Gollum's Fall: Providence or Purpose?

[Matt Gable]

Three different threads on rec.arts.books.tolkien and alt.fan.tolkien
are looking at the reasons Gollum fell ("Did the Ring Destroy
itself?", "ROTK My Review Lots and lots of SPOILERS", and "'..you
yourself shall be cast into..'"). The question is pretty important
because it concerns the climax of the book and because different
answers drastically change interpretations of the book.

The action itself is not in question. "Even as he looked up to gloat
his prize, he stepped too far, wavered a moment on the brink, and then
fell with a last wail 'precious!'" Gollum fell off, and that's that.

The problems are, first, how could a creature coordinated enough to
climb down a vertical rock face headfirst be clumsy enough to topple
off a cliff backward? Second, why did Frodo take credit for
destroying the Ring if he failed and was only a bystander at the
event? Third, why did Frodo lose the wrestling match in the Sammath
Naur when he had just won a similar fight out on the mountain slope?

My view, which, may Usenet forgive me, I've already posted twice, is
that there is a subtle, complex and powerful endgame going on here.
Take the three clues above--

1) Gollum didn't just trip and fall over accidentally;
2) Frodo was the driving force behind what happened;
3) Frodo lost the Ring to Gollum on purpose;

--put them together with Frodo's declaration that Gollum will be cast
into the fire if he ever touches him again, add in the general nature
of the One Ring, and an interpretation starts to emerge.

Gollum did not just happen to trip and fall. Tolkien, after writing such
a magnificent story, would not resort to such a feeble deus ex machina at
the climax.
Gable

I'm afraid he did.

At the end of "Mount Doom," Frodo says, speaking of Gollum, "But for
him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring." He did not say, "But
for him, Sam, the Ring would not have been destroyed."

To paraphrase, what he said was "I destroyed the Ring, aided by
Gollum's presence." If Frodo failed at the end and the Ring was only
destroyed by dumb luck, why does he *take credit for destroying it*?
He's not the type to take credit where it isn't due.

Galadriel told Frodo that in order to use the One Ring, he would have
to train his will to the domination of other creatures. And he did;
he tamed Smeagol in the Emyn Muil. There's several other examples in
the story of characters maturing and gaining new abilities as they go
along. Tolkien explicitly connects the Emyn Muil scene to the one on
Mount Doom in which Frodo says "If you touch me ever again, you shall
be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom." Frodo's control over Gollum
is the common feature of the two scenes.

At Mount Doom, Frodo was almost completely in the power of the Ring.
There's no way he could have forced himself to throw the Ring in the
Fire. However, he *could* use the Ring for the things it was
originally made for: control and domination of other creatures. When
Gollum attacked him on Sauron's Road, he saw, brilliantly, a chance to
use the Ring's power against itself. Guessing Gollum would never give
up but would attack him again, Frodo used the Ring to curse Gollum to
fall in the Fire if he ever touched him again.

Bestowing a curse was easy enough for Frodo, because the Ring was
pushing him all along to do that sort of evil deed. That was its
nature. The Ring had some dim sentience of its own, but it wasn't
smart enough to forsee consequences two or three jumps ahead, as Frodo
could, and that gave Frodo some room to maneuver. He could choose
which of the Ring's pressures to give into, and so manipulate future
events indirectly.

Frodo went on to the Fire, Sam kept enough wisdom not to kill Gollum,
Gollum sure enough attacked again, and then all Frodo had to do was
keep himself from fighting Gollum too hard and winning. You'll notice
Frodo managed to beat Gollum in the wrestling match out on Sauron's
Road, but lost the one in the Sammath Naur where he had the advantage
of invisibility. Taking a dive was a doable task for Frodo in the
end, whereas forcing himself to throw away the Ring was not.

I also think Gollum may have understood Frodo's strategy, murkily
perhaps, but well enough to play his part. It was made easier for
Gollum because his role went along with what the Ring was already
compelling him to do. And for Gollum, the small part of himself that
was still left may have realized Frodo's strategy would allow him to
both regain his precious and escape his miserable existence. This was
one more guarantee that Gollum would fall: not only was the Ring's
curse operating on him, maximally powerful at the Sammath Naur with
all Sauron's will focused on the mountain, but that small scrap of his
old self was there to keep himself from trying too hard not to fall
over the edge.

