Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Black Breathalizer]

What do you think it means?

Literal
Adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter
Date: 14th century
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>
2 : of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3 : reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM <a literal translation>

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
What do you think it means?

Literal
Adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter
Date: 14th century
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>
2 : of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3 : reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM <a literal translation>

Of course, this simplistic definition lacks the extended use the word has when combined with the word "thinking". As a phrase, "literal thinking" is one of three types of thinking. The other two are "inferential thinking" and "evaluative thinking". Nobody here is using literal thinking in place of evaluative thinking. And to take it a step further, your implication that we are confined by our inability to think evaluatively is just another attempt to weaken our arguments with unrelated charges.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that you mistakenly misused the phrase and what you meant was something else which we can't know because we only have the words you typed.

[Wayfarer]

So I disagree strongly with all the harangue about the fact that we demanded a word-for-word translation of the book to the screen in order to be satisfied - because it isn't true. We did, however, demand a certain faithfulness to Tolkien's vision and the essential meaning of the tale, both of which were totally ignored by Mr. Jackson and his screenwriters.

Quite so!

Literal...
b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression.
c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth>
d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>

Aren't these all reasonable things to expect when a Book is made into a film?
Isn't it not only reasonable, but essential that a film adhere to the 'primary meaning'- which is, as you say, the 'vision' or 'theme'? After all, you've been trying to argue that jackson /did/ portray tolkein's vision- which is part of a literal interpretation.
Isn't it common sense that jackson shouldn't have embellished and exaggerated the way he did? Pretty-elf and anal-retentive-elf and still-not-king and short-funny-person bear little to no resemblance to the characters in LOTR because of his exaggeration.
Isn't it a 'duh' issue that the facts or psuedofacts are what's important when retelling a 'historical' story?

It still seems to me that a literal interpretation is far superior to the watered down, half baked, pathetic snivelling excuse for a tolkien film that you're trying to pass of as 'vision'.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Of course, this simplistic definition lacks the extended use the word has when combined with the word "thinking". As a phrase, "literal thinking" is one of three types of thinking. The other two are "inferential thinking" and "evaluative thinking". Nobody here is using literal thinking in place of evaluative thinking. And to take it a step further, your implication that we are confined by our inability to think evaluatively is just another attempt to weaken our arguments with unrelated charges.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that you mistakenly misused the phrase and what you meant was something else which we can't know because we only have the words you typed.

You've given me a headache trying to figure out what the heck you just said, Elfhelm.

What I think is that some people get so freaked out about the fact that PJ didn't always follow Tolkien's roadmap and chose -- gasp! -- a different route on occasion that they fail to notice he ended up at the same destination as the author intended.

I still contend that the book purist arguements expressed here are more about the means than they are about the message.

[Elfhelm]

I think it is entirely a matter of opinion. It is their opinion that he did not arrive at the same end and yours that he did. But the end does not justify the means. There are too many splatter scenes. Sure, the means of splatter scenes produces the end of monetary profit and massive popularity, but is that popularity for the Lord of the Rings as a story or for splatter scenes as an entertainment? It is my opinion that a movie of the story can be successful and not need to cater to the bloodthirst of the masses.

Sorry to detract from your cogent points about the breaking of the fellowship, but then if you hadn't begun with the first two statements -- that we are merely freaking out about any changes and that we are trapped in literal-mindedness -- there would have been no need to defend against those attacks.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm sorry, but the film screwed up the "theme" of the quest very badly in the Parth Galen sequence. In the book, Aragorn had already decided that he, Sam and Gimli would accompany Frodo to Mordor, knowing as he did that the Bearer would chose to go to the Fire since there really was no other choice if the Ring was to be destroyed. Aragorn's eventual choice to "follow the orcs" was made after [1] Boromir's attempt to seize the Ring which pushed Frodo into his decision to go alone to Mordor and [2] the attack by the orcs, the capture of the two young hobbits and the death of Boromir. Only when the Bearer has already gone (not when he's thinking about going) and the two hobbits had been captured, did Aragorn choose to attempt a rescue of Merry and Pippin - and one reason for his choice was the fear that the hobbits would "spill the beans" about the quest once in the hands of Saruman, thus destroying any hope of success.

