10-12-2003, 01:07 PM | #1 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Tolkien's REAL Fellowship of the Ring
Growing up, I used to think the books were about Frodo's quest to destroy the ring. As a result, I tended to have mixed feelings about the actual destruction of the ring because it seemed the ringbearer completed his quest more by accident than by his own heroic efforts.
Most authors place their focus on the motivations and actions their lead character so it was quite natural for me to view it this way. However, if you view LOTR as Frodo's story, I now believe you miss a great deal of what Tolkien was trying to communicate about life. I've also heard it said that LOTR is actually Sam's Story. I think Tolkien would have disagreed with that assertion too. I've come to feel that Tolkien wanted us to understand that the story was really about his Mini-Fellowship of the Ring: Frodo, Samwise, and Gollum. He let the reader know that all three of them were essential to the destruction of the ring. Remove any one of the three and the quest doesn't end successfully. Reading the books with this in mind or watching PJ's...oops, I almost used this forum's forbidden f-word ...you get a new appreciation for Tolkien's homage to the power of teamwork. What do you think? |
10-14-2003, 01:47 PM | #2 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: European Union
Posts: 463
|
No, I do not think Gollum was part of any fellowship. He was instrumental in destroying the Ring though. But that is another matter. Tolkien strongly advocates the theme of how mercy rather than revenge will change the world in the right direction.
__________________
'They need more gardens,' said Legolas. 'The houses are dead, and there is too little here that grows and is glad. If Aragorn comes into his own, the people of the Wood shall bring him birds that sing and trees that do not die.' |
10-15-2003, 11:45 AM | #3 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
I disagree.
Gollum is as much a part of the "mini-fellowship" as the two hobbits. The issue isn't Gollum's evil intentions, it's that Frodo accepted him into this inner circle over Sam's objections. The ring was destroyed because of the combined efforts of all three of them. Even though Gollum didn't consider himself part of Frodo's team and didn't seek the same goal, nevertheless, his relationship to Frodo and the powerful lure of the ring kept Gollum a part of Frodo's mini-fellowship from their first meeting until the very end. |
10-15-2003, 12:23 PM | #4 |
Fowl Administrator
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 53,420
|
I think Breathalizer does have a point here.
Why - for any reason - is Frodo even considered a hero when he succumbs to the Ring? Because the heroic part that he plays is taking on the burden and carrying it all the way there in the first place. At the same time, Sam plays a heroic role for reasons that you all know from having read the book. And I wouldn't call Gollum a "hero", but in the destruction of the Ring, he is certainly a contributor. BB's point - and a valid one - appears to be that the Ring would not have been destroyed without the very direct participation of all three during the journey on the east side of the Anduin. Whether or not this constitutes "fellowship" between the three participants is debatable (I would say that Tolkien meant far more by "fellowship" than just participation) - but all three are instrumental in a distinctly complementary way.
__________________
All of IronParrot's posts are guaranteed to be 100% intelligent and/or sarcastic, comprising no genetically modified content and tested on no cute furry little animals unless the SPCA is looking elsewhere. If you observe a failure to uphold this warranty, please contact a forum administrator immediately to receive a full refund on your Entmoot registration. Blog: Nick's Café Canadien |
10-15-2003, 02:05 PM | #5 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Re: Tolkien's REAL Fellowship of the Ring
Quote:
Most of the time we learn about things from the point of view of a fellowship member, mostly the hobbits. But never once (at least as far as I remember) from Gollum's point of view. Even though Gollum is crucial to the quest's furfilment, he's never really part of the fellowship sent to achieve it. He doesn't help voluntarily, he is either forced or complies only because of his need of his preciouss, which puts him rather apart from the rest IMO. But team work is indeed a very important aspect of it. Even while Aragorn and the others were freeing Rohan, they were still very much doing the task of the Fellowship: aiding Frodo. Even if they could not protect him on his journey anymore, they certainly could give him a hand by keeping Sauron's eye fixed on Rohan and Gondor.
