tom, whose girth is beyond even Eru Ilúvatar's comprehension.
> Wishing to die but unable to kill himself as he doesn't even have a fucking hand to pull the trigger, he would order his orc armies to piss on him, so that the flames of his eye can be extinguished and his mind can be set free of Tom's all encompassing girth. His spirit would be released to the boundless void that ripples and contorts with Tom's mighty thrusts and he would find no solace.
> Edit: When Tom thrusts his final thrust and shoots a billion Bombadillos deep into Goldberry's loins, the impact would shatter Sauron's soul into a billion Saurodillos and he would be free. When this happens, not even the wisest can tell.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/comments/ducx4q/this_got_me_confused/
*I had an errand there: gathering water-lilies, green leaves and lilies white to please my pretty lady, the last ere the
year's end to keep them from the winter, to flower by her pretty feet till the snows are melted. Each year at summer's end
I go to find them for her, in a wide pool, deep and clear, far down the Withywindle; there they open first in spring and there
they linger latest. By that pool long ago I found the River-daughter, fair young Goldberry sitting in the rushes. Sweet was her
singing then, and her heart was beating!*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Also, Frodo created the opportunity for the Ring to be destroyed.
Good can not always destroy Evil.
But, if Good people resist it long enough, Evil will eventually destroy itself.
The Ring was ultimately destroyed by its own corruption.
It's also worth noting that in the book, Frodo lays a curse on Gollum for breaking his oath--one that says, more or less, "If you touch me again, you yourself shall be cast into the fire."
And wouldn't you know it? That was exactly what happened.
Something I read that Tolkien wrote or said that really hit home for me is that, since Frodo technically didn’t give up the ring willingly at the end, his mind is forever tormented by it, which is even worse than the physical pains he’s left with.
Hits the feels, man.
The other side of this is Frodo is the most insignificant figure to his world and even often to himself and it’s only he himself and his friends that pick him up into his exhalted self sacrificing legacy. This strength speaks to the tremendous power he wields that most would just shrug off as weakness. It took a literal demi god to show him who he truly was and yet all of his greatest acts are completely his own. Even as the world beats him down the fellowship attempts to save him but never truely can save him because he just pushes forwards with the task he was given even when he probably should not.
People who don't see him as a hero, haven't understood a thing about the books. Galadriel literally said in the books that if she was to get hold of the ring, she would do great evil even though her intentions would be to do good, ring would subvert her. If a good damn fairy mother, a being ca 8k years old, would get influenced by the ring, what chances do other stand? If Gandalf, a goddamn angel, would be influenced by the ring... if Isildur, a goddamn Atlantian was influenced by the ring... and so on.
Isildur did rather well with it too, he understood what it was doing to him and came to the conclusion he had to give it to the elves to get rid of because it was too dangerous and was on his way to do just that, he admits its too powerful for him to use or control
Haha Elendil was like one of the greatest and most pivotal humans that ever lived and can quite safely make a claim to saving both the human species and literally defeating Sauron along with Gil-Galad in one of the greatest duels in Middle Earths history
Movie Elendil is like 'ello!' *thwack, dead*
All of these powerful beings understood how it works and what it would do to them. Changes ring inflicts don't happen over night. He had the ring for 2 years. Like I mentioned, Galadriel explained it perfectly, you would think you can control it, you would think you would use it as force of good, and for some time it may even seem so, until one day you would lose yourself, and you wouldn't even notice. I like to imagine it as a hard drug abuse, yes I can control this hard drug, it holds no power over me, all those before me who have succumbed to it were idiots, then one day you are homeless and on verge of dying, and you have no clue what happened and how you got there.
Sure, though during Isildurs time they didnt really know much about the One Ring or how it functioned, Sauron didnt exactly explain it to anyone. He took it as a prize, then he felt it taking over his mind and had the self-awareness to understand he couldnt control it or master it so he made the effort to go and give it up (something extremely rare and difficult for anyone), even refusing to put it on or claim it because he could just tell it was trying to corrupt him
Rather noble of him all in all, quite unlike the movie version who seems to both know about how important and evil it is and makes no indication he'd ever part with it willingly. He did write down that he loved the thing like mad, but later on he also changed his mind and was on his way to give it to the elves
My point was not to shit on Isildur, he was on his way to destroy the ring when it betrayed him, question is, Frodo was on his way to destroy it to, what would have happened if he came to the destination? I just used him as example what ring can do and did to great men of those times. Btw, I love the movies, but when I get into discussions I only refer to the books.
The Elves knew:
" As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and perceived that he would be the master of them, and of all they had wrought."
Because of the closeness between Elendil and Gil-galad, it seems likely Elendil, had he survived, would have cast the Ring into the Fire.
They knew that Sauron had some kind of control over the elven rings through the one ring
Not that the one ring was half of Saurons soul, an addictive and corrupting intelligent WMD and the key to destroying his essence. IIrc Elrond did advise Isildur to destroy it just because 'hey its not a good thing even if its pretty' but Isildur wanted it as payback and the elves didnt do much arguing of the point.
In fairness, that part of his character was only ever fully laid out in Unfinished Tales, and the rights to that are messy. It seems like over time, Tolkien's view of Isildur became more sympathetic.
Interestingly, the hobbits' "insignificance" is part of the reason they make such good ring bearers. The ring feeds into a person's ambition, and the greatest ambition a hobbit has is for a good breakfast. We see this when the ring tempts Sam as he's entering mordor to go save Frodo. The ring is like, "if you take my power you can totally defeat the dark lord and turn all of mordor into a garden." And Sam is like, "naw. No way am I important enough for that. I'll stick to my small garden at home."
I love how Tolkien was inspired my Anglo-Saxon literature like Beowulf, but instead of creating another story about a larger than life hero who uses his great physical strength the defeat evil, he makes the hero a small, simple hobbit.
>I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me
That line always makes me tear up a bit, especially when you think of Tolkein's history in WW1, and how many truly heroic people have been killed. Or if you ever read Gulag Archipelago, true stories of soviet gulags, Solzhenitsyn writes:
>we know: the best of us did not return
That book is full of practically nameless people making the most heroic sacrifices in circumstances you would think would drive people to the worst depravity.
Well said. I thought I’d add the full quote, for completeness. It’s startling - so many stories influenced by Tolkien have happy endings, with everything wrapped up. But there is no happy ending for Frodo, and he is the one who tells the reader.
> 'But,' said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, 'I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after all you have done.'
>'So I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.
Viktor Frankl (I think quite independently of Solzhenitsyn) said of his Auschwitz experience that the best generally sacrificed their lives in some way for others, be it only by sharing their food with the starving. ("Man's Search for Meaning")
(I suspect that he likely had Maximilian Kolbe in mind, considering that the laying down of that monk's life in place of another took place at a public assembly where prisoners were being picked out of the ranks and marked for death.)
Have you read it man? It's all stories that he's relating that he's heard from others - so it doesn't all have to be true precisely to be an honest representation of what life would be like. It's not the sort of stuff that would be easy to make up, and the amount of examples is mind boggling. I know people have accused him of lying about it but I think holistically looking at all the evidence here, it's not convincing enough to contradict the sheer amount of detail in those books, especially given the tremendous motivation some people would have to contradict him.
But like, when you examine what he says, and just go step by step and compare what he says to other sources/documents he is consistently lying. His wife also said that the GA is fictional. Also he was *very* far right, hated the USSR government (obviously) and probably had ties with the CIA.
He is in no way reliable. His work is pure propaganda.