Jackson insistence on the theme of Aragorn's "possible" seduction by the Ring (and Aragorn's personal fear of succumbing thereto) is illustrated by Frodo asking the man who had been with him since Bree and had had every opportunity to take the Ring, "Can you protect me from yourself?" Silly, silly! Aragorn never would have permitted Frodo to go alone if that choice had been open to him which is why Tolkien wrote it so that the decision was made when the situation was already in place. This eliminated the need for Aragorn to send Frodo off alone - which Tolkien would not have done because it would have been totally unreasonable and out of character for the man. Therefore the only way Tolkien could have the Rohan/Treebeard etc. thread was to have Aragorn's decision take place under the circumstances he created.

Jackson's "creation" on the other hand, made a mockery of Aragorn's knowledge of the importance of the quest in order to maintain his original "weakness in the blood" theme with its accompanying "self-imposed exile" nonsense that had been introduced in Rivendell. Since Jackson began from a false premise and was proceeding from that same false premise, naturally all that followed was equally false - and nonsensical no matter how "good" it looked up there on the "silver screen". It was a cinematic example of that old computer truism: garbage in - garbage out.

[Melko Belcha]

Also in the book Frodo goes into the woods to think about how he can go on alone because he dosen't want to bring anybody into the danger that he took upon himself to do. In the movie Frodo just leaves the camp for a nice walk in the woods, and out of 8 people only Boromir noticed, and then he goes off on his own because Aragorn tells him to when the Uruk-hai show up. To me it totally killed Frodo as a character, yes he didn't want to take Sam in the film, but in the book he wanted to take nobody into danger with him, he took the burden on himself, and again in the movie he had to be saved, or pushed by one of the stong or wise. I guess PJ's Elrond might say, 'Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are helping them all along the way.'

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I'm sorry, but the film screwed up the "theme" of the quest very badly in the Parth Galen sequence. In the book, Aragorn had already decided that he, Sam and Gimli would accompany Frodo to Mordor, knowing as he did that the Bearer would chose to go to the Fire since there really was no other choice if the Ring was to be destroyed. Aragorn's eventual choice to "follow the orcs" was made after [1] Boromir's attempt to seize the Ring which pushed Frodo into his decision to go alone to Mordor and [2] the attack by the orcs, the capture of the two young hobbits and the death of Boromir. Only when the Bearer has already gone (not when he's thinking about going) and the two hobbits had been captured, did Aragorn choose to attempt a rescue of Merry and Pippin - and one reason for his choice was the fear that the hobbits would "spill the beans" about the quest once in the hands of Saruman, thus destroying any hope of success.

Please tell me how the film version treats Aragorn THAT much different? The only difference is that Aragorn catches a glimpse of Frodo and Sam on the other side of the river in the film and doesn't in the book. Do you REALLY think Aragorn the great hunter would have had difficulty tracking Frodo and Sam down?!?!? Of course not. He chose to rescue Merry & Pippin for the exact same reasons in the film as he did in the book.

Having Frodo challenge Aragorn immediately following his confrontation with Boromir was very logical. He had just been threatened by a man who had become tempted by the ring. Why wouldn't Frodo believe that the ring (which was gaining power as it moved ever closer to Mordor) wouldn't influence Aragorn as well? Aragorn's resistance to the lure of the ring was a wonderfully dramatic moment and a excellent way to communicate that Aragorn WAS different from Isildur. As Arwen said to him, "you will confront the darkness and you will defeat it" (or something similar.) At the end of the FOTR, we are treated to character-defining moments for Frodo, Sam, AND Aragorn.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Please tell me how the film version treats Aragorn THAT much different? The only difference is that Aragorn catches a glimpse of Frodo and Sam on the other side of the river in the film and doesn't in the book. Do you REALLY think Aragorn the great hunter would have had difficulty tracking Frodo and Sam down?!?!? Of course not. He chose to rescue Merry & Pippin for the exact same reasons in the film as he did in the book.

