Duty and Destiny

Belba Grubb from Stock wrote:

> "Sam's hand wavered. His mind was hot with wrath
> and the memory of evil. It would be just to slay this
> treacherous, murderous creature, just and many times
> deserved; and also it seemed the only safe thing to do.
> But deep in his heart there was something that
> estrained him: he could not strike this thing lying in the
> dust, forlorn, ruinous, utterly wretched. He himself, though
> only for a little while, had borne the Ring, and now dimly
> he guessed the agony of Gollum's shrivelled mind and body,
> enslaved to that Ring, unable to find peace or relief ever
> again in life."
>
> Had Sam not pitied Gollum and his sword hand not wavered, the entire
> Quest would have been a failure.

Never notices this before, but this means that the ultimate success of the
quest depended on Sam wearing the ring for a little while, since otherwise
he would not "dimly he guess[..] the agony of Gollum's shrivelled mind and
body".

--
Kristian Damm Jensen damm (at) ofir (dot) dk
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

in <0m7k60tvm2f3q65vtavjnm1ilhtkt0tfke DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
Belba Grubb from Stock <barbb DeleteThis @dbtech.net> enriched us with:
>

<snip>

> Imagine becoming a Dark Lord by wanting to do good! And yet Gandalf
> no doubt understood the peril quite clearly.

Doubtlessly. Our understanding comes mainly from him

> Yet, with all this discussion of pity, another passage takes on more
> meaning, perhaps that the experience of the Ring, absent the desire
> for strength and with humility, could actually foster Pity of a purer
> sort than even Gandalf could imagine, though here JRRT never uses the
> word:

Very good!

<snip>

> Had Sam not pitied Gollum and his sword hand not wavered, the entire
> Quest would have been a failure. Hmmm...did Sam outdo even Gandalf,
> in this sense, when the test came?

Not entirely sure that I can put my thoughts in a coherent (and
understandable) form here, but I'll try anyway

I don't think that the situations are entirely comparable in this respect -
Sam's pity here derives from having handled the Ring - having gained a
greater understanding of what Gollum had suffered, while Gandalf stated
pity for the weak as one of his reasons for wanting to use the Ring. A
better question, I think, would be whether Sam did better than Gandalf
could have done when he voluntarily handed the Ring to Frodo - i.e. would
Gandalf have been able to relinquish the Ring? By his own explanation this
would seem doubtful.

Sam, as I understand it, handed the Ring over as he did for two reasons.
First (and foremost) his love for Frodo, but also because he had no desire
of personal power - not even "of the strength to do good," as Gandalf put
it when he spoke to Frodo.

" In that hour of trial it was the love of his master that
helped most to hold him firm; but also deep down in him lived
still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core
of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a
burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray
him. The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need
and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to
use, not the hands of others to command."
(VI, 1 'The Tower of Cirith Ungol')

How was Sam's situation different from the situation Gandalf would have
been in? Surely Gandalf too was capable of great love - though not as
personal and immediate as Sam's love for his master, I doubt, however, that
Gandalf/Olórin's love for the Eruhíni was any less than Sam's for his
master.

One of the prime differences between Sam and Gandalf with respect to their
(in Gandalf's case potential) interactions with the One Ring is, IMO,
humility. I am not suggesting that Gandalf is committing the sin of pride,
but he knows of his own power, and recognises this as a weakness with
respect to the Ring - in Sam's terms Gandalf knew that he was "large enough
to bear such a burden." Sam, on the other hand, is the very soul of
humility - he has no need for a garden swollen to a realm. Again his
conversation with Frodo on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol comes to mind ("'I
want to hear more about Sam, dad. [...]' 'Now Mr. Frodo,' said Sam, 'you
shouldn't make fun. I was serious.'")

I don't think that Sam ever realised that he was the "chief hero," as
Tolkien put it, nor that he ever found out how much of people's admiration
and respect was given to him (even though he was elected mayor seven times
he probably thought that the greater respect and admiration was given to
the Master and the Thain; i.e. Merry and Pippin).

And yes, I think you're right that this humility enabled Sam to feel
another kind of pity when he confronted Gollum on the slopes of Mount Doom.
Sam pitied, I think, the sufferings Gollum had endured, while Gandalf
pitied Gollum's weakness, I believe.
To Gandalf pity was an ideal while to Sam it came almost despite himself.

