Flammifer
Well-Known Member
Or does he?
The accepted doctrine, among Tolkien fans and scholars, seems to be that Frodo, Bilbo, et al, go to Elvenhome for healing, and then they die.
Professor Olsen has eloquently outlined this interpretation at least once (and, I think, several times) in previous classes. This has also been my interpretation for a long time. However, now I wonder?
I am aware that the current doctrine is revisionist. Back in the ‘60s, no vaguely ‘hippy’ gathering would have been complete without at least a few people wearing badges proclaiming, “Frodo lives!” The general interpretation was that going to Elvenhome confirmed immortality.
So, while thinking about the themes of mortality and immortality in TLOTR (see previous posts), it suddenly occurred to me to wonder whether the accepted doctrine was a product of the flood of Tolkien material unpublished by the author (which, of course, was not yet available to readers in the ‘60s), and whether the readers of the ‘60s might have ‘got it right’, when reading only The Lord of the Rings, as a work of art and literature.
Yes, I know that this might be considered ‘heretical’ as far as mainstream opinion among Tolkien fans and scholars goes.
So, looking only at TLOTR (and The Hobbit), what evidence is there for the effect of Valinor on mortals?
(Please chip in with other evidence, which I might miss.)
Now, as far as I can see, the evidence is not totally clear, but seems to support the ‘60s interpretation more.
The main evidence I can find comes from Appendix A, “The Numenorean Kings”. “But one command had been laid upon the Numenoreans, the ‘Ban of the Valar’: they were forbidden to sail west out of sight of their own shores or to attempt to set foot on the Undying Lands. For though a long span of life had been granted to them, in the beginning thrice that of lesser Men, they must remain mortal, since the Valar were not permitted to take from them the Gift of Men (or the Doom of Men, as it was afterwards called).”
The name, ‘The Undying Lands’ alone seems pretty significant. The implication here is that setting foot on the Undying Lands would remove mortality and take from Men the ‘Gift of Men’ (death).
Now, this passage also states that the Valar were not permitted to remove the ‘Gift of Men’, so the question arises as to how they might be able to allow mortals to set foot in the Undying Lands and become immortal? An appeal to Eru for an exception perhaps?
However, there is a possibly contradictory passage later in the same Appendix. “And Sauron lied to the King, declaring that everlasting life would be his who possessed the Undying Lands, and that the Ban was imposed only to prevent the Kings of Men from surpassing the Valar.” Now, this could be read a number of ways. What did Sauron lie about? He might have lied that ‘possessing the Undying Lands’ would confer ‘everlasting life’? He might have lied about the Ban being imposed only to prevent Men from surpassing the Valar? He might have lied in implying that ‘possession’ of the Undying Lands was necessary to achieve everlasting life (would ‘setting foot’ or ‘living there’ work as well as ‘possessing’)? We know that Sauron is a sophisticated and talented liar. It is not clear that this statement really contradicts the previous statement’s implication.
The only other evidence I can remember from TLOTR on what happens to mortals in the Undying Lands, is what happens to Earendil. He becomes immortal (assuming he isn’t already – as his mixed species status is murky in TLOTR) though he is doomed to sail around in the sky.
Can anyone think of other evidence?
At the moment, I am tending to believe that in the context of the work of art that is TLOTR, the belief that Frodo lives! And has become immortal in the Undying Lands; is a more likely reading than that he does not.
I suspect that the current doctrinal view comes mainly from material that J.R.R. never published. I always look at those materials with some suspicion, and don’t consider them ‘canon’. Does anyone know the sources which have provided evidence and contributed to this interpretation? I find the impact of all the Christopher Tolkien stuff on thinking about TLOTR to be quite confusing. I agree with Prof. Olsen, that we should be reading TLOTR as its own work of art. Especially as we know that JRR revised everything right up until the last minute before publication. So, we can not really trust that anything he wrote, but did not publish, would have remained unchanged had he ever finished it. Nonetheless, I am continually finding my readings of TLOTR influenced, either consciously or unconsciously, by C. Tolkien’s vast outpourings. Don’t get me wrong. I love some of them. Especially the Silmarillion. However, I don’t consider them canon. Still, they confuse things a lot.
Two questions:
The accepted doctrine, among Tolkien fans and scholars, seems to be that Frodo, Bilbo, et al, go to Elvenhome for healing, and then they die.
Professor Olsen has eloquently outlined this interpretation at least once (and, I think, several times) in previous classes. This has also been my interpretation for a long time. However, now I wonder?