Having Frodo challenge Aragorn immediately following his confrontation with Boromir was very logical. He had just been threatened by a man who had become tempted by the ring. Why wouldn't Frodo believe that the ring (which was gaining power as it moved ever closer to Mordor) wouldn't influence Aragorn as well? Aragorn's resistance to the lure of the ring was a wonderfully dramatic moment and a excellent way to communicate that Aragorn WAS different from Isildur. As Arwen said to him, "you will confront the darkness and you will defeat it" (or something similar.) At the end of the FOTR, we are treated to character-defining moments for Frodo, Sam, AND Aragorn.

Aragorn would never have permitted Frodo to leave alone even with Sam. However, in the book, Frodo was gone and a goodly amount of time had passed before the three companions had finished sending Boromir to his rest. Yes, Aragorn could have tracked him on the other side of the river, but the mere fact that things fell out as they did led him to consider that, as he said, "the fate of the Bearer is no longer in my hands". That is a fatalistic statement which apparently indicated that Aragorn believed that fate had something else in mind for both Frodo and himself than he had planned originally.

After Gandalf's "death", Aragorn believed he had to take the Wizard's place and go to the Fire with the Bearer. However, once the events at Parth Galen had taken place, he apparently believed - for whatever reason (and it had nothing to do with any nonsense about fearing the lure of the Ring!) - that Frodo was fated to proceed without him. Remember, originally Aragorn was going with Boromir to Minas Tirith! He was never committed to going to Mordor. It was Gandalf who was to be the one to shepherd the Bearer to the Fire. But after Moria, all that changed and the leadership of the quest was thrust upon Aragorn so that as the group waited in Parth Galen for Frodo to return, he had already chosen himself and Gimli - as well as Sam - to go with the Bearer. Aragorn had no fear of the Ring. He was unmoved by any temptations it might have seen fit to dandle before him. He resisted it in Bree; he resisted it in the Wild and he outright refused Frodo's rather tentative offer ("It belongs to you...") in Rivendell. He didn't need Arwen's assurance of his ability to overcome simply because he had nothing to "overcome". All of that was Jackson's invention which served not to increase the drama, but decrease the character.

This is a completely different scenario than Jackson presented even though the end result was the same. For Aragorn to have sent Frodo off alone (even with Sam) - and remember, this is before the capture of the hobbits, the death of Boromir and, in fact, even before the arrival of the orcs! - is nothing short of dereliction of duty. As far as Aragorn bestowing his "blessing" upon Frodo, big deal! What possible proof had Aragorn of Frodo succeeding, especially as the hobbit had a tendency to be skewered by trolls and faint at the presence of any passing Nazgul! To simply wish him "godspeed" and send him on his way, would probably be a one-way ticket to another Dark Age! Indeed, even in the book (where Frodo was not nearly so weak as he was in the film), Aragorn's choice not to follow the Bearer is questionable. Gandalf absolves him from any blame for his choice later in the story, but though it makes a fine plot thread, as a practical matter it is open to criticism.

[Black Breathalizer]

It seems to me, Mrs Maggot, that if you are going to be critical of film Aragorn's decision not to follow Frodo at Parth Galen, then you'd better be prepared to dump on Tolkien as well.

You cannot say it was okay for book Aragorn to decide to go after Merry and Pippin yet complain when film Aragorn does the same thing. The circumstances are certainly not different enough for you to make a convincing case that one was valid while the other was not.

If anything, the events of the film make Aragorn's decision MORE understandable than the one book Aragorn made. In the film Aragorn is told exactly what Boromir did so he knows (rather than guesses) that the lure of the ring is becoming stronger. He also knows (rather than guesses) that Frodo has made the decision to go alone and has Sam with him. For all the book Aragorn knew, Frodo could have been captured by some of the orcs and taken away in one of the boats. Doubtful, yes. But if you are going to criticise film Aragorn's "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands" line, then shouldn't book Aragorn have made sure that his guesses about Frodo's actions were correct BEFORE deciding to track down Merry and Pippin's captors???

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It seems to me, Mrs Maggot, that if you are going to be critical of film Aragorn's decision not to follow Frodo at Parth Galen, then you'd better be prepared to dump on Tolkien as well.

You cannot say it was okay for book Aragorn to decide to go after Merry and Pippin yet complain when film Aragorn does the same thing. The circumstances are certainly not different enough for you to make a convincing case that one was valid while the other was not.