__________________
We are not things. |
|
10-15-2003, 02:31 PM | #6 | |
Greatest Elven woman of Aman
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Having way too much fun with Fëanor's 7
Posts: 4,285
|
Re: Re: Tolkien's REAL Fellowship of the Ring
Heh heh - pincushioned!
Quote:
Also, even though Frodo, Sam and Gollum are all rightly contributors in the task of destroying the Ring, it is much more interesting to watch how the three of them develop during their journey together. Frodo and Gollum as Ringbearers understand each other. How Gollum gradually changes and nearly repents.
__________________
--Life is hard, and then we die. |
|
10-15-2003, 04:28 PM | #7 |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
hmm... Gollum joined the Fellowship by imposing himself on it. He was a tacit member before the sundering. Gandalf was complicit. I agree. "All that is gold does not glitter" may refer to more than Aragorn.
__________________
cya |
10-15-2003, 06:27 PM | #8 |
Fowl Administrator
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 53,420
|
I think, then, it's best if we regard the whole concept of the Fellowship as a dynamic entity. For pretty much all of Book One it's only Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin - and I'd say Merry's arrangements in Buckland were just as critical to the quest as any other part that, ultimately, got the Ring to its destination. If anything, the Fellowship grows and shrinks by one spherical layer after another, and the hobbits are fundamentally at the core of it all.
__________________
All of IronParrot's posts are guaranteed to be 100% intelligent and/or sarcastic, comprising no genetically modified content and tested on no cute furry little animals unless the SPCA is looking elsewhere. If you observe a failure to uphold this warranty, please contact a forum administrator immediately to receive a full refund on your Entmoot registration. Blog: Nick's Café Canadien |
10-16-2003, 03:42 PM | #9 |
The Lovely Hobbit-Lass
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bounded in a nut-shell
Posts: 1,593
|
I believe that the 'Fellowship of the Ring' is essentially Frodo and Sam. Gandalf appoints Sam to accompany Frodo, and so sets up the first 'fellowship'. Merry and Pippin join later because they do not wish to let Frodo go off into danger alone. Strider joins and gives the fellowship strength. When they get to Rivendell, the fellowship acquires representatives from the Free Peoples: Elves, Men, Dwarves. At the end of the first book, when the fellowship breaks, that leaves it stripped of its outer skins of camradrie (spl?) (Merry and Pippin), its strength (Aragorn), and its representation (Legolas, Boromir, and Gimli). It is left with only its core, which is somewhat weak and hopeless, but very resislient.
About LOTR being about Sam, I do not think that the books are written from any one person's point of view. The books are about the Ring. Any persons or events and their own individual stories are only relevant when they have a role to play in the main story: the story of the Ring itself. I don't think there is one particular 'hero'. Everyone included in the story plays a relevant part in the Ring's creation, misplacement, finding, sojourning, and destruction- no more.
__________________
It's New Years Day, just like the day before; Same old skies of grey, same empty bottles on the floor. Another year's gone by, and I was thinking once again, How can I take this losing hand and somehow win? Just give me One Good Year To get my feet back on the ground. I've been chasing grace; Grace ain't so easily found One bad hand can devil a man, chase him and carry him down. I've got to get out of here, just give me One Good Year! |
10-16-2003, 04:54 PM | #10 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Tolkien's England where the tale grew in the telling...
Posts: 330
|
Quote:
If Pippin and Merry had not got to Fangorn, Saruman would not have been defeated, so the destruction of the Ring and the Dark Lord would not have been the end of the misery in Middle Earth. If Pippin had not looked in the Palantir of Orthanc the Dark Lord would not have turned his attention to the West (allowing Frodo and Sam to enter Mordor). Ditto Aragorn's actions in challenging Sauron in the Palantir. Merry's contribution to the death of the Lord of the Nazgul, and Gandalf's council to the Lords of the West all played their part in the downfall of the Lord of the Rings. In other words, the fact that the fellowship was broken, did not mean that it ended. All of the remaining members of the fellowship (including Boromir in his defence of Pippin and Merry) played their part all the way along - so Frodo and Sam cannot be seen to be the begining and end of the Fellowship. Last edited by LutraMage : 10-16-2003 at 04:55 PM. |
|
10-16-2003, 05:18 PM | #11 |
Fowl Administrator
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 53,420
|
Frodo and Sam are still very much at the core of the story.