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

"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to
deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- Tolkien in The Fellowship of the Ring
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:07:01 GMT, "Troels Forchhammer"
<Troels RemoveThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>> Had Sam not pitied Gollum and his sword hand not wavered, the entire
>> Quest would have been a failure. Hmmm...did Sam outdo even Gandalf,
>> in this sense, when the test came?
>
>Not entirely sure that I can put my thoughts in a coherent (and
>understandable) form here, but I'll try anyway
>
>I don't think that the situations are entirely comparable in this respect -
>Sam's pity here derives from having handled the Ring - having gained a
>greater understanding of what Gollum had suffered, while Gandalf stated
>pity for the weak as one of his reasons for wanting to use the Ring. A
>better question, I think, would be whether Sam did better than Gandalf
>could have done when he voluntarily handed the Ring to Frodo - i.e. would
>Gandalf have been able to relinquish the Ring? By his own explanation this
>would seem doubtful.
>
>Sam, as I understand it, handed the Ring over as he did for two reasons.
>First (and foremost) his love for Frodo, but also because he had no desire
>of personal power - not even "of the strength to do good," as Gandalf put
>it when he spoke to Frodo.
>
> " In that hour of trial it was the love of his master that
> helped most to hold him firm; but also deep down in him lived
> still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core
> of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a
> burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray
> him. The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need
> and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to
> use, not the hands of others to command."
>(VI, 1 'The Tower of Cirith Ungol')
>
>How was Sam's situation different from the situation Gandalf would have
>been in? Surely Gandalf too was capable of great love - though not as
>personal and immediate as Sam's love for his master, I doubt, however, that
>Gandalf/Olórin's love for the Eruhíni was any less than Sam's for his
>master.
>
>One of the prime differences between Sam and Gandalf with respect to their
>(in Gandalf's case potential) interactions with the One Ring is, IMO,
>humility. I am not suggesting that Gandalf is committing the sin of pride,
>but he knows of his own power, and recognises this as a weakness with
>respect to the Ring - in Sam's terms Gandalf knew that he was "large enough
>to bear such a burden." Sam, on the other hand, is the very soul of
>humility - he has no need for a garden swollen to a realm. Again his
>conversation with Frodo on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol comes to mind ("'I
>want to hear more about Sam, dad. [...]' 'Now Mr. Frodo,' said Sam, 'you
>shouldn't make fun. I was serious.'")
>
>I don't think that Sam ever realised that he was the "chief hero," as
>Tolkien put it, nor that he ever found out how much of people's admiration
>and respect was given to him (even though he was elected mayor seven times
>he probably thought that the greater respect and admiration was given to
>the Master and the Thain; i.e. Merry and Pippin).
>
>And yes, I think you're right that this humility enabled Sam to feel
>another kind of pity when he confronted Gollum on the slopes of Mount Doom.
>Sam pitied, I think, the sufferings Gollum had endured, while Gandalf
>pitied Gollum's weakness, I believe.
>To Gandalf pity was an ideal while to Sam it came almost despite himself.

And may have been the stronger for it.

Very coherent indeed, and thought-provoking. I like that, that
Gandalf knew he could bear the burden. In a sense, then, Sam and
Gandalf were different in capacity.

How else were the situations of Sam and Gandalf different?

It is helpful to look at Sam's giving the Ring to Frodo and you hit
upon the two very reasons why he was able to do it. But there is also
a two-fold difference here: service and kind.

As you say, Sam loved his master and pitied him his burden. Gandalf
did love the Children of Iluvatar and had great pity for them, but
they were not his master. He had a great deal more autonomy than did
Sam, though as a steward he certainly did have someone to answer to,
and that relationship (directly to Eru as I see it--though YMMV--or
indirectly to Eru through Manwe and Elbereth and the other Valar),
while strong in love, was of a totally different sort: that of a
creation to its creator. It was a greater relationship than the much
more straightforward (and yet complex) one between Frodo and Sam, but
the peril was greater, too: that the creation would look away from its
creator and attempt something on its own (in Gandalf's case, to do
good, having been moved by pity), if a seemingly suitable tool came
along. It would so easy to do and result in such a great fall and
terrible harm.

Then, too, I believe both Sam and Gollum were hobbits, and it was thus
easier for Sam to empathize with what Gollum was going through, after
he himself had borne the Ring for a little while (it's interesting to
see how his initial resolve in Cirith Ungol to hunt Gollum down and
kill him in a corner evolved into this quest-saving action on Mount
Doom).

Gandalf was, in a sense, just being an instructor for Frodo when he
talked about pitying Gollum -- he couldn't feel the same empathy with
that twisted, old hobbit that another hobbit might. Aragorn, for
instance, had no pity or empathy whatsoever for him (g). Gandalf
would have to look at another Maia -- Sauron -- for that. I think he
did pity Sauron because he told someone that nothing was evil in the
beginning, "not even Sauron," but there was a cold clarity to his
vision, not the warm earthiness of Sam's great heart. In that sense
Sam had a protection that Gandalf lacked.

Gandalf would have taken the Ring for very different reasons than Sam
did (who took the Ring to carry on the quest), and had he taken it, he
wouldn't have surrendered it to his master (who had no need for it,
being incalculably greater than it); rather, it would have driven him
away from his master/creator and the whole Dark Lord creation cycle
that can be traced back to Melkor would play out again.

What I can't figure out is how that all ties in with Eru's telling
Melkor in the Ainulindale that this is but part of the whole Song "and
tributary to its glory."

But I think pity plays a large part in that.