Sam, Frodo and Gollum were operating under a haze of pain and
obsession and hatred and maniacal lust, and had barely any room to act
under their own sane volition. But they made the most of the
opportunities they had, and got the deed done.


So, personally, I think the evidence weighs heavily for a tense little
endgame that brings together many threads from the rest of the story.
There are big implications for what kind of person Frodo had become by
the end of the journey, and for Tolkien's concepts of good and evil.

If Gollum slipped and fell by accident, then the big events in life
are ruled by raw chance, and good and evil are minor issues.

If Gollum slipped and fell due to some kind of providence, then good
derives from some unspecified outside source, and it will come in and
save the good people from their own failures, if they give it a good
enough try to be worthy of such grace.

If Gollum slipped and fell due to a geas laid on him by Frodo, then
good happens because people make it happen. When the pressure becomes
intense enough, you may have to use very harsh tactics. In extremis,
good and evil merge and become indistinguishable.

It's a bit of an inkblot that reveals more about the reader than the
text. I read this and see Frodo coming through under incredible
pressure with an inspired piece of chesslike strategy. What he did
strikes me as heartbreaking, admirable and tragic in a modernist way.
The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent and applicable to my
real life if I interpret it this way. But that's just me. YMMV.

Gable

[James Hyder]

Post by Matt Gable
Three different threads on rec.arts.books.tolkien and alt.fan.tolkien
are looking at the reasons Gollum fell ("Did the Ring Destroy
itself?", "ROTK My Review Lots and lots of SPOILERS", and "'..you
yourself shall be cast into..'"). The question is pretty important
because it concerns the climax of the book and because different
answers drastically change interpretations of the book.
The action itself is not in question. "Even as he looked up to gloat
his prize, he stepped too far, wavered a moment on the brink, and then
fell with a last wail 'precious!'" Gollum fell off, and that's that.
The problems are, first, how could a creature coordinated enough to
climb down a vertical rock face headfirst be clumsy enough to topple
off a cliff backward? Second, why did Frodo take credit for
destroying the Ring if he failed and was only a bystander at the
event? Third, why did Frodo lose the wrestling match in the Sammath
Naur when he had just won a similar fight out on the mountain slope?
My view, which, may Usenet forgive me, I've already posted twice, is
that there is a subtle, complex and powerful endgame going on here.
Take the three clues above--
1) Gollum didn't just trip and fall over accidentally;
2) Frodo was the driving force behind what happened;
3) Frodo lost the Ring to Gollum on purpose;
--put them together with Frodo's declaration that Gollum will be cast
into the fire if he ever touches him again, add in the general nature
of the One Ring, and an interpretation starts to emerge.

Gollum did not just happen to trip and fall. Tolkien, after writing such
a magnificent story, would not resort to such a feeble deus ex machina at
the climax.
Gable

I'm afraid he did.