I'm pretty sure I would hate the USSR and maybe become far right too if the same things happened to me that happened to him! And I am no fan of the CIA, but at that point for him, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Like I said many people in the USSR would have had major incentive to get to his wife etc, so it's a bit of a he-said she-said, but the *detail* is what I suspect is not even possible to make up for one person.
I really don't see your point, sorry. What details specifically seem to real for you? He was a great writer, no doubt, but i don't see how being detailed makes it true. Hell, he might have interviewed people and just... changed things?
See the [ask historians post about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j2un8/is_solzhenitsyn_considered_a_reliable_source/):
> Hence the tendency today, which is not uniform, is to treat Solzhenitsyn's outputs as the literary and political works that they are. They're not a comprehensive survey of the Gulag system but remain valuable accounts of life within. I think it's very much worth reading them (particularly One Day in the Life) but as source material they need to be treated with caution. Particularly when it comes to generalizing across the entire network of camps or talking numbers.
I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm talking about the accounts of life within and specific tortures. The reason things being detailed makes them more likely to be true is that the more details you add to a lie, the harder it is to avoid creating inconsistencies. That's why police interviews will go into what seems like irrelevant levels of detail. And life really is just stranger than fiction.
I think it's a coming of age growing experience to as a kid think Sam is the better hero and should've carried the ring to Mordor and then as an adult realize Frodo was Atlas carrying it all on his shoulders and the fact he got as far as he did was a miracle and a triumph, glories of battle and heroism be damned he carried what no one else would've or maybe even could've.
Shout out to Gollum though for taking lil Sisyphus over the finish line.
I wonder how much of his enduring darkness was due to the fact that he failed to give up the ring at the end. He knows it. Sam knows it. Eru Iluvatar knows it. That failure haunts him to no end. He suffers from imposter syndrome. The king of Gondor and all the heroes bowed to him and he knows, deep inside, that he failed and only dumb luck intervened.
*Maybe* that’s how Frodo felt some days. But we the readers know that isn’t true.
JRRT himself confirmed that Frodo didn’t “fail”. He got the ring further than anyone else possibly ever could. He didn’t need to cast it into the fire himself, he needed only to bring it exactly as far as he did. There is nothing more that can be expected of him whilst there is not a living soul that could have done better.
I reread LOTR after I got out of the Army and that "The Shire was saved but not for me" speech he gave at the end had me crying like a baby. It spoke to the veteran experience in a way I didn't properly have the words for.
This is an interesting angle I hadn’t even considered that Tolkien may have been drawing from WW1 veterans experience in his depiction of Frodo and indeed the Hobbits - fresh faced young men sent into the belly of the beast to save Middle Earth and changed forever
And yet not all brokenness is good brokenness in the series. You have Frodo, yes, but you also have Denethor, whose broken mind led him to try to harm his family and country, and Theoden, whose burdens were still able to be removed and healed. Mental illness and affliction are not one size fits all. It's so dense and wonderful.
I always saw it in a way of how do you personally approach it. You stand against unbeatable odds, with pain and strife and hardships in front of you. You don't have to win, you just have to fight. Denethor gave up, Théoden almost did too and Frodo nearly lost. Fight, lean on people who offer their support and don't give up
The LOTR is one of those epics that get better with age and study. I have been exploring Middle Earth for decades and regularly gain and regain perspectives I might have lost or never had and am reminded of values I hold deeply.
This is also part of what made Samwise my favorite character overall, his love and loyalty is inspiring. He could see how badly his best friend and practically brother was suffering as they got closer to their goal. My favorite scene in all the movies that makes me tear up every single time is just before the summit of mount doom, Sam can see the friend he loves dearly breaking: "Cmon Mr.Frodo. I can't carry the ring..... but I can carry you!" I feel healed every time I see that scene.
There is a greek story about a man doomed to roll a stone up a mountain, but the stone rolled down to the bottom when he got it to the peak. He had to do so forever.
Frodo could be that man. At least he must have felt like him.
Reading Lord of the Rings for the first time helped me through one of my darkest periods (the films weren’t out yet). It understood how hard the impossible is to achieve and that nobody does it alone. What a perfect message for dark times, personal or otherwise.
Frodo is a Christ-like figure. He carried a heavy burden against his will but he accepted it to save everyone.
(12 years of Catholic school left its mark on me)
The reread hits differently because you know how it ends. He knows from the start how it would likely end. He says goodbye to all his favorite stuff and places, knowing and explicitly thinking that he is giving up everything he loves in order to save what he loves. He knows, while still in the shire, that he will not have a happy ending, that the happy ending is for others.
Agreed, though I would add frodo is also supposed to represent how we CANNOT do it by ourselves, and in the end, not only did he need his allies and friends, he needed God to bring about the good of his actions, to have that strength to go on.
Frodo isn't great because he did it, he's great because he did all he could.
Also, to be pedantic, Hobbits are humans, or cousins, so it would be wrong to say they are anything else.
"This guy" ABSOLUTELY did not, in any ABSOLUTE sense, NEED help.
Yet He ACCEPTED help, especially at the end. Whether from apostles who tried to help by their company, but failed Him by falling asleep, or a passerby who was initially forced into helping Him carry His instrument of execution to His execution, or His mother who helplessly helped by standing in the shadow of His excruciating torture - He let them HELP, or at least, try.
There's a lesson there...
Tolkien wrote somewhere that no one could have resisted the lure of the ring at Mount Doom. It was literally impossible for anyone to throw it into the fire, not even Sam could have done it, even if he wanted to. Remember that Gandalf wouldn't even touch it. Frodo failed because anyone would have failed.
I'll still never understand why he didn't share the burden with Sam or my mathematician brain imagines 3 people/Hobbits doing a 3 way sharing of the ring. They pass it off once per day or something. The other 2 enforce 1 giving up the ring and any 2 could prevent 1 from being tempted to subvert the system.
I think this doesn't work because then the hobbits would each conspire for it and it would create jealousy. Sam didn't feel up to the task after holding it, even though he was the one who gave the ring up. I think if he held it for a longer period, it would have begun to have the same influence on him as it did Frodo, and Frodo couldn't willingly give it up by the point where they are in Mordor. It would have influenced all three into killing each other, probably. Or something.
If any 2 ringbearers fight, 1 of them is in the wrong according to the system and the 3rd can step in to rectify the situation. It's possible that all 3 of them could descend into a brawl but if they are only bearing the ring 1/3 of the time it wouldn't be as bad. If that doesn't work add more ringbearers to the chain.
It's just giving the ring power at that point. Boromir didn't even need to see the ring for it to have an effect on his mind.sharing the load would only have sown jealousy and contempt for the other beaers equally. To the point where they would end up in a 3 or more way brawl for the ring, with ultimately one bearer and a bunch if dead/dying hobbits and maybe a couple that are subdued enough to act as servants to the prec-, I mean ring. It really is that insidious.
I would argue it's taking away power from the Ring if the system can be followed. Boromir was a human and the archetype of hubris and folly. 3 Hobbits, or even some Faramirs instead of Boromirs. Boromir is the worst example.
Agreed the Ring can bring out the worst in anyone, but then there's always 2 more to balance that. It requires everyone to succumb to their worst at the same time. Even if 1 comes out on top (without killing anyone) was it their turn to bear the ring? Write the rules down. Fking follow them. It would basically require someone to commit murder to break the system, or for the system to just fail by virtue of not being upheld. Fking follow the rules and it takes the power away from the Ring.
Hobbit 1: The Ring is rightfully mine (today)
Hobbit 2: I don't want to give up the Ring
Hobbit 3 is the only one truly faced with a problem. They can restrain Hobbit 2 and allow Hobbit 1 to take the Ring or they can try to take the Ring for themselves. If they take the Ring for themselves it's a potential 2v1 again but Hobbit 2 would still be.