Barb
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

in <it6370lehq2dj43kjik3665und78qjf525 RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
Belba Grubb from Stock <barbb RemoveThis @dbtech.net> enriched us with:
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:07:01 GMT, "Troels Forchhammer"
> <Troels RemoveThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>> To Gandalf pity was an ideal while to Sam it came almost despite
>> himself.
>
> And may have been the stronger for it.

Indeed.

> Very coherent indeed, and thought-provoking. I like that, that
> Gandalf knew he could bear the burden. In a sense, then, Sam and
> Gandalf were different in capacity.

In capacity (for pity, I assume)only so far, I think, as there were
experiences that Gandalf was unable to have, just as there were experiences
that Gandalf did have, but which Sam was unable to get.

Then again, Gandalf may, by his very nature, have had a greater capacity
for pity as an ideal, while Sam, by his nature, may have had the greater
capacity for this pity born of understanding. ("Go not to the Elves for
counsel, for they will say both no and yes." <g>)

> How else were the situations of Sam and Gandalf different?
>
> It is helpful to look at Sam's giving the Ring to Frodo and you hit
> upon the two very reasons why he was able to do it. But there is also
> a two-fold difference here: service and kind.
>
> As you say, Sam loved his master and pitied him his burden. Gandalf
> did love the Children of Iluvatar and had great pity for them, but
> they were not his master.

This also reminds me of the Boromir-Denethor situation. Denethor was
convinced that Boromir would have handed the One Ring to him, while Gandalf
said that Boromir would have kept it. Given the nature of Boromir's
Ring-induced madness and rant at Amon Hen, I think it's clear that Gandalf
was right, yet I don't doubt that Boromir did love his father, and Denethor
was Boromir's master both as his father and his ruler. How then were Sam's
and Boromir's situations different?

First of all Boromir was prideful - that was, I think, his main sin, and
that may even have tainted his love for his father ("/My/ father, the
Steward of Gondor"), and he was moved not by pity for for Sauron's victims,
but by his wish for military supremacy and personal glory.

<reformatted>

[Gandalf]
> had a great deal more autonomy than did Sam, though as a steward he
> certainly did have someone to answer to, and that relationship while
> strong in love, was of a totally different sort: that of a creation to
> its creator.

Right.
I do think that Gandalf was empowered to act as a free agent - according to
the rules set for him, and in furtherance of his mission, but even that he
could have left as did the other Istari.

> It was a greater relationship than the much more straightforward (and
> yet complex) one between Frodo and Sam, but the peril was greater,
> too: that the creation would look away from its creator and attempt
> something on its own (in Gandalf's case, to do good, having been moved
> by pity), if a seemingly suitable tool came along. It would so easy
> to do and result in such a great fall and terrible harm.

And the peril of disobedience to the Creator or his chosen lord is of
course the condemnation experienced by Saruman - a negation of one's
nature.

At another level Frodo was of course also a "suitable tool" though he
obviously wasn't used as such, but was given freedom to accept or reject
the quest (though Tolkien wrote that "Frodo was given 'grace': first to
answer the call (at the end of the Council) after long resisting a complete
surrender,"[Lett#246] he also assures us that he "was honoured because he
had accepted the burden voluntarily"[lett#191]).

Gandalf did, as the only Istar, pass the test, and part of the limitations
placed on them was "Their powers are directed primarily to the
encouragement of the enemies of evil, to cause them to use their own wits
and valour, to unite and endure." Certainly Gandalf did not overstep this
(not as Gandalf the Grey, anyway), and he did not force Frodo or any other
person to join the quest.

Sorry - that got a bit off the track, but I was recently presented (in
another context) with the idea that Gandalf had manipulated the events and
the heroes (Frodo and Sam in particular) as a player moving his chess
pieces.

> (directly to Eru as I see it--though YMMV--or indirectly to Eru through
> Manwe and Elbereth and the other Valar),

To Manwë and Arda in particular, I think, (but to the whole council of
Valar more generally) before his death, but directly to Eru after his
death. Gandalf the Grey certainly didn't have the authority to cast
Saruman out of the Order, but after having visited with Eru, Gandalf the
White suddenly has this authority.

> Then, too, I believe both Sam and Gollum were hobbits, and it was thus
> easier for Sam to empathize with what Gollum was going through, after
> he himself had borne the Ring for a little while (it's interesting to
> see how his initial resolve in Cirith Ungol to hunt Gollum down and
> kill him in a corner evolved into this quest-saving action on Mount
> Doom).

A mere 'I agree' will have to suffice here

> Gandalf was, in a sense, just being an instructor for Frodo when he
> talked about pitying Gollum

"In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant,
because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of
injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed
and disaster averted. Gandalf certainly foresaw this."
(Letter #192)

I agree that Gandalf was just being the teacher in this, he couldn't force
the pity down Frodo's throat, and could only hope to plant a seed of pity
in Frodo (a seed which we're later specifically told bore fruit, "For now
that I see him, I do pity him"). Gandalf may have foreseen that pity for
Gollum would be essential for the success of the quest, but the pity would
have to be given without hope for personal reward.

> -- he couldn't feel the same empathy with that twisted, old hobbit
> that another hobbit might.