At the end of "Mount Doom," Frodo says, speaking of Gollum, "But for
him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring." He did not say, "But
for him, Sam, the Ring would not have been destroyed."
To paraphrase, what he said was "I destroyed the Ring, aided by
Gollum's presence." If Frodo failed at the end and the Ring was only
destroyed by dumb luck, why does he *take credit for destroying it*?
He's not the type to take credit where it isn't due.
Galadriel told Frodo that in order to use the One Ring, he would have
to train his will to the domination of other creatures. And he did;
he tamed Smeagol in the Emyn Muil. There's several other examples in
the story of characters maturing and gaining new abilities as they go
along. Tolkien explicitly connects the Emyn Muil scene to the one on
Mount Doom in which Frodo says "If you touch me ever again, you shall
be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom." Frodo's control over Gollum
is the common feature of the two scenes.
At Mount Doom, Frodo was almost completely in the power of the Ring.
There's no way he could have forced himself to throw the Ring in the
Fire. However, he *could* use the Ring for the things it was
originally made for: control and domination of other creatures. When
Gollum attacked him on Sauron's Road, he saw, brilliantly, a chance to
use the Ring's power against itself. Guessing Gollum would never give
up but would attack him again, Frodo used the Ring to curse Gollum to
fall in the Fire if he ever touched him again.
Bestowing a curse was easy enough for Frodo, because the Ring was
pushing him all along to do that sort of evil deed. That was its
nature. The Ring had some dim sentience of its own, but it wasn't
smart enough to forsee consequences two or three jumps ahead, as Frodo
could, and that gave Frodo some room to maneuver. He could choose
which of the Ring's pressures to give into, and so manipulate future
events indirectly.
Frodo went on to the Fire, Sam kept enough wisdom not to kill Gollum,
Gollum sure enough attacked again, and then all Frodo had to do was
keep himself from fighting Gollum too hard and winning. You'll notice
Frodo managed to beat Gollum in the wrestling match out on Sauron's
Road, but lost the one in the Sammath Naur where he had the advantage
of invisibility. Taking a dive was a doable task for Frodo in the
end, whereas forcing himself to throw away the Ring was not.
I also think Gollum may have understood Frodo's strategy, murkily
perhaps, but well enough to play his part. It was made easier for
Gollum because his role went along with what the Ring was already
compelling him to do. And for Gollum, the small part of himself that
was still left may have realized Frodo's strategy would allow him to
both regain his precious and escape his miserable existence. This was
one more guarantee that Gollum would fall: not only was the Ring's
curse operating on him, maximally powerful at the Sammath Naur with
all Sauron's will focused on the mountain, but that small scrap of his
old self was there to keep himself from trying too hard not to fall
over the edge.
Sam, Frodo and Gollum were operating under a haze of pain and
obsession and hatred and maniacal lust, and had barely any room to act
under their own sane volition. But they made the most of the
opportunities they had, and got the deed done.
So, personally, I think the evidence weighs heavily for a tense little
endgame that brings together many threads from the rest of the story.
There are big implications for what kind of person Frodo had become by
the end of the journey, and for Tolkien's concepts of good and evil.
If Gollum slipped and fell by accident, then the big events in life
are ruled by raw chance, and good and evil are minor issues.
If Gollum slipped and fell due to some kind of providence, then good
derives from some unspecified outside source, and it will come in and
save the good people from their own failures, if they give it a good
enough try to be worthy of such grace.
If Gollum slipped and fell due to a geas laid on him by Frodo, then
good happens because people make it happen. When the pressure becomes
intense enough, you may have to use very harsh tactics. In extremis,
good and evil merge and become indistinguishable.
It's a bit of an inkblot that reveals more about the reader than the
text. I read this and see Frodo coming through under incredible
pressure with an inspired piece of chesslike strategy. What he did
strikes me as heartbreaking, admirable and tragic in a modernist way.
The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent and applicable to my
real life if I interpret it this way. But that's just me. YMMV.

Very interesting and thoughtful. It may attribute a little too much
consicous plotting on Frodo's part, however. He is pretty much spent by
this point.

Gollum steps over the precipice when he finally gets what he has been
seeking and hungering for since Bilbo "tricked" him. What a moment !!
(actually fairly well done in the film - one of the few such) The ring was
his life, he had been so close and yet so far for months as he lead Sam and
Frodo into Mordor. He had plotted a strategy to get it back, but it did not
work. He keeps at it. Finally, finally Gollum has his ring ! So: "even as
he looked up to gloat at his prize" he stepped back and fell over the edge.
Greed, selfishness, obsession, self-indulgence, insatiability, mania,
fixation - are not these the things that destroyed the ring? Did not the
ring inspire these very qualities and traits? Did not the ring, therefore,
in some sense destroy itself?

JH

[Gemini Jackson]

<snip>

Post by Matt Gable
The problems are, first, how could a creature coordinated enough to
climb down a vertical rock face headfirst be clumsy enough to topple
off a cliff backward?

<big snip>

I think it's a simple, short answer. The addict had finally gotten
his fix. Nothing else mattered, even the fact he stood on a ledge
over molten lava. I think the fact that Frodo failed in his task says
a lot of the power of the ring and adds an air of shakespearian
tragedy. Not that Shakespeare has anything on Tolkien :-)
~GJ~

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Matt Gable
Three different threads on rec.arts.books.tolkien and alt.fan.tolkien
are looking at the reasons Gollum fell ("Did the Ring Destroy
itself?", "ROTK My Review Lots and lots of SPOILERS", and "'..you
yourself shall be cast into..'"). The question is pretty important
because it concerns the climax of the book and because different
answers drastically change interpretations of the book.

Tolkien addresses this question in several of the letters published in
/The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/ edited by Humphrey Carpenter with the
aid of Christopher Tolkien.

It is dealt with at least in four letters - #181, #191, #192 and #246,
and they all point at the same - Gollum's fall was the result of a
special 'Grace' or 'providence' that was given Frodo.