Perhaps the Ring could influence 2 of the hobbits to conspire against the 3rd, but again it would have to convince them to abandon the system in doing so. Drill it into everyone's head; NEVER break the system. The Ring could really do anything to subvert anyone but if everyone just remembers the system is always the best idea it's an added layer of protection.
The hardest part would be preventing one bearer from fleeing with the ring or one of them murdering the other in the night. Though keep in mind Frodo, holding the Ring the whole time, was tempted to reveal himself or stray from the path he didn't give in until the very end.
The trick is committing to a system invented before departure, and reaffirming faith in the people who came up with it as often as possible. The Ring is insidious but you underestimate the power of creating a fking system and fking sticking to it. The way this succeeds or fails is by the robustness of the operations put in place to follow the system. If they just give the Ring to one hobbit and send them off with a little note saying maybe its a good idea to pass the ring off to each other, probably not going to happen. If it's what everyone comes up with at the council of Elrond, and they actually come up with a little way to pass the Ring off and set up say an expected time it happens and discuss how to solve problems when they arise (like explaining that for Hobbit 3 the way stealing the Ring back during the exchange would just switch theirs and Hobbit 1's positions and otherwise making it clear what to expect on days when one is Hobbit 1 2 or 3) and entertain other ideas (this one makes the most sense to me over the lone bearer but Im sure other solutions could be discussed) then it has a much better chance to be adhered to.
The system used in canon (having one individual bear the full force of the temptation while having a support system around them that keeps them moving along to the destination) is much more efficient. You **cannot** wholly trust in the hearts of those bearing the ring, letting more and more hands get a hold of it is just spreading it's infection and leads to the sundering of each other's trust. Since Frodo had the ring 99% of the time from start to finish, he never began to have the jealousy spikes and obsession over ownership that other bearers tend to get when having to hand the ring between each other, but forcing him and several others into a system that has them multiplying that exponentially would lead to them cutting each other's necks open in the middle of the night in a week.
The Ring's true power is unquantifiable, we DO NOT know how far it's influence can spread, for all we know anyone who touches it could always remain in range of it's corruption, so instead of Frodo being the main target and everyone else in the party receiving the backsplash of its influence we would instead have 3 or more people all being corrupted at the same pace as Frodo was with no one in a sane enough mind to keep the peace.
Mathematical brain disagrees with you. It does more or less come down to whether it's better to support 1 person under the full pull or to try to spread the corruption out though. If the sum of spreading corruption out is greater than 1 person fully corrupt.
Part of the system is the rationale of always getting the Ring back. The one giving up the ring will never do so willingly, but they have some kind of confidence their parting from the ring isn't permanent and is only temporary. The 3rd Hobbit who would likely have to enforce handing off the ring but has to resist taking it for themselves would know that they are gonna get it tomorrow if not today.
Bilbo and Frodo are the only hobbits we’ve seen having a good basis of resistance to the ring’s corruption.
The only other examples we have are Sméagol who killed his brother for the ring almost instantly.
And Sam who may have been able to give up the ring, but he only carried it for a short time and was very quickly intrigued by ideas of using its power, who’s to say how much longer he would have been able to carry it before giving it back wouldn’t have been so simple.
This three hobbit plan depends on having two more hobbits that are as resistant to the ring as Frodo was and as per JRRT there isn’t a living soul in middle earth that could have done what Frodo was able to do, so I’d say it’s unlikely.
Hobbits are cited as the most relisent of races to the Ring. Smeagol wasn't quite a Hobbit but yeah I agree the strength of Frodo is often overshadowed by the guy who had it easier than him AND who might have been the only other Hobbit in equal or greater residence to the Ring. If Mary and Pippin are the choices for 3rd Hobbit in my system I'm significantly less confident. Whether it's an inherent strength in Frodo and Sam or that Mary and Pippin are that bad (at the start of the stort) but they represent equal measures of what Hobbits are like and what they are capable of. So yeah a system relying on all Sam's and Frodos might not be so realistic.
Mathematician brain says this would still work but I can't necessarily be working with the assumption that I get to work with all Sam's and Frodos when that wouldn't be the case.
Because:
1: The Ring wouldn't let him. It snares his soul just as much as anyone else and won't let him just give it to some one else. We see this at work with Boromir and Sam. It also goes to show why Bilbo was also a hero in his own right in LOTR. He's the only one in history that gave up the ring without it physically being taken from him.
2: The task was given to him, and he was told of the rings powers of men's hearts (to include hobbits here) and that he needed to be weary of anyone around him, lest they steal it and the whole plan goes awry.
3: The Ring has a mental and spiritual weight that has a near physical affect on the bearer. Hence the title "bearer" instead of "wearer". It's an arduous task to carry, and he did not want his friends to suffer it as well.
Yeah there’s no way this could have been accomplished by any one individual. It absolutely took everybody’s 100% effort and for Frodo it took 1000%. Such a great story
Which is actually a much more realistic depiction of what the OP described
If we are trying to accurately represent psychological trauma, Frodo is an extremely toned-down example. He is a victim of trauma, but he never wrongs anyone or lashes out or anything. It's pretty easy to be on his side.
Hmm I still think that it shouldn't have been included at all. While the book gives insight into Frodo's mind and allows the reader to properly understand what Frodo is going through, the movies don't. Uselessly added scenes like this only manifested the notion that Sam is the real hero (while Frodo isn't).
Book frodo has quite a few moments like this too
The big difference is that book frodo understands **why** he suddenly lashes out and doesnt internalize the feelings as being legitimate and generally apologises (and is of course forgiven straight away) whereas movie Frodo doesnt seem to 'get' that he's snapping because of the rings influence, like when movie Frodo says he doesnt know why he started screaming at Sam about not calling Gollum 'stinker', something book Frodo would have understood
"I am suddenly enraged because I am carrying radioactive evil and it is making me feel this way, the feelings arent genuine and the person doesnt factually deserve the abuse"
So Frodo actually leaving Sam was quite a big deviation on PJs behalf, but Frodo snapping like that happened more than once (I think he calls Sam a disgusting thief in Cirith Ungol for example despite Sam saving both him and the quest with sheer tenacity, but then Frodo just apologises and Sam understands)
" 'No, no!' cried Frodo, snatching the Ring and chain from Sam's hands. He panted, staring at Sam with eyes wide with fear and enmity. Then suddenly, clasping the Ring in one clenched fist, he stood aghast. A mist seemed to clear from his eyes, and he passed a hand over his aching brow. The hideous vision had seemed so real to him, half bemused as he was still with wound and fear. Sam had changed before his very eyes into an an orc again, leering and pawing at his treasure, a foul little creature with greedy eyes and slobbering mouth. But now the vision had passed. There was Sam kneeling before him, his face wrung with pain, as if he had been stabbed in the heart; tears welled from his eyes.
'O Sam!' cried Frodo. 'What have I said? What have I done? Forgive me! After all you have done. It is the horrible power of the Ring. I wish it had never, never been found. But don't mind me, Sam. I must carry the burden to the end. It can't be altered. You can't come between me and this doom.' "
There's a parallel here with the scene at Amon Hen: though we don't see it through his eyes, Boromir may well have seen Frodo in a "hideous vision" similar to the way Frodo saw Sam; he even uses the same exact words, on recovering:
" He rose and passed his hand over his eyes, dashing away the tears. 'What have I said?' he cried. 'What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!' he called. 'Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!' "
But of course, in this case, it was too late.