Or another Ring-bearer, perhaps?
On the slopes of Mount Doom it was specifically Sam's experience with the
Ring that was mentioned - in particular wearing it and having to give it
up, it seems to me - as allowing him to feel pity for Gollum.

> Aragorn, for instance, had no pity or empathy whatsoever for him (g).

Apparently not. A strange thing, by the way, as Aragorn normally strikes me
as one who is very much capable of pity (Berogond); but perhaps it is
brought about by his long search and the trip back to Thranduil's realm
with the captured Gollum.

> Gandalf would have to look at another Maia -- Sauron -- for that.

Very possible. He may have thought that Sauron had forfeited his
possibility for redemption by another Ainu, but he would probably have
pitied him nonetheless, and possibly the more because he understood
Sauron's beginnings in a wish for power to order things.

> I think he did pity Sauron because he told someone that nothing was
> evil in the beginning, "not even Sauron,"

That was actually Elrond, but even his knowledge had to have a source, and
Sauron had long been evil when Elrond was born.

> but there was a cold clarity to his vision, not the warm earthiness of
> Sam's great heart. In that sense Sam had a protection that Gandalf
> lacked.

Hear! Hear!

I find it difficult to put into words the difference in kind between
Gandalf and Sam's pity: would it be fair to say that Gandalf's pity is not
put to the test with the immediacy with which Sam's is tested - testing his
capability to show pity when consumed by a cold anger - but Sam's ability
is so tested, and he pass the test even if he would have thought himself
that he wouldn't.

> Gandalf would have taken the Ring for very different reasons than Sam
> did (who took the Ring to carry on the quest),

Gandalf didn't even dare to take the Ring to keep it safe, which was
essentially what Sam did. As I read the passage, it was this 'argument'
that convinced that he had to take the Ring rather than the need to
continue the quest.

> and had he taken it, he wouldn't have surrendered it to his master
> (who had no need for it, being incalculably greater than it); rather,
> it would have driven him away from his master/creator and the whole
> Dark Lord creation cycle that can be traced back to Melkor would play
> out again.

Certainly.

> What I can't figure out is how that all ties in with Eru's telling
> Melkor in the Ainulindale that this is but part of the whole Song "and
> tributary to its glory."

And how this relates to pre-determination ...

That is a good question, but it will require another message to continue on
that track.

> But I think pity plays a large part in that.

Pity & Providence

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

Men, said the Devil,
are good to their brothers:
they don't want to mend
their own ways, but each other's.
- Piet Hein, /Mankind/
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

In message <news:mgcu70h4f37im3s3hi5kns0pnlr98co3vk@4ax.com>
Belba Grubb from Stock <barbb.RemoveThis@dbtech.net> enriched us with:
>
> I apologize for the delay, but it's been very busy in "Stock"
> lately.

Know what you mean - analogue life intervening can be tedious

> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 21:01:46 GMT, "Troels Forchhammer"
> <Troels.RemoveThis@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> In capacity (for pity, I assume)only so far, I think, as there
>> were experiences that Gandalf was unable to have, just as there
>> were experiences that Gandalf did have, but which Sam was unable
>> to get.
>>
>> Then again, Gandalf may, by his very nature, have had a greater
>> capacity for pity as an ideal, while Sam, by his nature, may have
>> had the greater capacity for this pity born of understanding. ("Go
>> not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes."
>> <g>)
>
> 'Troels' translates into 'Gildor' in Quenya? (g)



> I lean toward their individual natures being the most significant
> contributing factor to their capacities.

I think it may be more complex than what I thought at first.

Their way of experiencing, and the experiences which are open for them
are obviously to a large extent determined by their natures (Sam, for
instance, has no way of having direct experiences with Ilúvatar because
his nature isn't one that allows this).

> Since Olorin wandered in Middle-earth even as an invisible Maia,
> could pity have been only an ideal to him?

Insofar as Olórin's pity wasn't rooted in his own experience of the
weaknesses he pitied, I think it was an ideal. The word is probably not
very well chosen, though. What I mean is that his pity is not rooted in
an understanding of his own weaknesses and a pity for others with the
same weakness derived from that (as I see Sam's pity of Gollum as
being), but Olórin's pity is rather the pity in weaknesses he doesn't
share himself. That probably changed a bit when he became Gandalf who
suffered from many of the weaknesses of normal men, though not, I deem,
from them all. Most specifically we know that the possibility of
straying from the path of the mission was very actual - Saruman, the
Blue Wizards and even Radagast (who at least remained good) all failed
their mission. And Saruman fell to the temptation of the Ring even if
he had never seen it - the possibility of power, I think, is what led
him astray: the same as the temptation Gandalf obviously feared (though
possibly not for the same reasons - I don't think Gandalf considered
his personal glory, but I do think Saruman did).

I seem to be arguing against myself here

> It must have been a large part of his nature (consider the great
> amount of time he spent with the Vala Lorien - Ms. Empathy -- for
> instance).