It is, perhaps, clearest in letter #192, where Tolkien wrote,

" 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). See
Vol. I p. 65.[2] A third (the only other) commentator on the
point some months ago reviled Frodo as a scoundrel (who should
have been hung and not honoured), and me too. It seems sad and
strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good will
are tortured, 'brainwashed', and broken, anyone could be so
fiercely simpleminded and self righteous."
[2] "Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any
design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by
saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its
maker."

The "Other Power" - "the Writer of the Story" is God - or, in the context
of Middle-earth, Eru Ilúvatar.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk

[Stan Brown]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It is dealt with at least in four letters - #181, #191, #192 and #246,
and they all point at the same - Gollum's fall was the result of a
special 'Grace' or 'providence' that was given Frodo.

In #191 and #192 Tolkien says that Frodo's inability to get rid of
the Ring voluntarily was foreshadowed all through the story.

Do others find that to be true? I know that for me, when I read the
story the first time, I was completely surprised that Frodo claimed
the Ring. What was your experience?

[Insane Ranter]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It is dealt with at least in four letters - #181, #191, #192 and #246,
and they all point at the same - Gollum's fall was the result of a
special 'Grace' or 'providence' that was given Frodo.

In #191 and #192 Tolkien says that Frodo's inability to get rid of
the Ring voluntarily was foreshadowed all through the story.
Do others find that to be true? I know that for me, when I read the
story the first time, I was completely surprised that Frodo claimed
the Ring. What was your experience?

Honestly I think save Tom...would claim the ring as thier own in time

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Stan Brown
In #191 and #192 Tolkien says that Frodo's inability to get rid of
the Ring voluntarily was foreshadowed all through the story.
Do others find that to be true?

[...]

I agree that it is not obvious on the first reading, but upon rereading
the book I think the foreshadowing is there.

I may not be very smart - I usually don't see such foreshadowing until
I know just what is being foreshadowed ;-)

[Mike C]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It is dealt with at least in four letters - #181, #191, #192 and #246,
and they all point at the same - Gollum's fall was the result of a
special 'Grace' or 'providence' that was given Frodo.

In #191 and #192 Tolkien says that Frodo's inability to get rid of
the Ring voluntarily was foreshadowed all through the story.
Do others find that to be true? I know that for me, when I read the
story the first time, I was completely surprised that Frodo claimed
the Ring. What was your experience?

Yes I was completely shocked. It was, at least for me, very unexpected, and
very brilliant. Just thinking about the first time I read that actually
sends shivers down my spine. I have to say that whole scene is my favourite
in the whole book. Even the deus ex machina...erm eagles bit that follows is
great and didn't detract from my enjoyment at all. In fact I think I'll go
and re-read it now!

Mike

[JXStern]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:36:03 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It is dealt with at least in four letters - #181, #191, #192 and #246,
and they all point at the same - Gollum's fall was the result of a
special 'Grace' or 'providence' that was given Frodo.

In #191 and #192 Tolkien says that Frodo's inability to get rid of
the Ring voluntarily was foreshadowed all through the story.
Do others find that to be true? I know that for me, when I read the
story the first time, I was completely surprised that Frodo claimed
the Ring. What was your experience?

I was surprised.

I don't really see the foreshadowing, except as a thematic element in
the most general terms. If he just threw it in ... well, just look
how the thought of that offended PJ.

It's just never that easy for good to triumph, yeah, ok, but that's
not really foreshadowing.

J.

[AC]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:36:03 -0500,

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It is dealt with at least in four letters - #181, #191, #192 and #246,
and they all point at the same - Gollum's fall was the result of a
special 'Grace' or 'providence' that was given Frodo.

In #191 and #192 Tolkien says that Frodo's inability to get rid of
the Ring voluntarily was foreshadowed all through the story.
Do others find that to be true? I know that for me, when I read the
story the first time, I was completely surprised that Frodo claimed
the Ring. What was your experience?

I don't recall what I thought. However, I think the evidence is pretty
clear from his reaction when Gandalf tosses the Ring in the fire at Bag-end,
and later when Bilbo asks to see it at Rivendell. Probably most telling is
when Sam reveals he's been carrying it when he rescues Frodo from Cirith
Ungol.

[TeaLady (Mari C.)]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It is dealt with at least in four letters - #181, #191, #192
and #246, and they all point at the same - Gollum's fall was
the result of a special 'Grace' or 'providence' that was given
Frodo.