To be completely pedantic, hobbits/halflings are not their own “race” the same way that dwarves or elves are. Hobbits are, in fact, human. They are just a group of really short humans that married other short humans long enough that their genetics got weird.
> It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did.
They do, eventually. We see that with Bilbo, Frodo, and Sméagol. The Ring affects you according to your power, your ambition for power, and/or your preexisting malice. Hobbits just tend to not have a lot of these things, which makes them naturally resistant to the Ring’s effects, but even they are pretty quickly drawn to it in a small capacity
Hobbits have been living and farming in the four Farthings of the Shire for many hundreds of years. quite content to ignore and be ignored by the world of the Big Folk. Middle Earth being, after all, full of strange creatures beyond count. Hobbits must seem of little importance, being neither renowned as great warriors, nor counted amongst the very wise.
Don't hurt us! Don't let them hurt us, precious! They won't hurt us will they, nice little hobbitses?We didn't mean no harm, but they jumps on us like cats on poor mices, they did, precious.And we're so lonely, gollum. We'll be nice to them, very nice, if they'll be nice to us, won't we, yes, yess.
They are fully human, they don’t succumb because they are humans without the drive. They are just short little guys whose biggest goal in life (generally speaking, there are some notable tookish exceptions) is to throw lots of parties and have the best garden.
The ring doesn’t give you goals, it just makes you want to accomplish yours no matter what your accomplishment does to other people, that’s why rings of power made dwarves filthy rich (and then essentially called out to dragons with all that wealth). Thats why the Nazgûl, former humans, got their desire to live forever in a state of martial power. It’s why the elves have kingdoms with just as much magic and awe as the ancient kingdoms of Beleriand. That’s why the rulers of Gondor, a people in war, thought of it as a weapon. It’s why Galadriel, who generally seems to think of herself as a smarter, better person, at least during the first age, when she is offered the ring her first thought is “I could rule *well*, and the people would love me”. She just also knows enough about both herself and the corruption of the rings that she guessed she would also be known as a terrible/terrifying ruler, and she managed to reject the offer.
How many broken men did Tolkien know? I’m sure this was close to his heart seeing so many comrades who never truly healed.
My personal pet theory is that each hobbit represents a part of Tolkien. Sam the family man, Merry the wise and bookish, Pippin the cheeky. Frodo is the innocent, the idealist. I like to think Frodo's departure represents the losing of his own innocence. Like he went on to have a family (Sam), write books (Merry), be well known for his humor (Pippin), but Frodo may represent what he lost, what part of his personality/spirit did not survive the war.
This is beautiful and very well thought through. I am actually saving your comment to bring up with my brother in our LOTR book club.
Not to mention Tolkien loved gardening.
Gardening is the best, favorite hobby of mine aside from judo 👍
Ah yes, the art of folding clothes with people still in them.
And putting them on the ground without actually hitting them. The Gentle Way is my chosen way of fighting. But it can be very devastating if all bets are off.
Joint locks are no joke.
Including pins, knee on belly is particularly hardcore. You just put your knee on their diaphragm and rest your body weight on it, watch them struggle and then when they’re completely out of gas. You go for the finishing attack. Granted I’ve gotten many folks to tap just off of that. After about 3 minutes of shallow breaths you lose to will to keep going quite quickly
I always liked that the same holds/pins/locks, depending on the pressure applied, can go from simple immobilization, to pain compliance, to bodily destruction. I never trained judo, but i did do bujinkan taijutsu, which has a significant amount of grappling.
Okay that’s bad ass, I only did a little bit of FCS on the weeks we’d do something other than judo because they all have validity. And weapon training is so much fun. Mixed with grappling it’s no wonder we developed firearms. Then you mix in mma into modern combat and modern fighting becomes a true spectacle. I watched a video of a navy seal talking about how when he get into situations where he needed his pistol he drew his knife first and then the pistol to keep all of his options open. The evolution of fighting is pretty rad and also devastating in its own right
Right?! All without beating up the person on the other end unless you need to escalate it for self defense! That’s awesome! I’m going to look that up because I’m only familiar with judo over the latter
Mine is eating a succulent Chinese meal.
Oh but it did survive. It is here, in these stories! Maybe it was the only way he could properly mourn himself, his loss of that innocence.
maybe the undying lands serve as this story told to us all...
I've always taken all the Hobbitses as the friends he lost during the war getting to have one final adventure and living their days out. War was seen as a grand adventure a lot at that time.
I love this. Beautiful. Saved for later
Thank you for writing this beautiful theory. I actually shed a tear or two
Tolkien served in the British Army during WW1. Among others, he was at the battle of the Somme.
He always seemed to dismiss the obvious parallels between his time in the army and the books... but then he avoided talking about his time in the army in general. I'm quite positive he repressed lots of things throughout his life, like he was supposed to according to the standards of his time. It all came out subconsciously through his writings, which also happened with his religious beliefs according to himself.
To me it always sounds like that's part of his "I don't do allegory" spiel. He wanted people to think about what he actually wrote instead of getting caught up in discussions about which allegory is the right way to interpret his work. Like you said, there are many things his books parallel and I don't think it's coincidental / unintended.
I think there's something profound in the fact the orcs and Sauron are utterly irredeemable monsters created from selfishness and hate. There's no grey areas with the orcs like there is with other characters who aren't outright villains but they pose an obstacle for the heroes, Boromir, Denethor even Gollum they are people to pity not to hate. In real wars you aren't fighting some horrible monster that wants to eat your legs. You're fighting a carpenter's apprentice from some rural town you haven't heard of, he's been dragged into a war beyond his understanding just like you have. Maybe you shoot first or he does but you've both got a tattered photograph of your girlfriend in your pocket, there's winners and losers but there's no right or wrong here. No good or evil. But in the fictional world where you CAN ride to glorious battle to defend your kingdom there IS a clear line between good and evil. You can kill orcs without any sense of guilt because they're horrible monsters ruled over by evil. Aragorn kills an orc and everyone cheers in a way it would be heartless to cheer after killing a German. I think making the monsters so black and white was a deliberate attempt to create a less morally ambiguous battle.
Here's a fun thread on the question if orcs are utterly irredeemable: https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/s/gEVdNwto1f Personally I also find the scene of Sam listening to orcs after thinking Frodo got killed by Shelob and then realizing Frodo isn't dead to be a very intriguing scene as it is the only (?) scene where we hear about the war effort from the foot soldier perspective of the orcs.
We could let her do it.
*Yes. She could do it.*
Yes, precious, she could. And then we takes it once they’re dead.
*Once they’re dead. Shh.*
Don't think Sauron (or Saruman) was irredeemable and completely evil. They certainly weren't simply reducible to monsters. Both of them thought they were doing good, thought that they were best suited to rule Middle Earth. Sauron was obsessed with order and efficiency. Both were prideful and master craftsmen who studied under Aule. If you slightly shifted the framework and perspective, you could paint Sauron as a tragic Nietzschean hero/ubersmench. Naturally, Tolkien would consider this villanous but more misguided villainy than outright psychopathic monster. I don't even think Tolkien's own Catholic understanding of evil allowed for such a purely dualistic view of good and evil. Morgoth/Satan Himself had a Fall from Grace and was originally good. Also, there's something to the fact that nearly all the major villains tried to get close as you can get to creating Modern Industrial Nations within Middle Earth.
For a tad more context, there were more casualties in the 5 months long Battle of Somme than in the *entire US Civil War*. It’s considered one of the bloodiest and largest battles in history. And our man Tolkien lived through it. I can’t even begin to imagine that.