Yes, I'd say so. I didn't really wish to question Gandalf/Olórin's
capacity for or actual possession of pity - I was trying to compare
Gandalf's pity to Sam's, not in amount or source, but in kind.

Sam, I think, pitied Gollum not because he thought that that pity was
good in itself, but because his own experiences had taught him how
difficult it was to resist the Ring, and he pitied Gollum because he
could suddenly see in Gollum what he might have become himself, had his
love for Frodo and his Hobbit sensibility not saved him.

Gandalf didn't, and couldn't, have this immediate sense of his own
fallibility (though he did recognise it), but to him pity was good in
itself - not as an unattainable ideal, but as an ideal he very much
lived up to.

> One would think a Maia would naturally have the greater capacity,

In general I think they did. They had a capacity for pity in a more
general sense - for pitying everybody - while Sam, as an example of the
Hobbits in general, were narrower in their application, I think.

> but here one has to think of what Gandalf meant
[...]
> powerful testimony to his understanding for and respect of hobbits.

Agreed.

> Whatever that power was, its presence in Sam certainly had a lot
> to do with his transformation in terms of his understanding of
> Gollum.

You might be right. To the extent that any power to resist evil also
ought to help resist the evil of not showing pity you are definitely
right, but I suspect that you intend a more specific connection, and
I'm not convinced that 'pity' as such is one of the stronger virtues of
the Hobbits (though Frodo apparently didn't have too many problems
convincing the Hobbits to spare the lives of as many as possible of the
ruffians during the scouring - and even Saruman was allowed to leave
unhurt by any Hobbit).

Hmm - it may be that I'm not seeing what's sitting in front of my nose
here

> "Pity" is such an overused word, unfortunately, but here we see it
> unfold before us in all its complexity and wonder as Sam goes from
> wanting to hunt Gollum into a corner and kill him and then spares
> his life on Mount Doom.

Certainly!
I think that that is one of the key passages in the text.

> I keep returning to that sequence because it's really quite
> remarkable,
[...]
> but Sam's character seems stronger than all that: it's how he puts
> that together that's somehow the key.

Sam is, I think, the most "Hobbitish" of the four Hobbits in the
fellowship, and, as noted above, that might be part of the explanation.
One aspect is possibly that as a more 'Hobbitish' Hobbit, Sam would be
more resilient to corruption.

One of the things that, IMO, characterises the Hobbits is a sense of
contentment - they appear so very contended about their position in
Middle-earth, and Sam appears to share that contentment more than his
fellows.

I'm not sure where this is leading me, if anywhere ...

>> On the slopes of Mount Doom it was specifically Sam's experience
>> with the Ring that was mentioned - in particular wearing it and
>> having to give it up, it seems to me - as allowing him to feel
>> pity for Gollum.
>
> Yes it was. But JRRT also tended to show a lot more than he
> specified. And I wonder if anyone ever asked him how such an evil
> implement could foster such a benign reaction.

I would love to see Tolkien's answer to that question.

> One could contrast Sam's reaction to that of the Ring-bearer, who
> actually says, that now he has seen Gollum, he pities him.

Yes. And at that point Sam did not pity Gollum ...

> Following the logic of the Ring as pity-generating, wouldn't Frodo
> pity Gollum even more than does Sam? "My brother!"

I'm not sure if he pities Gollum more than Sam, but he does pity him
earlier. Sam has a few kindly thoughts, IIRC, before Mount Doom, but in
general he doesn't trust Gollum and it appears to me that he would like
to see Gollum dead (though I'm not sure that he would be able to do it
himself).

> Instead he ends up his rival at the Crack of Doom.

That, I'd say, has a very different explanation. No matter his nobility
in other matters, Frodo, at that point, has no choice with respect to
the Ring - once Gollum started taking it from him, he had to fight (as
long as the Ring existed). With respect to the possession of the Ring
there was no longer any possibility of pity - due to the Ring itself.

[...]

> Indeed, only moments after he's mentioned his pity for Gollum,
> Frodo ends up using the Ring to control him. Now why would JRRT
> show this odd conjunction of Pity and Domination in one character,
> and this amazing transformation in another character who's very
> close physically in the story? I don't know, of course, but it's
> interesting to think about.

Very.

I don't think Frodo uses the Ring to control Gollum as much as he
allows Gollum to use the Ring to control himself.

" `No, I will not take it off you,' said Frodo, `not
unless' - he paused a moment in thought - `not unless there
is any promise you can make that I can trust.'
'We will swear to do what he wants, yes, yess, said
Gollum, still twisting and grabbling at his ankle. `It
hurts us.'
`Swear? ' said Frodo.
'Sméagol,' said Gollum suddenly and clearly, opening his
eyes wide and staring at Frodo with a strange light.
'Sméagol will swear on the Precious.'
Frodo drew himself up, and again Sam was startled by his
words and his stern voice. 'On the Precious? How dare you?
' he said. 'Think!
/One Ring to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them./
Would you commit your promise to that, Sméagol? It will
hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may
twist your words. Beware!'
Gollum cowered. 'On the Precious. on the Precious! ' he
repeated."