In #191 and #192 Tolkien says that Frodo's inability to get rid
of the Ring voluntarily was foreshadowed all through the story.
Do others find that to be true? I know that for me, when I read
the story the first time, I was completely surprised that Frodo
claimed the Ring. What was your experience?

I read all the foreshadowing and had an idea that Frodo was not
going to be able to do it - get rid of the ring - and yet was still
surprised. I was also expecting that he would be killed by Gollum,
or just be too weak to continue once the ring was gone. I had no
doubt the ring would be destroyed, though.

I don't, and didn't, think that the ring destroyed itself, nor do I
think Frodo masterminded its destruction via Gollum. I think he
showed mercy to Gollum out of love of Gandalf, and out of
understanding (towards the end). The "curses" that some claim he
laid on Gollum were, to me, reminders of what the ring could do,
not what it would do, or what Frodo wanted to have happen.

That he put it on, and claimed it as his, I can see as inevitible.
To go all that way only to throw away something that had become
bigger than his own life, more important than anything else, was
too much. He had to claim it.

Gollum - once Frodo took the ring as his, claimed the ring and the
power, Gollum was lost. Gollum's only need was to get that ring
off Frodo's finger; to get it back, teach that nasty hobbit who was
really boss and master, and to prevent Sauron from "seeing" it and
coming for it himself. Once Gollum had it back, his glee in
winning his prize back was too much, and the one truly happy, giddy
and un-thoughtful instant he had in many years was also the one
moment he ought to have been most thoughtful, and careful. And so
over he went. Happy at last, at least for a moment, and then gone.

I never made up my mind about Gollum's cries as he fell - were they
pained, recriminating, his precious betrayed him ? or were they
full of gloating and glee - he had the ring back, his precious was
his again ? I go back and forth between those two and can't decide
one way or the other.


mc

[Joshua B]

Post by TeaLady (Mari C.)
I never made up my mind about Gollum's cries as he fell - were they
pained, recriminating, his precious betrayed him ? or were they
full of gloating and glee - he had the ring back, his precious was
his again ? I go back and forth between those two and can't decide
one way or the other.

Why not both?

[Paul S. Person]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It is dealt with at least in four letters - #181, #191, #192 and #246,
and they all point at the same - Gollum's fall was the result of a
special 'Grace' or 'providence' that was given Frodo.

In #191 and #192 Tolkien says that Frodo's inability to get rid of
the Ring voluntarily was foreshadowed all through the story.
Do others find that to be true? I know that for me, when I read the
story the first time, I was completely surprised that Frodo claimed
the Ring. What was your experience?

I had no idea he would fail at all. I was totally astonished.

I hate to say this, but, if JRRT really expected his readers to
anticipate Frodo's failure ... then he was far to subtle for me.

[Matt Gable]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It is, perhaps, clearest in letter #192, where Tolkien wrote,
" 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 "destined point" may have been the point after Frodo had geased
Gollum to fall in the Fire, taken his dive and allowed Gollum to seize
the Ring. Considering how difficult it was to spot and act on that
possibility, it makes perfect sense to say few or no others would have
likely got that far.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
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). See
Vol. I p. 65.[2]

[snip]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The "Other Power" - "the Writer of the Story" is God - or, in the context
of Middle-earth, Eru Ilúvatar.

Sometimes when you're writing a story, or playing music or sports, you
can enter a state in which you feel as though some other agency is
acting through you. Tolkien's "Writer of the Story" may be God; a
religious person like Tolkien might well experience the "Writer of the
Story" as God. I, however, am an atheist. The "Writer of the Story,"
though a familiar concept and experience, is not associated with God
for me.

Tolkien is giving permission here for other people to read the story
as they see it, not just from his (Tolkien's) perspective. He gives
up some claim to authoritative authorship when he says "the Writer of
the Story" does not mean himself. The deconstructionists would
approve of this; the text is constructed jointly by writers and
readers.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
A third (the only other) commentator on the
point some months ago reviled Frodo as a scoundrel (who should
have been hung and not honoured), and me too.

Why should anyone revile Frodo as a "scoundrel"? You become a
scoundrel by actively doing something bad, not by simply collapsing
from weakness. This critic seems to have read LotR the way I do:
Frodo purposely used and killed Gollum in order to destroy the Ring.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It seems sad and
strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good will
are tortured, 'brainwashed', and broken, anyone could be so
fiercely simpleminded and self righteous."