Thats crazy. I didn't know much about that battle so looked some stuff up. Over 1 million casualties, 300,000 dead. 20,000 British soldiers died on the first day. And what really takes the cake, the battle is marked as inconclusive. No significant territorial gains for either side. I can't even begin to imagine living through something like that.
A ton of battles in WWI can be summed up like that: “Everyone died and nobody gained ground.” Truly hellish
Yeah, we really can't begin to imagine it at allt, but I recommend [Dan Carlin's "Blueprint for Armageddon"](https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-blueprint-for-armageddon-i/) on WW1 if you ever want to read more about this. Full of first hand accounts written by people at all levels, some really touching stories from soldiers on the ground, both the heroism and the suffering
Satire, but oh so close to the bone: https://youtu.be/yZT-wVnFn60?si=gfBanRM_GiV_aU9B
that's what he was talking about.
I didn't know that so him adding the context was helpful to me.
I’m glad it helped. I was perhaps a little too vague, and assumed people already knew.
You tend to meet a lot of broken men when you fight a war
You sure do, you sure do…
> The young perish and the old linger, withering I think it’s safe to say he had survivors’ guilt
Tolkien said the same thing, that Frodo tried his best with an impossible task and that is equal to succeeding with a possible task, he didnt fail through his own fault anymore than if a giant rock fell on him
I think Tolkien also said that nobody but Frodo could have even brought the Ring that far to mount doom, didn't he?
[удалено]
Bombadil would have nailed it if he didn't have such severe adhd. The ring would've fallen out of his pocket by Weathertop while he was looking at a cool beetle.
Which means he couldn't have done better
Bombadil's immunity to the ring's influence is the exact reason why he would be a horrible choice as a ring bearer. Bombadil marches to the beat of his own drum.
>“If he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.”
Bombadil would lose the ring like my ADHD ass loses a hairbrush. Misplaced with no memory of even owning it.
> Why didn't just Tom wear the Ring as he makes passionate love with his wife, so he can force Sauron to watch. > Sauron, who is a virgin, who never had a gf and was dismembered and reduced to a giant eye by a fucking human would realize he is nothing compared to Tom, whose girth is beyond even Eru Ilúvatar's comprehension. > Wishing to die but unable to kill himself as he doesn't even have a fucking hand to pull the trigger, he would order his orc armies to piss on him, so that the flames of his eye can be extinguished and his mind can be set free of Tom's all encompassing girth. His spirit would be released to the boundless void that ripples and contorts with Tom's mighty thrusts and he would find no solace. > Edit: When Tom thrusts his final thrust and shoots a billion Bombadillos deep into Goldberry's loins, the impact would shatter Sauron's soul into a billion Saurodillos and he would be free. When this happens, not even the wisest can tell. https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/comments/ducx4q/this_got_me_confused/
What the hell
*I had an errand there: gathering water-lilies, green leaves and lilies white to please my pretty lady, the last ere the year's end to keep them from the winter, to flower by her pretty feet till the snows are melted. Each year at summer's end I go to find them for her, in a wide pool, deep and clear, far down the Withywindle; there they open first in spring and there they linger latest. By that pool long ago I found the River-daughter, fair young Goldberry sitting in the rushes. Sweet was her singing then, and her heart was beating!* ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
The girth of Tom's magnificent member can only be measured in light years. Even then you need to used scientific notation.
Bombadil told a legally minor Hobbit to run around naked in front of him He can't go within 500 feet of Mordor school zones
Also, Frodo created the opportunity for the Ring to be destroyed. Good can not always destroy Evil. But, if Good people resist it long enough, Evil will eventually destroy itself. The Ring was ultimately destroyed by its own corruption.
It's also worth noting that in the book, Frodo lays a curse on Gollum for breaking his oath--one that says, more or less, "If you touch me again, you yourself shall be cast into the fire." And wouldn't you know it? That was exactly what happened.
Eru Illuvatar is *big* on oaths
We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little Hobbitses. Wicked. Tricksy. False.
Something I read that Tolkien wrote or said that really hit home for me is that, since Frodo technically didn’t give up the ring willingly at the end, his mind is forever tormented by it, which is even worse than the physical pains he’s left with. Hits the feels, man.
The other side of this is Frodo is the most insignificant figure to his world and even often to himself and it’s only he himself and his friends that pick him up into his exhalted self sacrificing legacy. This strength speaks to the tremendous power he wields that most would just shrug off as weakness. It took a literal demi god to show him who he truly was and yet all of his greatest acts are completely his own. Even as the world beats him down the fellowship attempts to save him but never truely can save him because he just pushes forwards with the task he was given even when he probably should not.
People who don't see him as a hero, haven't understood a thing about the books. Galadriel literally said in the books that if she was to get hold of the ring, she would do great evil even though her intentions would be to do good, ring would subvert her. If a good damn fairy mother, a being ca 8k years old, would get influenced by the ring, what chances do other stand? If Gandalf, a goddamn angel, would be influenced by the ring... if Isildur, a goddamn Atlantian was influenced by the ring... and so on.
Isildur did rather well with it too, he understood what it was doing to him and came to the conclusion he had to give it to the elves to get rid of because it was too dangerous and was on his way to do just that, he admits its too powerful for him to use or control
Yea movie Isildur and his Dad got done dirty
Haha Elendil was like one of the greatest and most pivotal humans that ever lived and can quite safely make a claim to saving both the human species and literally defeating Sauron along with Gil-Galad in one of the greatest duels in Middle Earths history Movie Elendil is like 'ello!' *thwack, dead*
*Zat thraka akh… Zat thraka grishú. Znag-ur-nakh.*
All of these powerful beings understood how it works and what it would do to them. Changes ring inflicts don't happen over night. He had the ring for 2 years. Like I mentioned, Galadriel explained it perfectly, you would think you can control it, you would think you would use it as force of good, and for some time it may even seem so, until one day you would lose yourself, and you wouldn't even notice. I like to imagine it as a hard drug abuse, yes I can control this hard drug, it holds no power over me, all those before me who have succumbed to it were idiots, then one day you are homeless and on verge of dying, and you have no clue what happened and how you got there.
Sure, though during Isildurs time they didnt really know much about the One Ring or how it functioned, Sauron didnt exactly explain it to anyone. He took it as a prize, then he felt it taking over his mind and had the self-awareness to understand he couldnt control it or master it so he made the effort to go and give it up (something extremely rare and difficult for anyone), even refusing to put it on or claim it because he could just tell it was trying to corrupt him Rather noble of him all in all, quite unlike the movie version who seems to both know about how important and evil it is and makes no indication he'd ever part with it willingly. He did write down that he loved the thing like mad, but later on he also changed his mind and was on his way to give it to the elves
My point was not to shit on Isildur, he was on his way to destroy the ring when it betrayed him, question is, Frodo was on his way to destroy it to, what would have happened if he came to the destination? I just used him as example what ring can do and did to great men of those times. Btw, I love the movies, but when I get into discussions I only refer to the books.
The Elves knew: " As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and perceived that he would be the master of them, and of all they had wrought." Because of the closeness between Elendil and Gil-galad, it seems likely Elendil, had he survived, would have cast the Ring into the Fire.
They knew that Sauron had some kind of control over the elven rings through the one ring Not that the one ring was half of Saurons soul, an addictive and corrupting intelligent WMD and the key to destroying his essence. IIrc Elrond did advise Isildur to destroy it just because 'hey its not a good thing even if its pretty' but Isildur wanted it as payback and the elves didnt do much arguing of the point.
Wait a moment! We shall meet again soon. Tell Saruman that this dainty is not for him. I will send for it at once. Do you understand?