As I read it, Frodo didn't use the Ring to control Gollum here - he
even warned Gollum against making the promise (though he ultimately
also allows the promise). It's not the same situation as later -
already at the Black Gate, IIRC, Frodo does use the Ring to exert some
kind of control or even domination over Gollum.

Frodo still uses Sting and brute force to control Gollum, though.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)mail.dk>

It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal nothing.
- Frodo Baggins, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

>Troels Forchhammer wrote:
<snip>
> You might be right. To the extent that any power to resist evil also
> ought to help resist the evil of not showing pity you are definitely
> right, but I suspect that you intend a more specific connection, and
> I'm not convinced that 'pity' as such is one of the stronger virtues
> of the Hobbits <snip>

Well, there's this quote from UT, Gandalf speaking to Frodo in Minas
Tirith:
"And then there was the Shire-folk. I began to have a warm place in my
heart for them in the Long Winter, which none of you can remember. They
were very hard put to it then: one of the worst pinches they have been in,
dying of cold, and starving in the dreadful dearth that followed. But that
was the time to see their courage, and their pity one for another. It was
by their pity as much as by their tough uncomplaining courage that they
survived."

- Ciaran S.
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

in <4082e9b1$1@news.netacc.net>,
Shanahan <pogued.RemoveThis@redsuspenders.com> enriched us with:
>

<snip>

> Well, there's this quote from UT, Gandalf speaking to Frodo in Minas
> Tirith:

Thanks.
It appears that I did miss what was sitting right in front of me :-/

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

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the
shoulders of giants.
- Isaac Newton
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

On 18 Apr 2004 19:50:29 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
<Troels DeleteThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>> I lean toward their individual natures being the most significant
>> contributing factor to their capacities.
>
>I think it may be more complex than what I thought at first.
>
>Their way of experiencing, and the experiences which are open for them
>are obviously to a large extent determined by their natures (Sam, for
>instance, has no way of having direct experiences with Ilúvatar because
>his nature isn't one that allows this).

And yet Ilúvatar has fashioned his nature; perhaps one could say Sam
is insensible of this direct experience, in the sense of being
limited. Gandalf is more aware of this, indeed, highly aware of it
later on in his career. But they are both creations of Ilúvatar.
Gandalf is capable of seeing that, perhaps, but Sam is not.

>> Since Olorin wandered in Middle-earth even as an invisible Maia,
>> could pity have been only an ideal to him?
>
>Insofar as Olórin's pity wasn't rooted in his own experience of the
>weaknesses he pitied, I think it was an ideal. The word is probably not
>very well chosen, though. What I mean is that his pity is not rooted in
>an understanding of his own weaknesses and a pity for others with the
>same weakness derived from that (as I see Sam's pity of Gollum as
>being), but Olórin's pity is rather the pity in weaknesses he doesn't
>share himself. That probably changed a bit when he became Gandalf who
>suffered from many of the weaknesses of normal men, though not, I deem,
>from them all. Most specifically we know that the possibility of
>straying from the path of the mission was very actual - Saruman, the
>Blue Wizards and even Radagast (who at least remained good) all failed
>their mission. And Saruman fell to the temptation of the Ring even if
>he had never seen it - the possibility of power, I think, is what led
>him astray: the same as the temptation Gandalf obviously feared (though
>possibly not for the same reasons - I don't think Gandalf considered
>his personal glory, but I do think Saruman did).
>
>I seem to be arguing against myself here

Oh no, actually it makes a lot of sense. Once embodied as Gandalf,
the Maia was the more mindful of Gandalf's weaknesses because as
Olórin he had seen these weaknesses in others, which had stirred
compassion in him rather than disgust or a feeling of superiority. In
this way he was different from Radagast (who spoke of the Shire's name
as 'uncouth') and Saruman, who (to borrow a phrase from Terry
Pratchett) despised southerners and was by inference standing at the
north pole.

Now this may be stretching it a bit (or a lot - g), but a case can be
made that Sam was also mindful of his weaknesses, too, but for a very
different reason -- the Gaffer's constant harping on them. But while
there is this superficial resemblance between him and Gandalf, it is
misleading. The two characters are very different.

>> It must have been a large part of his nature (consider the great
>> amount of time he spent with the Vala Lorien - Ms. Empathy -- for
>> instance).
>
>Yes, I'd say so. I didn't really wish to question Gandalf/Olórin's
>capacity for or actual possession of pity - I was trying to compare
>Gandalf's pity to Sam's, not in amount or source, but in kind.
>
>Sam, I think, pitied Gollum not because he thought that that pity was
>good in itself, but because his own experiences had taught him how
>difficult it was to resist the Ring, and he pitied Gollum because he
>could suddenly see in Gollum what he might have become himself, had his
>love for Frodo and his Hobbit sensibility not saved him.
>
>Gandalf didn't, and couldn't, have this immediate sense of his own
>fallibility (though he did recognise it), but to him pity was good in
>itself - not as an unattainable ideal, but as an ideal he very much
>lived up to.

That is a very good way to look at it.

