Bofur and Pigs and Frodo and Sam, etc.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I actually do not understand why there are "free will" and "predestination" camps. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'll just post what I said earlier:

...there's a combination of free will and fate at play...Bilbo and Frodo, exercising free will, showed Gollum mercy. And Gollum destroyed the Ring. But the grand sweep of it all (not the fine details) was written in the Music...

Basically, it's like the difference between (and reconcilation of) quantum mechanics and gravity. It's all crazy and detailed and unpredictable under the surface (where free will comes in), but when you zoom waaaay back, it's all rather smooth and simple like gravity (which is where fate comes in)...

In other words, Tolkien was a string theorist. There, I said it.

IMO, Tolkien believed that the "long defeat" was embedded in the world from the beginning, and nothing could ultimately change that. But much of the specifics of what people do and say, throughout that immeasurably long span of time, is the product of free wills. Only occasionally do his characters get explicitly commandeered by the Valar...

Eg. The Doom of Mandos was written, and nothing could change that. But the characters who participated in its fulfillment were free to not participate in its fulfillment. Therein lies the reconciliation of free will and fate.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

I didn't mean to trivialize the point here, really. I've discussed this before (I'm a Free Willer, TBH), and would be happy to discuss it again. New people in any discussion means a different discussion, and this is not a point on which I feel any conclusion is necessarily final or correct, or any disagreement lacking in potential illumination.

I must admit, this is quite a tough forum. On the one hand you have people getting annoyed when someone deletes their posts (which is surely up to them?) and on the other you just shut down any contribution by saying, "We've had that discussion. Here's how it goes for the next four posts. Don't bother." You can claim that that wasn't your intention but it was the message I got.

Sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere but I'm new and I wasn't involved last time round.

[Pearly Di]

I think it can be a tough forum because it's pretty intellectual.

Me, I'm just a Frodo-fan. Although I do believe my critical faculties are in place ...

Anyway. I absolutely see Frodo as having agency. As do many other characters. No question.

I have long held that Míriel is the most important character, even though she doesn't actually appear in the book.

Which Míriel, V-Man? The wife of Finwë or the last Queen of Númenor? If it's the latter, she is a character I find quite awesome. Although I don't quite see how she relates to the events of LotR. She's awesome, though.

Thanks for the thread title change.


(Not sure how much time I will have now to respond - RL has just taken over in a major way.)

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

I think it can be a tough forum because it's pretty intellectual. ;)

OK. Thanks.

[Pearly Di]

I think it can be a tough forum because it's pretty intellectual.

OK. Thanks.

Meaning: sometimes it's a bit over my head too.

I mean, I think I can hold my own in an intellectual debate about Tolkien but honestly, I'm more about the 'feels' than the analysis when it comes to his work. Although I do enjoy analysis. A lot. Now and then.

My response to Tolkien is more emotional than analytical though.

I'm a Frodo, personality-wise, rather than a Samwise, but in this respect I'm like Sam: all heart.

[yovargas]

I didn't mean to trivialize the point here, really. I've discussed this before (I'm a Free Willer, TBH), and would be happy to discuss it again. New people in any discussion means a different discussion, and this is not a point on which I feel any conclusion is necessarily final or correct, or any disagreement lacking in potential illumination.

I must admit, this is quite a tough forum. On the one hand you have people getting annoyed when someone deletes their posts (which is surely up to them?) and on the other you just shut down any contribution by saying, "We've had that discussion. Here's how it goes for the next four posts. Don't bother." You can claim that that wasn't your intention but it was the message I got.

Sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere but I'm new and I wasn't involved last time round.

I'm pretty sure Prim's post was just a joke about the ultimate nature of such discussions and how any arguments for or against are essentially unprovable.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Di, I meant Míriel Serindë. So why would I say that a character that doesn't even appear is the most important one? Because she introduced death into the equation, and I agree with Tolkien that the ultimate theme of LOTR is Death and the desire for deathlessness.

Gorthaur, as yov said, Prim was just joking. We do have strange senses of humor around here. As for the deletions, you are correct that it is up to the poster, but I understand the regret of losing out on getting to read the thoughts of a smart guy like SV.

[Primula Baggins]

Voronwë's quite right. I have a strange sense of humor. I certainly wasn't trying to close off discussion, particularly one along those lines, which I have always enjoyed in the past—mainly because I learn new things about not just Tolkien's world but theology, etc., from people with different ideas, different perspectives, and usually better educations than I've had. Intellectually I'm a slapdash, home-made assembly, really, and I have learned a lot from being slapped down occasionally.

I apologize for the tone of my post. As I said, it conveyed something I certainly did not intend. I hope you will overlook it, PtB.

[yovargas]

You should also overlook that she called you the wrong poster's name.

[axordil]

autocorrect keeps changing Frodo to Crocodile

I hate it when that happens.

Agency has little to do with what drives a character - loyalty, greed, power, duty or whatnot (which is moral agency, a different concept) - and everything to do with what that character actually does.

Frodo's moral agency is very strong--but his actions, his "tactical" agency, consists mostly of a series of tactical reactions to circumstance and surrendering of choice to others better suited for the decisions at hand: Gandalf, Strider, the Council, Galadriel, Gollum, Sam.

At some point in a narrative, a classical active protagonist needs to climb up out of the maze, to stop merely re-acting and start acting, to stop depending and start being depended upon. That's generally the climax of the plot, and the falling action follows. But the nature of the Quest makes that whole notion impossible: any character who tried to assert control of the situation would not be able to resist the "gift" of the Ring, which is total control (or the illusion thereof).

All this means is that Frodo isn't a classical protagonist. He's a Christian protagonist. And in that context, surrendering agency is what one is *supposed* to do, since all human agency can do is make things worse.