I am aware that the current doctrine is revisionist. Back in the ‘60s, no vaguely ‘hippy’ gathering would have been complete without at least a few people wearing badges proclaiming, “Frodo lives!” The general interpretation was that going to Elvenhome confirmed immortality.
So, while thinking about the themes of mortality and immortality in TLOTR (see previous posts), it suddenly occurred to me to wonder whether the accepted doctrine was a product of the flood of Tolkien material unpublished by the author (which, of course, was not yet available to readers in the ‘60s), and whether the readers of the ‘60s might have ‘got it right’, when reading only The Lord of the Rings, as a work of art and literature.
Yes, I know that this might be considered ‘heretical’ as far as mainstream opinion among Tolkien fans and scholars goes.
So, looking only at TLOTR (and The Hobbit), what evidence is there for the effect of Valinor on mortals?
(Please chip in with other evidence, which I might miss.)
Now, as far as I can see, the evidence is not totally clear, but seems to support the ‘60s interpretation more.
The main evidence I can find comes from Appendix A, “The Numenorean Kings”. “But one command had been laid upon the Numenoreans, the ‘Ban of the Valar’: they were forbidden to sail west out of sight of their own shores or to attempt to set foot on the Undying Lands. For though a long span of life had been granted to them, in the beginning thrice that of lesser Men, they must remain mortal, since the Valar were not permitted to take from them the Gift of Men (or the Doom of Men, as it was afterwards called).”
The name, ‘The Undying Lands’ alone seems pretty significant. The implication here is that setting foot on the Undying Lands would remove mortality and take from Men the ‘Gift of Men’ (death).
Now, this passage also states that the Valar were not permitted to remove the ‘Gift of Men’, so the question arises as to how they might be able to allow mortals to set foot in the Undying Lands and become immortal? An appeal to Eru for an exception perhaps?
However, there is a possibly contradictory passage later in the same Appendix. “And Sauron lied to the King, declaring that everlasting life would be his who possessed the Undying Lands, and that the Ban was imposed only to prevent the Kings of Men from surpassing the Valar.” Now, this could be read a number of ways. What did Sauron lie about? He might have lied that ‘possessing the Undying Lands’ would confer ‘everlasting life’? He might have lied about the Ban being imposed only to prevent Men from surpassing the Valar? He might have lied in implying that ‘possession’ of the Undying Lands was necessary to achieve everlasting life (would ‘setting foot’ or ‘living there’ work as well as ‘possessing’)? We know that Sauron is a sophisticated and talented liar. It is not clear that this statement really contradicts the previous statement’s implication.
The only other evidence I can remember from TLOTR on what happens to mortals in the Undying Lands, is what happens to Earendil. He becomes immortal (assuming he isn’t already – as his mixed species status is murky in TLOTR) though he is doomed to sail around in the sky.
Can anyone think of other evidence?
At the moment, I am tending to believe that in the context of the work of art that is TLOTR, the belief that Frodo lives! And has become immortal in the Undying Lands; is a more likely reading than that he does not.
I suspect that the current doctrinal view comes mainly from material that J.R.R. never published. I always look at those materials with some suspicion, and don’t consider them ‘canon’. Does anyone know the sources which have provided evidence and contributed to this interpretation? I find the impact of all the Christopher Tolkien stuff on thinking about TLOTR to be quite confusing. I agree with Prof. Olsen, that we should be reading TLOTR as its own work of art. Especially as we know that JRR revised everything right up until the last minute before publication. So, we can not really trust that anything he wrote, but did not publish, would have remained unchanged had he ever finished it. Nonetheless, I am continually finding my readings of TLOTR influenced, either consciously or unconsciously, by C. Tolkien’s vast outpourings. Don’t get me wrong. I love some of them. Especially the Silmarillion. However, I don’t consider them canon. Still, they confuse things a lot.
Two questions:
- I know that the class has discussed several times that we should read TLOTR as its own work and ignore our knowledge of the ‘lore’. But we don’t. Even Prof Olsen doesn’t. It is hard. Our minds are stuffed with all this (dubious) ‘lore’ knowledge. It colors our thinking even when we are unaware that it is doing so. Is it time for another discussion on how exactly to treat all the ‘lore’ that JRR never published when reading TLOTR?
- Is it possible that the ‘60s interpretation of the Doom of Frodo and Bilbo was a better interpretation, when looking at TLOTR as a work of art, and should be resurrected?