If anything, the events of the film make Aragorn's decision MORE understandable than the one book Aragorn made. In the film Aragorn is told exactly what Boromir did so he knows (rather than guesses) that the lure of the ring is becoming stronger. He also knows (rather than guesses) that Frodo has made the decision to go alone and has Sam with him. For all the book Aragorn knew, Frodo could have been captured by some of the orcs and taken away in one of the boats. Doubtful, yes. But if you are going to criticise film Aragorn's "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands" line, then shouldn't book Aragorn have made sure that his guesses about Frodo's actions were correct BEFORE deciding to track down Merry and Pippin's captors???

I have already said that Aragorn's decision not to follow Frodo is open to criticism. However, at least in the book it became a matter of whether or not to follow the Bearer who had already left (unblessed) in consideration of the problem of the captured hobbits. In the film, it was a matter of bestowing a blessing upon the Bearer to depart unaided without the consideration of the problem of the captured hobbits. If you cannot see the difference between the two, it is no wonder you have no problem with these films!

[Lizra]

Mrs M, Why do you think Tolkien would have never had Aragorn let Frodo go alone (though it was never alone, always Sam was there)?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Lizra
Mrs M, Why do you think Tolkien would have never had Aragorn let Frodo go alone (though it was never alone, always Sam was there)?

Well, let's look at the situation: there really was only one thing that was important and that was the destruction of the Ring. Even Gandalf later admits that all of the business in Rohan and even Minas Tirith was incidental to the one truly important thing, the destruction of the Ring. Even if the forces of the West had been able to win every battle (which they did) until the last (before the Black Gates), none of that would have made any difference if Sauron had been able to retrieve the Ring. With the Ring, his power was such that Gandalf could see no end to his reign (unless the Valar were to intervene as they did with Morgoth). However, were the Ring destroyed, the greater part of his power would be destroyed with it and he would be reduced to an impotent malevolent spirit, banished like his former Master into the Void.

Now, let us look at the Bearer, Frodo Baggins: as far as character goes, the Ring could not have had a better Bearer. However, as far as skill at arms and experience in battle or even in avoiding battle are concerned, I doubt there were too many less qualified people in Middle-earth (at least who weren't hobbits!). Obviously, Frodo needed assistance in the quest or he would have set out from Rivendell alone or with Gandalf as his only companion. One might imagine that had Aragorn been the Bearer, doubtless he and Gandalf would have set forth together not wishing to be burdened by less hardy and experienced companions! Given the situation, can anyone seriously believe that having arrived at the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn would have simply given Frodo his "blessing" to proceed alone? And let's face it, even with Sam for company, Frodo was essentially alone. Sam was no more experienced in the necessary battle and tracking skills than was Frodo! To say that he wasn't alone because he was 'with Sam' may be literally true, but Sam could not provide what was necessary to get to the Fire - at least as Aragorn would have been able to judge the matter at the time. Of course, we later see that the two (with Gollum's dubious assistance) were in fact able to reach the Fire, but given the facts as they existed at the time of the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn could not conceivably have known that nor would he have "trusted to luck" and still been true to his obligation to the quest. Therefore, to maintain any semblance of credibility, Aragorn could not be seen sending Frodo off alone (even with Sam) to Mordor. The only way Tolkien could "split" the plot threads was to set up the circumstances as he did.

So, here we are at Parth Galen. Gandalf is "dead". Boromir is really dead. Sam is with Frodo off to Mordor and the two younger hobbits are captured and gone off to Saruman. Only the three remain: Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn. Originally, Aragorn had decided to accompany Frodo and Sam, taking Gimli with them on their journey to the Mountain. We may assume that this was a conclusion reached by a man who knew what was required for that all important journey. For the rest of the Fellowship, Aragorn had decided that Legolas and the two hobbits would accompany Boromir to Minas Tirith. However, all of that is now beside the point. As noted, things have changed and Aragorn now must decide whether to follow Frodo - his first choice - or attempt to wrest Merry and Pippin from their captors to deny Saruman information about the quest that the two would doubtless be forced to reveal. It is under these circumstances (rather than the film's much less urgent circumstances) that Aragorn chooses the latter course.