[narya]

At some point in a narrative, a classical active protagonist needs to climb up out of the maze, to stop merely re-acting and start acting, to stop depending and start being depended upon. That's generally the climax of the plot, and the falling action follows. But the nature of the Quest makes that whole notion impossible: any character who tried to assert control of the situation would not be able to resist the "gift" of the Ring, which is total control (or the illusion thereof).

So when Frodo finally lifted out of his zombie walk and claimed the Ring, was he in total agency or total predestination?

[Sunsilver]

I must admit, this is quite a tough forum.

Forgive me for laughing, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who found that post amusing. Gorthaur, you have NO IDEA what 'tough' is unless you were on the Movies forum at TORC during the LOTR movies! Newbies = fresh meat. There were actually threads that were deliberately designed as 'noobie traps'!

http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic. ... start=1020

The majority of the posters here took part in that forum. We've know each other that long.

I'm not trying to say we're a closed club. Not at all! I am just trying to help you understand the forum dynamics a bit better. We do our very best to welcome newcomers, but when you see something being discussed for the nth plus one time, it's hard not to resist the urge to refer a newcomer to one of those discussions.

[axordil]

At some point in a narrative, a classical active protagonist needs to climb up out of the maze, to stop merely re-acting and start acting, to stop depending and start being depended upon. That's generally the climax of the plot, and the falling action follows. But the nature of the Quest makes that whole notion impossible: any character who tried to assert control of the situation would not be able to resist the "gift" of the Ring, which is total control (or the illusion thereof).

So when Frodo finally lifted out of his zombie walk and claimed the Ring, was he in total agency or total predestination?

That's the Christian heroic paradox: to act is to surrender (to evil), to surrender (to God) is to act. The attempt to take control ensures no control at all.

[Sunsilver]

So, what you are saying is surrendering in itself is an act, whether to God or to evil?

And taking control ensures no control at all, because God is in control?

Just finding the wording of your post confusing...

[axordil]

So, what you are saying is surrendering in itself is an act, whether to God or to evil?

And taking control ensures no control at all, because God is in control?

Just finding the wording of your post confusing...

It's not a topic that lends itself to clarity. But yes, in this context surrender is an act: a choice that makes further choice impossible, so long as it remains real. Control outside of surrender to God's will in the traditional Christian context is illusory by definition. Thus the act of trying to take control is surrendering to the illusion, whereas the act of surrendering to God is to align oneself with the only real control there is.

[Smaug's voice]

This issue has been discussed before but I find it frustrating when
posts are deleted. It implies that you think your opinion is not
worth listening to, when that is simply not the case.

Aplogies for any frustrations I might have caused, but what you say is indeed partly true.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, the "simply not the case" part is the part that is true.

[Passdagas the Brown]

autocorrect keeps changing Frodo to Crocodile

I hate it when that happens.

Agency has little to do with what drives a character - loyalty, greed, power, duty or whatnot (which is moral agency, a different concept) - and everything to do with what that character actually does.

Frodo's moral agency is very strong--but his actions, his "tactical" agency, consists mostly of a series of tactical reactions to circumstance and surrendering of choice to others better suited for the decisions at hand: Gandalf, Strider, the Council, Galadriel, Gollum, Sam.

At some point in a narrative, a classical active protagonist needs to climb up out of the maze, to stop merely re-acting and start acting, to stop depending and start being depended upon. That's generally the climax of the plot, and the falling action follows. But the nature of the Quest makes that whole notion impossible: any character who tried to assert control of the situation would not be able to resist the "gift" of the Ring, which is total control (or the illusion thereof).

All this means is that Frodo isn't a classical protagonist. He's a Christian protagonist. And in that context, surrendering agency is what one is *supposed* to do, since all human agency can do is make things worse.

I agree with this to an extent, and don't dispute that Frodo is primarily a cipher for humility in the Christian/ Augustinian sense. But most of the people and institutions you say he surrenders agency to he interacts with in Fellowship of the Ring.

The main problem is that I disagree with the notion that his choice of Gollum as a guide is a surrendering of agency. Frodo simply doesn't know how to get into Mordor, and so he makes the wise and very active decision to employ someone who does. Gollum is in his service, not the other way around. Frodo forces Gollum to swear by him, and then essentially uses him as a tool to gain entry into the place he wants to get to in order to greatly effect the plot. That's all Frodo displaying a great deal of agency for much of TTT and parts of ROTK.

Yes, his agency fails in the end, and Gollum has to swoop in and save the day (and of course, Sam has to save him from Shelob and the orcs, and has to essentially propel him up the mountain). And that is a significant lack of agency for Frodo.

But I would argue that his "submission" to the will of God, which characterizes his role in the story (and ultimately sanctifies him, re: the "ennoblement of the humble") does not suffocate his agency, in the technical sense of the word, throughout the whole story.

In the beginning of FOTR, and in TTT in particular, he gets himself into Mordor using his wits and wisdom. That's agency, IMO.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Right. Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn are the main agents driving the story forward. The rest are mainly hanging on their coattails!

ETA: Though Boromir, in his defiance of the fellowship's mission, Denethor, in defiance of Gandalf's pressure, and Saruman, in trying to carve out his own power-base, have quite a bit of agency. They're just not effective, and they run counter to the thrust of the protagonists. Éowyn also has a lot of agency...as does Faramir, to a certain degree. And of course, Sauron has a lot of agency, and makes a big impression...

ETA2: And to clarify, I am not a "Frodo" fan in the sense that my fondness for him overwhelms my critical faculties. From a purely technical narrative standpoint, he has a lot of agency. I think it's very hard to argue with that...

I have long held that Míriel is the most important character, even though she doesn't actually appear in the book.

I would give that honor to Iorlas.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Why? (I've already explained my statement.)