And this seems to show that Tolkien is impatient with people who
insist that Frodo should not have done what he did. In evil times,
when the pressure grows intense, good people may be forced to use
harsh tactics and may not be able to apply simpleminded notions of
mercy and justice.

A normal Englishman, meeting a German caught in some barbed wire in
the French countryside in peacetime, obviously would not shoot him.
That Englishman would do whatever he could to help the German out of
the barbed wire. However, if you were a young English soldier at the
Battle of the Somme, like Tolkien was, you could not behave according
to your natural inclination to help. You had to shoot the German
caught in the barbed wire, horrible as that was.

Frodo would have done everything he could to help and heal Gollum in
normal times, and indeed he did, and had some success. At the Sammath
Naur, however, Frodo was in desperate straits and had to kill Gollum.
It's a horrible thing and scarred Frodo irreparably, but it had to be
done, and anyone who castigates Frodo for what he did is simpleminded
and overly self-righteous.

I think Tolkien's letter can be read as supporting my interpretation.

Gable

[TeaLady (Mari C.)]

Post by Matt Gable
Tolkien is giving permission here for other people to read the
story as they see it, not just from his (Tolkien's)
perspective. He gives up some claim to authoritative
authorship when he says "the Writer of the Story" does not mean
himself. The deconstructionists would approve of this; the
text is constructed jointly by writers and readers.

Ahh, now see, I took "Writer of the Story" to mean, in that time
and place, in that world, *their* god - not ours, nor an allusion
to ours (except in a very Tolkien was Christian and would have
written it from the viewpoint that God is God, no matter what or
where or when).

Then again, I am a lapsed pagan with pretensions of agnosticity,
and while I would see a god, I would not necessarily see God.

[TeaLady (Mari C.)]

Post by Matt Gable

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It seems sad and
strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good
will are tortured, 'brainwashed', and broken, anyone could
be so fiercely simpleminded and self righteous."

And this seems to show that Tolkien is impatient with people
who insist that Frodo should not have done what he did. In
evil times, when the pressure grows intense, good people may be
forced to use harsh tactics and may not be able to apply
simpleminded notions of mercy and justice.

Or does it perhaps show that Tolkien thought people should know
better than to be so simple and self righteous because, even in
someone with the very best of intentions and strongest force of
will to do good, it could be almost impossible to complete an act
of goodness, or even start one, in the face of strong opposition
and/or evil ?

[Stan Brown]

Post by Matt Gable
Second, why did Frodo take credit for
destroying the Ring if he failed and was only a bystander at the
event?

Frodo didn't "take credit". He made no bones about what actually
happened. See in particular Letters 191, 192, and particularly 246.

I'm not sure why you started a new thread, inevitably leading to
fragmentation and duplication.

[Glenn Holliday]

Post by Matt Gable
My view, which, may Usenet forgive me, I've already posted twice, is
that there is a subtle, complex and powerful endgame going on here.

Actually, I'm glad you wrote this again. I think you presented
a more complete and stronger argument in this post.

Post by Matt Gable
If Gollum slipped and fell by accident, then the big events in life
are ruled by raw chance, and good and evil are minor issues.

Here's a difference between literature and real life ...
I think it's completely possibly that raw change determines
the outcome of some big events. But that doesn't affect the
ability of good and evil agents to determine other events.
Nor does it affect the importance of individual choices
(one of Tolkien's Big Themes). But in literature, if we see
the story resolved by chance, it's easy to assume the author
is commenting on how the world works in general. So your
criticism of this point is valid.

Post by Matt Gable
If Gollum slipped and fell due to some kind of providence, then good
derives from some unspecified outside source, and it will come in and
save the good people from their own failures, if they give it a good
enough try to be worthy of such grace.

What you have said here is, almost exactly, a Very Big Theme in
Tolkien. I think he would argue over "good enough try to be worthy,"
but let's not argue over that detail. Over and over again in
Tolkien, good people do fail despite their good actions, and
providence does step in to save. That goes to the center of
Tolkien's own religious attitude toward reality. We see it most
explicitly in the War of the Jewels, where the Valar warn that
the Elves' own efforts will not be sufficient. The Elves and Men
have completely failed before the Valar step in.

In LOTR we see this theme, not only in Frodo, but also in
the lives of Bilbo, Gandalf, Boromir, and the overall struggle
of the peoples of the West. It's pretty clear to me that
Tolkien advocates exactly the position that you criticize.