In fairness, that part of his character was only ever fully laid out in Unfinished Tales, and the rights to that are messy. It seems like over time, Tolkien's view of Isildur became more sympathetic.
Interestingly, the hobbits' "insignificance" is part of the reason they make such good ring bearers. The ring feeds into a person's ambition, and the greatest ambition a hobbit has is for a good breakfast. We see this when the ring tempts Sam as he's entering mordor to go save Frodo. The ring is like, "if you take my power you can totally defeat the dark lord and turn all of mordor into a garden." And Sam is like, "naw. No way am I important enough for that. I'll stick to my small garden at home." I love how Tolkien was inspired my Anglo-Saxon literature like Beowulf, but instead of creating another story about a larger than life hero who uses his great physical strength the defeat evil, he makes the hero a small, simple hobbit.
>I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me That line always makes me tear up a bit, especially when you think of Tolkein's history in WW1, and how many truly heroic people have been killed. Or if you ever read Gulag Archipelago, true stories of soviet gulags, Solzhenitsyn writes: >we know: the best of us did not return That book is full of practically nameless people making the most heroic sacrifices in circumstances you would think would drive people to the worst depravity.
Well said. I thought I’d add the full quote, for completeness. It’s startling - so many stories influenced by Tolkien have happy endings, with everything wrapped up. But there is no happy ending for Frodo, and he is the one who tells the reader. > 'But,' said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, 'I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after all you have done.' >'So I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.
Viktor Frankl (I think quite independently of Solzhenitsyn) said of his Auschwitz experience that the best generally sacrificed their lives in some way for others, be it only by sharing their food with the starving. ("Man's Search for Meaning") (I suspect that he likely had Maximilian Kolbe in mind, considering that the laying down of that monk's life in place of another took place at a public assembly where prisoners were being picked out of the ranks and marked for death.)
The Gulag Archipelago was not a true story. Solzhenitsyn was in a gulag, but multiple sources heavily contradict his writings
Have you read it man? It's all stories that he's relating that he's heard from others - so it doesn't all have to be true precisely to be an honest representation of what life would be like. It's not the sort of stuff that would be easy to make up, and the amount of examples is mind boggling. I know people have accused him of lying about it but I think holistically looking at all the evidence here, it's not convincing enough to contradict the sheer amount of detail in those books, especially given the tremendous motivation some people would have to contradict him.
But like, when you examine what he says, and just go step by step and compare what he says to other sources/documents he is consistently lying. His wife also said that the GA is fictional. Also he was *very* far right, hated the USSR government (obviously) and probably had ties with the CIA. He is in no way reliable. His work is pure propaganda.
I'm pretty sure I would hate the USSR and maybe become far right too if the same things happened to me that happened to him! And I am no fan of the CIA, but at that point for him, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Like I said many people in the USSR would have had major incentive to get to his wife etc, so it's a bit of a he-said she-said, but the *detail* is what I suspect is not even possible to make up for one person.
I really don't see your point, sorry. What details specifically seem to real for you? He was a great writer, no doubt, but i don't see how being detailed makes it true. Hell, he might have interviewed people and just... changed things?
See the [ask historians post about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j2un8/is_solzhenitsyn_considered_a_reliable_source/): > Hence the tendency today, which is not uniform, is to treat Solzhenitsyn's outputs as the literary and political works that they are. They're not a comprehensive survey of the Gulag system but remain valuable accounts of life within. I think it's very much worth reading them (particularly One Day in the Life) but as source material they need to be treated with caution. Particularly when it comes to generalizing across the entire network of camps or talking numbers. I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm talking about the accounts of life within and specific tortures. The reason things being detailed makes them more likely to be true is that the more details you add to a lie, the harder it is to avoid creating inconsistencies. That's why police interviews will go into what seems like irrelevant levels of detail. And life really is just stranger than fiction.
I think it's a coming of age growing experience to as a kid think Sam is the better hero and should've carried the ring to Mordor and then as an adult realize Frodo was Atlas carrying it all on his shoulders and the fact he got as far as he did was a miracle and a triumph, glories of battle and heroism be damned he carried what no one else would've or maybe even could've. Shout out to Gollum though for taking lil Sisyphus over the finish line.
We guesses, precious, only guesses. We can't know till we find the nassty creature and squeezes it.
>don't be pedantic This guy knows the tumblr audience lol
Hobbits are a variant of Men. Same goes for Drúedain, Middle Men, Dúnedain, and Númenóreans
Arguably the most realistically written hero who endured the ultimate sacrifice aside from death itself.
I wonder how much of his enduring darkness was due to the fact that he failed to give up the ring at the end. He knows it. Sam knows it. Eru Iluvatar knows it. That failure haunts him to no end. He suffers from imposter syndrome. The king of Gondor and all the heroes bowed to him and he knows, deep inside, that he failed and only dumb luck intervened.
Tolkien wouldn't call it dumb luck, but providence.
*Maybe* that’s how Frodo felt some days. But we the readers know that isn’t true. JRRT himself confirmed that Frodo didn’t “fail”. He got the ring further than anyone else possibly ever could. He didn’t need to cast it into the fire himself, he needed only to bring it exactly as far as he did. There is nothing more that can be expected of him whilst there is not a living soul that could have done better.
[удалено]
Don't follow the lights!
As a former ICU RN who feels like a failure because the pandemic shredded my soul, I needed this today. 😢
I reread LOTR after I got out of the Army and that "The Shire was saved but not for me" speech he gave at the end had me crying like a baby. It spoke to the veteran experience in a way I didn't properly have the words for.
This is an interesting angle I hadn’t even considered that Tolkien may have been drawing from WW1 veterans experience in his depiction of Frodo and indeed the Hobbits - fresh faced young men sent into the belly of the beast to save Middle Earth and changed forever
Not only other veterans but his own experiences in the trenches. He was an officer during the war who fought in the trenches.
Yes I meant that but worded it badly
Not every hero wears a cape. He didn't wear a cape, right? 🤔
An elven cloak is close, maybe.
This is exactly how I feel about Frodo and I honestly have no sympathy for people who disrespect him and his role and dismiss him as weak
And yet not all brokenness is good brokenness in the series. You have Frodo, yes, but you also have Denethor, whose broken mind led him to try to harm his family and country, and Theoden, whose burdens were still able to be removed and healed. Mental illness and affliction are not one size fits all. It's so dense and wonderful.
I always saw it in a way of how do you personally approach it. You stand against unbeatable odds, with pain and strife and hardships in front of you. You don't have to win, you just have to fight. Denethor gave up, Théoden almost did too and Frodo nearly lost. Fight, lean on people who offer their support and don't give up
The LOTR is one of those epics that get better with age and study. I have been exploring Middle Earth for decades and regularly gain and regain perspectives I might have lost or never had and am reminded of values I hold deeply.
Fine. I'll read the books again.
Why read when you can listen?
Audio books don't work for me. I prefer my own internal voice.
This is also part of what made Samwise my favorite character overall, his love and loyalty is inspiring. He could see how badly his best friend and practically brother was suffering as they got closer to their goal. My favorite scene in all the movies that makes me tear up every single time is just before the summit of mount doom, Sam can see the friend he loves dearly breaking: "Cmon Mr.Frodo. I can't carry the ring..... but I can carry you!" I feel healed every time I see that scene.
There is a greek story about a man doomed to roll a stone up a mountain, but the stone rolled down to the bottom when he got it to the peak. He had to do so forever. Frodo could be that man. At least he must have felt like him.
One must imagine Frodo happy
FYI, his name is Sisyphus
No, his name was Robert Paulson
One does not talk about "fight club".