Regarding the (somewhat tangential) issue of "whose perspective is it" - I've read articles on both sides of the "is it Sam's story?" question and my conclusion is to defer to Tolkien's fictional Red Book of Westmarch. It parallels the focal journey of the Ring. Bilbo writes There and Back Again, but it's ultimately unfinished, and Frodo continues it with his chronicle of The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings. But when he leaves for the Grey Havens, he tells Sam to finish the story for him, which is why the last chapter ends with Sam's return home. You can see that this correlates to the passing of the burden of the Ring - Bilbo to Frodo to Sam. And when it goes from one to the other, the story's focal perspective changes. In Book Six, there's no way you can tell me that Frodo is any longer the main character. He's simply drifted too far away from our world, as if he was really withering away and disappearing. Maybe Tolkien saw the whole idea of "Fellowship" as a more abstract, binding concept than any specific group of people. You can talk all you want about how this person or that person was absolutely critical to the Ring's destruction, in a causal sense, but who - or what - is the hero of the story? Fellowship, that's what.
__________________
All of IronParrot's posts are guaranteed to be 100% intelligent and/or sarcastic, comprising no genetically modified content and tested on no cute furry little animals unless the SPCA is looking elsewhere. If you observe a failure to uphold this warranty, please contact a forum administrator immediately to receive a full refund on your Entmoot registration. Blog: Nick's Café Canadien |
10-17-2003, 08:55 AM | #12 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
I agree with IronParrot that the focus of the story is on the way all of Frodo's companions played a role in the destruction of the ring.
I would argue that Tolkien's "fellowship" included Gollum. Gollum was clearly the author's favorite character and he viewed him as an essential companion to Frodo -- in fact, as essential as Sam was. His conflicting emotions and ultimately evil intentions don't alter that fact. As Tolkien foreshadowed and planned all along, Gollum had a major part to play as a member of the mini-fellowship. |
10-17-2003, 12:19 PM | #13 |
Marshal of the Eastmark
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,412
|
While I do think Gollum joins the Fellowship, he remains an antagonist throughout. There's never really any time that he isn't the antagonist. Sometimes Smeagol visits, but that poor wretch is neither protagonist nor antagonist. The fact the he is essential to the destruction of the One Ring is the same as saying that Melchor's deviations were essential to the Music of the Ainur. One could argue that Sauron was essential to the destruction, too, because he had to be kept distracted, etc.
So I agree about the mini-Fellowship idea but it doesn't follow, for me, that that is what the books are about. Side point: Concerning point-of-view, the fact of the matter can be easily determined from the books. Who is the point-of-view character at any given time is for all practical puproses an objective, not a subjective, fact. It is accomplished by action and reaction, and we only hear the thoughts of this character. If, for instance, they are climbing the stairs and one of the characters looks at the other and feels something then thinks a thought, we ARE inside that character. It's not open to speculation. The words are black ink on white paper. If we see the pain and weight of the world carried by one of the characters from the eyes of the other character, which one is the POV is not debatable.
__________________
cya |
10-17-2003, 06:14 PM | #14 | |
Fowl Administrator
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 53,420
|
Quote:
__________________
All of IronParrot's posts are guaranteed to be 100% intelligent and/or sarcastic, comprising no genetically modified content and tested on no cute furry little animals unless the SPCA is looking elsewhere. If you observe a failure to uphold this warranty, please contact a forum administrator immediately to receive a full refund on your Entmoot registration. Blog: Nick's Café Canadien |
|
10-19-2003, 10:35 AM | #15 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Another way to look at this topic: Frodo, Samwise, & Gollum represent the collective personality traits Tolkien deemed necessary to complete the quest.