As with my comment on raw chance, whether it's right to apply
this literary comment to the real world is a completely different
question.

Post by Matt Gable
If Gollum slipped and fell due to a geas laid on him by Frodo, then
good happens because people make it happen.

You've made an interesting argument that I've enjoyed thinking about.
But I'm not convinced Tolkien had this in mind.

Post by Matt Gable
The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent and applicable to my
real life if I interpret it this way. But that's just me. YMMV.

I think you are happier with a message in the work of art that
you can apply to the real world. Many authors have made works
I enjoy and believe are worthwhile, yet have messages that I
do not believe in the real world. (Ernest Hemmingway, John
Steinbeck, Robert Heinlein, William Shakespeare, ...)

Post by Matt Gable
When the pressure becomes
intense enough, you may have to use very harsh tactics. In extremis,
good and evil merge and become indistinguishable.

This may be a separate topic. In brief, I think Tolkien would
agree with your first sentence and violently contest your second
sentence.

Post by Matt Gable
I read this and see Frodo coming through under incredible
pressure with an inspired piece of chesslike strategy. What he did
strikes me as heartbreaking, admirable and tragic in a modernist way.

I see Frodo's actions more Zenlike than chesslike. He acted
intuitively out of his true character, knew that the Ring would
overcome him, accepted that fate and acted anyway. I agree
that his story is very much a tragedy, among many other things.
I would call it "modernist" in the sense that the age of
larger-than-life heroes is ended, and individual choices in
our ordinary-sized lives are what matter. I suspect you are
thinking of a different meaning for "modernist."

[JXStern]

Post by Matt Gable
What he did
strikes me as heartbreaking, admirable and tragic in a modernist way.
The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent and applicable to my
real life if I interpret it this way. But that's just me. YMMV.

What you said, more or less (modernist??), also as Troels and Stan
reply. It's a delicate balance of all of the above, as well as irony
as a cosmic force. The question I have is how much of it survived
into the movie.

J.

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Matt Gable
Three different threads on rec.arts.books.tolkien and alt.fan.tolkien
are looking at the reasons Gollum fell ("Did the Ring Destroy
itself?", "ROTK My Review Lots and lots of SPOILERS", and "'..you
yourself shall be cast into..'").

Then why start a new thread on the same subject?

Post by Matt Gable
The problems are, first, how could a creature coordinated enough to
climb down a vertical rock face headfirst be clumsy enough to topple
off a cliff backward?

Very good point. I hadn't considered that.

Second, why did Frodo take credit for

Post by Matt Gable
destroying the Ring if he failed and was only a bystander at the
event?

He didn't take credit for it. He realized he had 'failed', in fact he
still longed for it: "It is gone, and now all is dark and empty" (I
paraphrase). This was why he needed to go into the West: it was a
reward, a chance to heal as well as a purgatory.

Third, why did Frodo lose the wrestling match in the Sammath

Post by Matt Gable
Naur when he had just won a similar fight out on the mountain slope?

He was very weak at this point.

[Troels Forchhammer]

in <***@posting.google.com>,
Matt Gable <***@speakeasy.org> enriched us with:
<snip>

Post by Matt Gable
The problems are, first, how could a creature coordinated enough to
climb down a vertical rock face headfirst be clumsy enough to topple
off a cliff backward?

That, of course, is the essence of this thread ;-)

Post by Matt Gable
Second, why did Frodo take credit for destroying the Ring if he
failed and was only a bystander at the event?

He didn't. Tolkien makes it plain that Frodo never tried to conceal
what really happened, and indeed felt himself that he had failed.
Other people (especially Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel and Elrond)
credited him for even getting as far as he did, and for setting up
the conditions that made the destruction of the Ring possible.

Post by Matt Gable
Third, why did Frodo lose the wrestling match in the Sammath
Naur when he had just won a similar fight out on the mountain
slope?

Would you accept grace?

Post by Matt Gable
My view, which, may Usenet forgive me, I've already posted twice, is
that there is a subtle, complex and powerful endgame going on here.
Take the three clues above--
1) Gollum didn't just trip and fall over accidentally;

I can accept that.

Post by Matt Gable
2) Frodo was the driving force behind what happened;

I very much doubt this.

Post by Matt Gable
3) Frodo lost the Ring to Gollum on purpose;

After having finally succumbed to the power of the Ring? That is, to
me, too incredible.