However, Tolkien does give us a subtle "excuse" if you will, for the man's decision. Aragorn obviously exhibits some degree of prescience. Remember, he warns Gandalf that he alone is in danger if they Company enters Moria. We are not told how he came by that knowledge, but he is correct in his warning. Also, with the palantir, Aragorn indicates that he "judged" that the stone had come into his hands to be used. Again, he makes no mention of how he arrived at that particular conclusion, especially given the fact that he knew (from Pippin's unfortunate experience) what would happen if he attempted to do so. It is with this knowledge of Aragorn's apparent "foresight" that his comment about the fate of the Bearer no longer being "in my hands" makes infinitely more sense. Somehow, he has been enlightened in this matter although he does continue to express doubt about his leadership abilities and bemoans that they remaining two have given the choice "to a poor chooser".

In the end, his decision proves correct, but as I said, it is still open to some considerable criticism seeing the enormity of his decision to permit Frodo to wander off in search of a way to reach the Fire.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
In the film, it was a matter of bestowing a blessing upon the Bearer to depart unaided without the consideration of the problem of the captured hobbits.

Where was Aragorn's blessing? The scene between Frodo and Aragorn on Parth Galen is open to different interpretations. You cannot say with 100% certainty that film Aragorn agreed and supported Frodo's decision to go alone. All we know for sure is that he understood, because of Boromir's actions and his own temptation, the growing danger to Frodo from within.

When Frodo said, "look after the others, especially Sam, he will not understand," there was no time for Aragorn's reply. It is very likely that Aragorn would not have agreed with Frodo's decision to go by himself. But before Aragorn could react, the orcs arrived on the scene. Once the orc battle was over, Film Aragorn was presented with the SAME circumstances and issues in deciding his next course of action that Book Aragorn faced.

[Lizra]

Hmmm, I can see Aragorn letting Frodo go alone....It was the smart (wise, "kingly" ) thing to do. Especially if "inspired intuition" is involved. The other Fellowship members diverting "the Eye" is a good plan! I like the way the movie gave Aragorn the chance to refuse the temptation to use the ring....rising above Isilder and Boromir. I always wonder (in the context of the film) does Aragorn deflect desire for the ring because of "intelligence" (what the ring is, and what it does to people) or does respect and fondness for Frodo come into the "wise, kingly decision.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Where was Aragorn's blessing? The scene between Frodo and Aragorn on Parth Galen is open to different interpretations. You cannot say with 100% certainty that film Aragorn agreed and supported Frodo's decision to go alone. All we know for sure is that he understood, because of Boromir's actions and his own temptation, the growing danger to Frodo from within.

When Frodo said, "look after the others, especially Sam, he will not understand," there was no time for Aragorn's reply. It is very likely that Aragorn would not have agreed with Frodo's decision to go by himself. But before Aragorn could react, the orcs arrived on the scene. Once the orc battle was over, Film Aragorn was presented with the SAME circumstances and issues in deciding his next course of action that Book Aragorn faced.

But it certainly was with his blessing and with the obvious understanding that Frodo intended going alone to Mordor. Aragorn closes Frodo's hand over the Ring and tells him that he would have gone with him to Mordor. Now, what can that possibly mean except that he is not now going with him? As for the "blessing" part, the mere fact that he says what he says and does what he does indicates his acceptance of Frodo's intention to go alone. That is what conveys his "blessing" upon the Bearer's choice.

As far as the decision to follow the orcs rather than the Bearer, it is Legolas who points out Frodo and Sam on the other side of the lake and then realizes that Aragorn is not going to pursue them, a decision the man had already made under Amon Hen with Frodo. This is, in fact, nothing like the book with the exception of the fact that the two scenarios lead to the same conclusion. How they arrive at that conclusion could not be more different. And frankly, to my mind, only the book's scenario has any credibility whatsoever given the circumstances of the plot at that point in the story.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
But it certainly was with his blessing and with the obvious understanding that Frodo intended going alone to Mordor. Aragorn closes Frodo's hand over the Ring and tells him that he would have gone with him to Mordor. Now, what can that possibly mean except that he is not now going with him? As for the "blessing" part, the mere fact that he says what he says and does what he does indicates his acceptance of Frodo's intention to go alone. That is what conveys his "blessing" upon the Bearer's choice.