>> One would think a Maia would naturally have the greater capacity,
>
>In general I think they did. They had a capacity for pity in a more
>general sense - for pitying everybody - while Sam, as an example of the
>Hobbits in general, were narrower in their application, I think.

I would tend to agree, but recently read the Frodo and Sam chapters
and was amazed at the emotional and primal power of that last scene in
the Crack of Doom. There is Everyman, and the passion (Frodo, Sam and
Gollum) and pity (Sam) that these three hobbits demonstrate here
certainly equal such qualities shown in other circumstances by some
Maiar (Saruman and Sauron -- will leave Gandalf's pity out of it here)
and Noldor (Galadriel). Indeed the small are shaking the towers of
the great here.

I think in his last interview, JRRT mentioned that he made the hobbits
small to show their lack of imagination. However, when the
circumstances called for it, they certainliy showed surprising depth
and aptitude for greatness.

>> Whatever that power was, its presence in Sam certainly had a lot
>> to do with his transformation in terms of his understanding of
>> Gollum.
>
>You might be right. To the extent that any power to resist evil also
>ought to help resist the evil of not showing pity you are definitely
>right, but I suspect that you intend a more specific connection, and
>I'm not convinced that 'pity' as such is one of the stronger virtues of
>the Hobbits (though Frodo apparently didn't have too many problems
>convincing the Hobbits to spare the lives of as many as possible of the
>ruffians during the scouring - and even Saruman was allowed to leave
>unhurt by any Hobbit).
>
>Hmm - it may be that I'm not seeing what's sitting in front of my nose
>here



Having lived in small towns for a sizable part of my formative years,
I would suggest that pity, or something akin to pity, actually is one
of the great forces in smoothing over the social frictions in
Shire-level life. Everybody is living up close, and everybody's
business is known; most people (there are exceptions -- every town has
its Ferny's and Lotho's) can't help but draw the logical comparisons
between other people's foibles and one's own. For instance, in
Frost's "The Star-Splitter" Brad McLaughlin of Littleton burns down
his house to buy a telescope with the insurance money:

Mean laughter went about the town that day
To let him know we weren't the least imposed on,
And he could wait--we'd see to him tomorrow.
But the first thing next morning we reflected
If one by one we counted people out
For the least sin, it wouldn't take us long
To get so we had no one left to live with.
For to be social is to be forgiving....

Doesn't pity underly such forgiveness?

>> "Pity" is such an overused word, unfortunately, but here we see it
>> unfold before us in all its complexity and wonder as Sam goes from
>> wanting to hunt Gollum into a corner and kill him and then spares
>> his life on Mount Doom.
>
>Certainly!
>I think that that is one of the key passages in the text.
>
>> I keep returning to that sequence because it's really quite
>> remarkable,
>[...]
>> but Sam's character seems stronger than all that: it's how he puts
>> that together that's somehow the key.
>
>Sam is, I think, the most "Hobbitish" of the four Hobbits in the
>fellowship, and, as noted above, that might be part of the explanation.
>One aspect is possibly that as a more 'Hobbitish' Hobbit, Sam would be
>more resilient to corruption.
>
>One of the things that, IMO, characterises the Hobbits is a sense of
>contentment - they appear so very contended about their position in
>Middle-earth, and Sam appears to share that contentment more than his
>fellows.
>
>I'm not sure where this is leading me, if anywhere ...

Down a very fruitful road -- malcontents are not known for their
empathy with or pity for others.

And yet here the contrast with Gandalf is the greatest, for Gandalf
had no fixed residence of home and was a restless wanderer.

>> One could contrast Sam's reaction to that of the Ring-bearer, who
>> actually says, that now he has seen Gollum, he pities him.
>
>Yes. And at that point Sam did not pity Gollum ...
>
>> Following the logic of the Ring as pity-generating, wouldn't Frodo
>> pity Gollum even more than does Sam? "My brother!"
>
>I'm not sure if he pities Gollum more than Sam, but he does pity him
>earlier. Sam has a few kindly thoughts, IIRC, before Mount Doom, but in
>general he doesn't trust Gollum and it appears to me that he would like
>to see Gollum dead (though I'm not sure that he would be able to do it
>himself).

Not until Cirith Ungol anyway. But I agree.

Hmmm -- interesting, in a real world sense, that only after Sam had
realized that he actually could kill somebody could he feel empathy
for that individual later on.

>> Instead he ends up his rival at the Crack of Doom.
>
>That, I'd say, has a very different explanation. No matter his nobility
>in other matters, Frodo, at that point, has no choice with respect to
>the Ring - once Gollum started taking it from him, he had to fight (as
>long as the Ring existed). With respect to the possession of the Ring
>there was no longer any possibility of pity - due to the Ring itself.

Yes.