<big snip>

Post by Matt Gable
If Gollum slipped and fell by accident, then the big events in life
are ruled by raw chance, and good and evil are minor issues.

Chance must have a say for the story to work. In particular the chance
that is involved with free willed participants. Frodo and Sam discuss
this no the stairs of Cirith Ungol (LotR, IV, 8, 'The Stairs of Cirith
Ungol') I think in particular of Sam's comment,
"But that's not the way of it with the tales that really
mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have
been just landed in them, usually - their paths were laid that
way, as you put it. But I expect they had lots of chances,
like us, of turning back, only they didn't. And if they had,
we shouldn't know, because they'd have been forgotten."

Chance has a place in this respect - there must be a real chance that
the characters turn away from the quest. Of course we know that they
won't (otherwise, as Sam says, "we shouldn't know").

Post by Matt Gable
If Gollum slipped and fell due to some kind of providence, then good
derives from some unspecified outside source, and it will come in and
save the good people from their own failures, if they give it a good
enough try to be worthy of such grace.

There are two things I'd like to add here. It's not just a question of
giving it "a good enough try" - there are other requirements (well, I
suppose that, technically, you could say that they were part of the
"good enough try"). Faith plays an important part. Those who send out
Frodo have /faith/ that it /might/ work out - Gandalf in particular.
Tolkien also comment that "one must face the fact: the power of Evil
in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however
'good'" (Letter #191) - not because we (or Frodo) should despair, but
because he thinks that we should put our faith in providence.

Part of the "try" that Frodo made; and an extremely important part to
Tolkien, was the pity and mercy he showed Gollum. From a prudent point
of view "to 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly,
or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and
generosity even if disastrous in the world of time" (Letter #181), but
in Tolkien's mind, this was a very important part of allowing Frodo
the grace to see his mission fulfilled despite his own failure.

Post by Matt Gable
If Gollum slipped and fell due to a geas laid on him by Frodo, then
good happens because people make it happen. When the pressure becomes
intense enough, you may have to use very harsh tactics. In extremis,
good and evil merge and become indistinguishable.

This would circumvent the theme that appears to have been important to
Tolkien, about the power of Evil not being "finally resistible by
incarnate creatures."

I do think that the incident is very suspicious. In particular the
sentence, "... before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure
robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the
fire there spoke a commanding voice." I have heard that some claim that
it was the Ring itself that spoke here, and though I don't believe so
myself, I do think that something beyond Frodo's normal powers is going
on. The question is, though, whether this is a foreshadowing of Frodo
becoming possessed by the Ring, or if he is ordaining what must happen,
or if he is foretelling it. I lean towards the latter, though if Gollum
too believed that it was the Ring speaking (or Frodo speaking for the
One Ring) this may have been enough to bias Gollum towards a more self-
destructive behaviour in Sammath Naur; taking his attention away from
the care he should have exhibited.

[...]

Post by Matt Gable
The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent and applicable to my
real life if I interpret it this way. But that's just me. YMMV.

If it works for you ...

It is never really settled in the book itself. Tolkien had his own
interpretation of what happened, but I admit that I read it differently
the first times I read the books (I thought it was chance), though
reading Tolkien's letters I have come to see that his interpretation is
(not surprisingly) very consistent with both the description as it is
and with other themes in the books.

Ultimately I agree that one must find one's own interpretation, but if
one seeks an interpretation with more authority, one must, IMO, look at
the author's (this is the only interpretation that in any way can lay
claim to knowing what 'really' happened).

[Stan Brown]

Post by Gemini Jackson
<snip>

Post by Matt Gable
The problems are, first, how could a creature coordinated enough to
climb down a vertical rock face headfirst be clumsy enough to topple
off a cliff backward?

That, of course, is the essence of this thread ;-)

Gollum, like Frodo and Sam, was in _much_ worse physical shape at
the end of the Quest than he had been at the start of Book IV.

[Joshua B]

Post by Matt Gable
At the end of "Mount Doom," Frodo says, speaking of Gollum, "But for
him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring." He did not say, "But
for him, Sam, the Ring would not have been destroyed."

Can we say, Hyper-dispensationalism?

The Ring was destroyed of a Will greater than even Frodo's. Neither
Frodo, nor anyone else in all of Middle-Earth would have been able to
destroy it himself. It was by the providence of One that these events
were brought about, not the power of any else in the story. And,
truly, that One is the real hero of the tale.