I agree with you that Aragorn's comment meant that he understood the Ringbearer would be going on without him. We feel for Aragorn because it is clear in his comment that every fiber of his being is dedicated to helping Frodo on his quest. But we also understand that it took every bit of his willpower to resist the lure of the ring Frodo offered him.

It is true that the corrupting power of the ring is emphasized more in the films, but rightly so I might add. It helps the audience to understand: 1) why Frodo is screwing himself up to go alone; and 2) why a brave, noble, and wise man like Aragorn would understand and respect why he felt that way.

While I agree with you that Aragorn is resigned to the fact that he will part ways with the ringbearer, I don't agree that it necessarily means that he would have supported Frodo's decision to go alone. He understood the growing danger from within the Fellowship but he also understood that hobbits can resist the ring's lure easier than men, elves, and dwarves. He also understood Gandalf's council which was that a few had as much chance as many. The mission was about stealth, not fighting ability.

It is also true we don't have Aragorn's "what am I to do?" internal debate in the film, but the fact is that the character was presented with the same issues and came to the same conclusions. This debate has been yet another shining example of a book purist getting caught up in specifics (Aragorn didn't do this, didn't do that) and losing sight of the fact that the ultimate messages of the film version of the breaking of the fellowship WERE THE SAME AS THE BOOK--and very powerfully delivered.

[Elfhelm]

It was always Aragorn's intention to go with Frodo. He told Frodo it is time to decide. Frodo wanted a little more time alone to think about it.

I agree with the MM that if Aragorn had encountered Frodo in the context shown in the movie, he would have insisted on going along to Mount Doom. He would NOT have sent a lone hobbit into Mordor. That's not Aragorn. Everything about Aragorn is about protecting the weak and taking his lead from Gandalf.

Aragorn decision of which pair of hobbits to follow, when forced to choose, was to help the ones in real peril. Not because they could give up the game to Saruman, but because they were weak and he has a code of chivalry.

Likewise, Legolas and Gimli would not have abandoned Aragorn in the preposterous over-the-cliff-to-dream-of-my-girlfriend scene. That's not Tolkien's idea of friendship.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
It was always Aragorn's intention to go with Frodo. He told Frodo it is time to decide. Frodo wanted a little more time alone to think about it . . . I agree with the MM that if Aragorn had encountered Frodo in the context shown in the movie, he would have insisted on going along to Mount Doom. He would NOT have sent a lone hobbit into Mordor. That's not Aragorn. Everything about Aragorn is about protecting the weak and taking his lead from Gandalf.

If you are correct, then Book Aragorn would have tracked down Frodo and Sam after the burial of Boromir. It would have taken little time for this seasoned ranger to find them. So the issue of whether they were spotted across the river or long gone is irrelevant to this discussion. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to criticise Film Aragorn's decision, you have to criticise Tolkien own approach as well.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Lizra
Hmmm, I can see Aragorn letting Frodo go alone....It was the smart (wise, "kingly" ) thing to do. Especially if "inspired intuition" is involved. The other Fellowship members diverting "the Eye" is a good plan! I like the way the movie gave Aragorn the chance to refuse the temptation to use the ring....rising above Isilder and Boromir. I always wonder (in the context of the film) does Aragorn deflect desire for the ring because of "intelligence" (what the ring is, and what it does to people) or does respect and fondness for Frodo come into the "wise, kingly decision.

It seems "wise" and "kingly" only in retrospect. Frodo was almost helpless in the wild. Even his months of "experience" on the trail had not turned him into a battle hardened veteran. As it was, the two hobbits almost perished in the Emyn Muil and probably would have had not they managed to snare Gollum who led them through the obstacle.

And remember, it is well to note that Aragorn was more than aware the Gollum continued to follow the Fellowship. Letting Frodo and Sam go alone into the Wild also meant leaving them to the tender mercies of a being who had done murder (Aragorn already had experience himself with Gollum, so he knew the murderous nature of the creature) and lusted for the Ring. Even had they been able to avoid or resist Gollum, the creature could easily have brought orcs down upon the Bearer as a means of stopping him.

No, I'm afraid on the whole Aragorn's decision to permit the Ring Bearer to go alone without guidance to Mordor was not a "wise" one, even in the book. That it worked to the good, of course, proved that it was the correct decision, but that is only through the virtue of 20/20 hindsight!