>> Indeed, only moments after he's mentioned his pity for Gollum,
>> Frodo ends up using the Ring to control him. Now why would JRRT
>> show this odd conjunction of Pity and Domination in one character,
>> and this amazing transformation in another character who's very
>> close physically in the story? I don't know, of course, but it's
>> interesting to think about.
>
>Very.
>
>I don't think Frodo uses the Ring to control Gollum as much as he
>allows Gollum to use the Ring to control himself.
>
> " `No, I will not take it off you,' said Frodo, `not
> unless' - he paused a moment in thought - `not unless there
> is any promise you can make that I can trust.'
> 'We will swear to do what he wants, yes, yess, said
> Gollum, still twisting and grabbling at his ankle. `It
> hurts us.'
> `Swear? ' said Frodo.
> 'Sméagol,' said Gollum suddenly and clearly, opening his
> eyes wide and staring at Frodo with a strange light.
> 'Sméagol will swear on the Precious.'
> Frodo drew himself up, and again Sam was startled by his
> words and his stern voice. 'On the Precious? How dare you?
> ' he said. 'Think!
> /One Ring to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them./
> Would you commit your promise to that, Sméagol? It will
> hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may
> twist your words. Beware!'
> Gollum cowered. 'On the Precious. on the Precious! ' he
> repeated."
>
>As I read it, Frodo didn't use the Ring to control Gollum here - he
>even warned Gollum against making the promise (though he ultimately
>also allows the promise). It's not the same situation as later -
>already at the Black Gate, IIRC, Frodo does use the Ring to exert some
>kind of control or even domination over Gollum.
>
>Frodo still uses Sting and brute force to control Gollum, though.

Yes; that's just common sense (g). But you are correct -- I reread
the section and see now, through Sam's eyes, that the Ring did not yet
show up directly, though it might be suggested that the impression of
little Frodo Baggins as "a mighty lord who hid his brightness in a
grey cloud" might be a Ring hallucination perceptible even to Sam, and
much more so to Gollum and summoned perhaps by Gollum's invoking the
Ring. The little orc in the Tower of Cirith Ungol had a somewhat
similar vision of Sam. However, the Ring does appear and a voice
comes from it in Sam's second vision of the two on the slopes of
Orodruin.

Barb
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:46:45 GMT, "Troels Forchhammer"
<Troels RemoveThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>in <4082e9b1$1@news.netacc.net>,
>Shanahan <pogued RemoveThis @redsuspenders.com> enriched us with:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> Well, there's this quote from UT, Gandalf speaking to Frodo in Minas
>> Tirith:
>
>Thanks.
>It appears that I did miss what was sitting right in front of me :-/

Don't we all...

Thanks, Shanahan.


 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

Troels Forchhammer wrote:

> Is there an English word for this kind of small-town attitude with its
> reserve to strangers, support of any member against a stranger and firm
> internal ordering?
>
With various connotations, "xenophobic", "insular", "clannish", or
"parochial" might describe it.

--
Odysseus
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

In message <news:40A6785A.BE262C95@yahoo-dot.ca>
Odysseus <odysseus1479-at.TakeThisOut@yahoo-dot.ca> enriched us with:
>
> With various connotations, "xenophobic", "insular", "clannish", or
> "parochial" might describe it.

Thanks. Now back to the dictionaries for the connotations

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)mail.dk>

The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

>Subject: Re: Duty and Destiny (and Pity)
>From: Odysseus odysseus1479-at.DeleteThis@yahoo-dot.ca
>Date: 15/05/2004 21:05 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <40A6785A.BE262C95.DeleteThis@yahoo-dot.ca>
>
>Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
>> Is there an English word for this kind of small-town attitude with its
>> reserve to strangers, support of any member against a stranger and firm
>> internal ordering?
>>
>With various connotations, "xenophobic", "insular", "clannish", or
>"parochial" might describe it.

little-englander, daily mail reader or conservative might also fit.
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny 

in <2adib0tr9ub06jfaimboodp91jqro70peg DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
Belba Grubb from Stock <barbb DeleteThis @dbtech.net> enriched us with:
>

<snip>

> Not until this discussion have I realized what was meant by "Few have
> gained such a victory." Thanks.

It seems that we have more or less exhausted the potential in this
discussion, and I would like to thank you - it has been very refreshing
and enlightening - a great pleasure!

[Insularity and fear of strangers]

> It's only in the legendarium of our own times that such an obstacle is
> necessarily a bad thing.

Possibly because we have now less opportunity for that kind of insular
societies - in our part of the world, at least. In earlier times it
served to preserve the society.

<snip>

> It is also not helpful to anyone, although I have to think a little
> bit to see if inwardly directed pity can always be as detrimental as
> in this story as portrayed by Gollum.

It depends, I suppose, on the specific circumstances. In as far as
self-pity can be turned into a resolve to better one's situation it might
be helpful; and if one comes through it, might it not then teach the
sufferer to pity others?

I don't know ...

> Perhaps it can be, as it blinds the individual to the actual
> circumstances of his suffering, and as it tends to kill hope.

I think that it might teach a valuable lesson provided one comes through.
Only once one comes out 'on the other side' can something beneficial come
of it.

--
Troels Forchhammer

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking with which we created them.
- Albert Einstein
 >> Stay informed about: Duty and Destiny