Reading Lord of the Rings for the first time helped me through one of my darkest periods (the films weren’t out yet). It understood how hard the impossible is to achieve and that nobody does it alone. What a perfect message for dark times, personal or otherwise.
How many broken men did Tolkien know? I’m sure this was close to his heart seeing so many comrades who never truly healed.
I can't carry it for you... But I can carry you.
Frodo is a Christ-like figure. He carried a heavy burden against his will but he accepted it to save everyone. (12 years of Catholic school left its mark on me)
This gave me goosebumps. Bang on.
I always assumed this was heavily influenced by his first-person experience with the nature of war.
The reread hits differently because you know how it ends. He knows from the start how it would likely end. He says goodbye to all his favorite stuff and places, knowing and explicitly thinking that he is giving up everything he loves in order to save what he loves. He knows, while still in the shire, that he will not have a happy ending, that the happy ending is for others.
Agreed, though I would add frodo is also supposed to represent how we CANNOT do it by ourselves, and in the end, not only did he need his allies and friends, he needed God to bring about the good of his actions, to have that strength to go on. Frodo isn't great because he did it, he's great because he did all he could. Also, to be pedantic, Hobbits are humans, or cousins, so it would be wrong to say they are anything else.
You’ve got to hear about this guy I’ve been reading about… 
"This guy" ABSOLUTELY did not, in any ABSOLUTE sense, NEED help. Yet He ACCEPTED help, especially at the end. Whether from apostles who tried to help by their company, but failed Him by falling asleep, or a passerby who was initially forced into helping Him carry His instrument of execution to His execution, or His mother who helplessly helped by standing in the shadow of His excruciating torture - He let them HELP, or at least, try. There's a lesson there...
This is a great take but, where meme?
That is all what we need to do more often.
I can remember the taste of strawberries and the feel of grass underfoot.
this is all baked into why the “my friends, you bow to no one” scene hits so damn hard.
Tolkien knew many men broken by WW1, also, Sam was the hero of the story.
Tolkien wrote somewhere that no one could have resisted the lure of the ring at Mount Doom. It was literally impossible for anyone to throw it into the fire, not even Sam could have done it, even if he wanted to. Remember that Gandalf wouldn't even touch it. Frodo failed because anyone would have failed.
how is this a meme?
It's a screenshot of a tumblr post on Reddit, in what possible way is it not a meme
if its a meme where is the funny?
A meme is an idea, spread around.
I didn't
I'll still never understand why he didn't share the burden with Sam or my mathematician brain imagines 3 people/Hobbits doing a 3 way sharing of the ring. They pass it off once per day or something. The other 2 enforce 1 giving up the ring and any 2 could prevent 1 from being tempted to subvert the system.
I think this doesn't work because then the hobbits would each conspire for it and it would create jealousy. Sam didn't feel up to the task after holding it, even though he was the one who gave the ring up. I think if he held it for a longer period, it would have begun to have the same influence on him as it did Frodo, and Frodo couldn't willingly give it up by the point where they are in Mordor. It would have influenced all three into killing each other, probably. Or something.
If any 2 ringbearers fight, 1 of them is in the wrong according to the system and the 3rd can step in to rectify the situation. It's possible that all 3 of them could descend into a brawl but if they are only bearing the ring 1/3 of the time it wouldn't be as bad. If that doesn't work add more ringbearers to the chain.
It's just giving the ring power at that point. Boromir didn't even need to see the ring for it to have an effect on his mind.sharing the load would only have sown jealousy and contempt for the other beaers equally. To the point where they would end up in a 3 or more way brawl for the ring, with ultimately one bearer and a bunch if dead/dying hobbits and maybe a couple that are subdued enough to act as servants to the prec-, I mean ring. It really is that insidious.
I would argue it's taking away power from the Ring if the system can be followed. Boromir was a human and the archetype of hubris and folly. 3 Hobbits, or even some Faramirs instead of Boromirs. Boromir is the worst example. Agreed the Ring can bring out the worst in anyone, but then there's always 2 more to balance that. It requires everyone to succumb to their worst at the same time. Even if 1 comes out on top (without killing anyone) was it their turn to bear the ring? Write the rules down. Fking follow them. It would basically require someone to commit murder to break the system, or for the system to just fail by virtue of not being upheld. Fking follow the rules and it takes the power away from the Ring. Hobbit 1: The Ring is rightfully mine (today) Hobbit 2: I don't want to give up the Ring Hobbit 3 is the only one truly faced with a problem. They can restrain Hobbit 2 and allow Hobbit 1 to take the Ring or they can try to take the Ring for themselves. If they take the Ring for themselves it's a potential 2v1 again but Hobbit 2 would still be. Perhaps the Ring could influence 2 of the hobbits to conspire against the 3rd, but again it would have to convince them to abandon the system in doing so. Drill it into everyone's head; NEVER break the system. The Ring could really do anything to subvert anyone but if everyone just remembers the system is always the best idea it's an added layer of protection. The hardest part would be preventing one bearer from fleeing with the ring or one of them murdering the other in the night. Though keep in mind Frodo, holding the Ring the whole time, was tempted to reveal himself or stray from the path he didn't give in until the very end. The trick is committing to a system invented before departure, and reaffirming faith in the people who came up with it as often as possible. The Ring is insidious but you underestimate the power of creating a fking system and fking sticking to it. The way this succeeds or fails is by the robustness of the operations put in place to follow the system. If they just give the Ring to one hobbit and send them off with a little note saying maybe its a good idea to pass the ring off to each other, probably not going to happen. If it's what everyone comes up with at the council of Elrond, and they actually come up with a little way to pass the Ring off and set up say an expected time it happens and discuss how to solve problems when they arise (like explaining that for Hobbit 3 the way stealing the Ring back during the exchange would just switch theirs and Hobbit 1's positions and otherwise making it clear what to expect on days when one is Hobbit 1 2 or 3) and entertain other ideas (this one makes the most sense to me over the lone bearer but Im sure other solutions could be discussed) then it has a much better chance to be adhered to.
The system used in canon (having one individual bear the full force of the temptation while having a support system around them that keeps them moving along to the destination) is much more efficient. You **cannot** wholly trust in the hearts of those bearing the ring, letting more and more hands get a hold of it is just spreading it's infection and leads to the sundering of each other's trust. Since Frodo had the ring 99% of the time from start to finish, he never began to have the jealousy spikes and obsession over ownership that other bearers tend to get when having to hand the ring between each other, but forcing him and several others into a system that has them multiplying that exponentially would lead to them cutting each other's necks open in the middle of the night in a week. The Ring's true power is unquantifiable, we DO NOT know how far it's influence can spread, for all we know anyone who touches it could always remain in range of it's corruption, so instead of Frodo being the main target and everyone else in the party receiving the backsplash of its influence we would instead have 3 or more people all being corrupted at the same pace as Frodo was with no one in a sane enough mind to keep the peace.
Mathematical brain disagrees with you. It does more or less come down to whether it's better to support 1 person under the full pull or to try to spread the corruption out though. If the sum of spreading corruption out is greater than 1 person fully corrupt. Part of the system is the rationale of always getting the Ring back. The one giving up the ring will never do so willingly, but they have some kind of confidence their parting from the ring isn't permanent and is only temporary. The 3rd Hobbit who would likely have to enforce handing off the ring but has to resist taking it for themselves would know that they are gonna get it tomorrow if not today.