Frodo was the unquestioned leader. He was the innocent with wisdom, a trusting heart, and a strong will, yet unsure and afraid at times. As a result of his Nazgul-inflicted wound and the power of the Ring, he grew physically weak and mentally confused during the journey. Sam offered the group his strength, dogged determination, and loyalty, yet he needed Frodo's wisdom and guidance. Despite what some fans may think, Tolkien makes it clear Sam would not have been able to complete the quest without Frodo. Gollum was the key. He represents the corrupt, addictive, and unpleasant side in all of us. But I suspect Tolkien may have also been trying to tell us that there is a flip side to our weaknesses, addictions, and vices. Like Gollum, they have a part of play "for good or ill" in the way our own lives play out. Take away the things about our personalities that we dislike and constantly struggle against and our own personal 'quest' may not be achieved. |
10-19-2003, 11:26 AM | #16 | |
Enting
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Burrow
Posts: 81
|
Black Breathalizer,
I believe you have brought up a very interesting hypothesis, one that I think fits very well into the rest of Tolkien's legendarium. Quote:
Gollum represents the evil in all of us, and by destroying the ring, he supports the idea that even evil comes from good and has its purpose in the world... Brilliant thought, Black Breathalizzer, I shall have to think on this more.
__________________
Whither you go, may you find light. Await us there--my brother, and me. ~~~~~~~~ Howard Dean in 2004! |
|
10-19-2003, 02:52 PM | #17 |
Fowl Administrator
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 53,420
|
BB, it's interesting how you talk about those three in terms of how they define collective personality traits, especially because of how characterization-wise, each of those three begins to cross over to the turf of another at some point in the story.
In any case, this is a pretty solid interpretation.
__________________
All of IronParrot's posts are guaranteed to be 100% intelligent and/or sarcastic, comprising no genetically modified content and tested on no cute furry little animals unless the SPCA is looking elsewhere. If you observe a failure to uphold this warranty, please contact a forum administrator immediately to receive a full refund on your Entmoot registration. Blog: Nick's Café Canadien |
10-22-2003, 01:19 PM | #18 | |
The Lovely Hobbit-Lass
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bounded in a nut-shell
Posts: 1,593
|
Quote:
__________________
It's New Years Day, just like the day before; Same old skies of grey, same empty bottles on the floor. Another year's gone by, and I was thinking once again, How can I take this losing hand and somehow win? Just give me One Good Year To get my feet back on the ground. I've been chasing grace; Grace ain't so easily found One bad hand can devil a man, chase him and carry him down. I've got to get out of here, just give me One Good Year! |
|
10-22-2003, 01:29 PM | #19 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
The lesson IMO is that everything and everyone is entertwined in ways one person cannot imagine. It's almost Buddhist in it's correctness.
I've looked at life differently since my first readings of these wonderful books back in '66.
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
11-06-2003, 08:48 PM | #20 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston TX USA
Posts: 245
|
Letter 246 discusses, among other things, Sam's mistrustful outburst on the Stairs. T speculates that, had Sam only been a bit more trusting, the entire focus of the endgame would have shifted to Gollum and his struggle, ultimately ending in Gollum's voluntary swan dive into the Fire, sacrificing himself to save Frodo and complete the Quest.
However, Sam was not more trusting, and the encounter with Shelob was made inevitable. Under the scenario that actually occurred, Gollum becomes an instrument of Fate. Under these circumstances, I have to reject the hypothesis that Gollum achieved any redemption or status owing to his involuntary 'part to play for good or ill' foreseen by Gandalf
__________________
Yet neither by wolf, nor by Balrog, nor by Dragon, would Morgoth have achieved his end, but for the treachery of Men. Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR | Wally | Lord of the Rings Movies | 425 | 08-14-2016 08:43 AM |
How to take a Ring from an unwilling Ring-wielder? - crazy ideas | Gordis | Middle Earth | 217 | 10-03-2013 03:43 PM |
Proof: Tolkien's world is real | Sister Golden Hair | General Messages | 23 | 05-09-2010 07:21 AM |
Ring's sentience and Ring detection | Gordis | Lord of the Rings Books | 17 | 01-04-2008 09:37 AM |
How real is Tolkien's world? | Olmer | Middle Earth | 20 | 05-31-2006 06:18 AM |