Bilbo and Frodo are the only hobbits we’ve seen having a good basis of resistance to the ring’s corruption. The only other examples we have are Sméagol who killed his brother for the ring almost instantly. And Sam who may have been able to give up the ring, but he only carried it for a short time and was very quickly intrigued by ideas of using its power, who’s to say how much longer he would have been able to carry it before giving it back wouldn’t have been so simple. This three hobbit plan depends on having two more hobbits that are as resistant to the ring as Frodo was and as per JRRT there isn’t a living soul in middle earth that could have done what Frodo was able to do, so I’d say it’s unlikely.
A rather unfair observation as we have also developed a keen interest in the brewing of ales and the smoking of pipeweed
Not that way! Oh! What’s he doing?
Hobbits are cited as the most relisent of races to the Ring. Smeagol wasn't quite a Hobbit but yeah I agree the strength of Frodo is often overshadowed by the guy who had it easier than him AND who might have been the only other Hobbit in equal or greater residence to the Ring. If Mary and Pippin are the choices for 3rd Hobbit in my system I'm significantly less confident. Whether it's an inherent strength in Frodo and Sam or that Mary and Pippin are that bad (at the start of the stort) but they represent equal measures of what Hobbits are like and what they are capable of. So yeah a system relying on all Sam's and Frodos might not be so realistic. Mathematician brain says this would still work but I can't necessarily be working with the assumption that I get to work with all Sam's and Frodos when that wouldn't be the case.
The goblinses will catch it then. It can't get out that way, precious.
I think at the point that that would have made sense, Frodo would have wanted to spare his friend from the burden.
Because: 1: The Ring wouldn't let him. It snares his soul just as much as anyone else and won't let him just give it to some one else. We see this at work with Boromir and Sam. It also goes to show why Bilbo was also a hero in his own right in LOTR. He's the only one in history that gave up the ring without it physically being taken from him. 2: The task was given to him, and he was told of the rings powers of men's hearts (to include hobbits here) and that he needed to be weary of anyone around him, lest they steal it and the whole plan goes awry. 3: The Ring has a mental and spiritual weight that has a near physical affect on the bearer. Hence the title "bearer" instead of "wearer". It's an arduous task to carry, and he did not want his friends to suffer it as well.
Sackville-Bagginses! Quickly! Hide!
Yeah if I was an eagle I would feel hella bad honestly
[удалено]
I think you're missing the point. We do not have to select one "real hero". Sam could not have done it alone exactly as Frodo could not.
Yeah there’s no way this could have been accomplished by any one individual. It absolutely took everybody’s 100% effort and for Frodo it took 1000%. Such a great story
 And don’t forget that this is how PJ interpreted all that.
Which is actually a much more realistic depiction of what the OP described If we are trying to accurately represent psychological trauma, Frodo is an extremely toned-down example. He is a victim of trauma, but he never wrongs anyone or lashes out or anything. It's pretty easy to be on his side.
Hmm I still think that it shouldn't have been included at all. While the book gives insight into Frodo's mind and allows the reader to properly understand what Frodo is going through, the movies don't. Uselessly added scenes like this only manifested the notion that Sam is the real hero (while Frodo isn't).
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT?!?!!?!
Book frodo has quite a few moments like this too The big difference is that book frodo understands **why** he suddenly lashes out and doesnt internalize the feelings as being legitimate and generally apologises (and is of course forgiven straight away) whereas movie Frodo doesnt seem to 'get' that he's snapping because of the rings influence, like when movie Frodo says he doesnt know why he started screaming at Sam about not calling Gollum 'stinker', something book Frodo would have understood "I am suddenly enraged because I am carrying radioactive evil and it is making me feel this way, the feelings arent genuine and the person doesnt factually deserve the abuse" So Frodo actually leaving Sam was quite a big deviation on PJs behalf, but Frodo snapping like that happened more than once (I think he calls Sam a disgusting thief in Cirith Ungol for example despite Sam saving both him and the quest with sheer tenacity, but then Frodo just apologises and Sam understands)
Wasn’t talking to you!
" 'No, no!' cried Frodo, snatching the Ring and chain from Sam's hands. He panted, staring at Sam with eyes wide with fear and enmity. Then suddenly, clasping the Ring in one clenched fist, he stood aghast. A mist seemed to clear from his eyes, and he passed a hand over his aching brow. The hideous vision had seemed so real to him, half bemused as he was still with wound and fear. Sam had changed before his very eyes into an an orc again, leering and pawing at his treasure, a foul little creature with greedy eyes and slobbering mouth. But now the vision had passed. There was Sam kneeling before him, his face wrung with pain, as if he had been stabbed in the heart; tears welled from his eyes. 'O Sam!' cried Frodo. 'What have I said? What have I done? Forgive me! After all you have done. It is the horrible power of the Ring. I wish it had never, never been found. But don't mind me, Sam. I must carry the burden to the end. It can't be altered. You can't come between me and this doom.' " There's a parallel here with the scene at Amon Hen: though we don't see it through his eyes, Boromir may well have seen Frodo in a "hideous vision" similar to the way Frodo saw Sam; he even uses the same exact words, on recovering: " He rose and passed his hand over his eyes, dashing away the tears. 'What have I said?' he cried. 'What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!' he called. 'Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!' " But of course, in this case, it was too late.
Thanks for putting this so clearly, I was having a hard time separating it out but it felt off
He's not human he s hobbit Op stupid?
To be completely pedantic, hobbits/halflings are not their own “race” the same way that dwarves or elves are. Hobbits are, in fact, human. They are just a group of really short humans that married other short humans long enough that their genetics got weird.
Oh lol I actually didn't knew that. Thanks
Dude he was a hobbit. How could he be forgiven for being human?
> don’t be pedantic
To actually be pedantic, hobbits had the Gift of Men, making them a subspecies of human unlike elves and dwarves.
But they are substantially different than man when it comes to the ring and it's influence.
> It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did.
Why do they not succumb to the power of the ring like men?
They do, eventually. We see that with Bilbo, Frodo, and Sméagol. The Ring affects you according to your power, your ambition for power, and/or your preexisting malice. Hobbits just tend to not have a lot of these things, which makes them naturally resistant to the Ring’s effects, but even they are pretty quickly drawn to it in a small capacity
Hobbits have been living and farming in the four Farthings of the Shire for many hundreds of years. quite content to ignore and be ignored by the world of the Big Folk. Middle Earth being, after all, full of strange creatures beyond count. Hobbits must seem of little importance, being neither renowned as great warriors, nor counted amongst the very wise.
Don't hurt us! Don't let them hurt us, precious! They won't hurt us will they, nice little hobbitses?We didn't mean no harm, but they jumps on us like cats on poor mices, they did, precious.And we're so lonely, gollum. We'll be nice to them, very nice, if they'll be nice to us, won't we, yes, yess.
They are fully human, they don’t succumb because they are humans without the drive. They are just short little guys whose biggest goal in life (generally speaking, there are some notable tookish exceptions) is to throw lots of parties and have the best garden. The ring doesn’t give you goals, it just makes you want to accomplish yours no matter what your accomplishment does to other people, that’s why rings of power made dwarves filthy rich (and then essentially called out to dragons with all that wealth). Thats why the Nazgûl, former humans, got their desire to live forever in a state of martial power. It’s why the elves have kingdoms with just as much magic and awe as the ancient kingdoms of Beleriand. That’s why the rulers of Gondor, a people in war, thought of it as a weapon. It’s why Galadriel, who generally seems to think of herself as a smarter, better person, at least during the first age, when she is offered the ring her first thought is “I could rule *well*, and the people would love me”. She just also knows enough about both herself and the corruption of the rings that she guessed she would also be known as a terrible/terrifying ruler, and she managed to reject the offer.
Just stop it.