Frodo lives?

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it suddenly occurred to me to wonder whether the accepted doctrine was a product of the flood of Tolkien material unpublished by the author (which, of course, was not yet available to readers in the ‘60s), and whether the readers of the ‘60s might have ‘got it right’, when reading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:
  • 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?
 
I think there's precious little evidence either way, if we're looking strictly at TLotR. You've mentioned the two main passages, and both could, I think, be read in support of either view. Just as there is ambiguity over where, exactly, Sauron is lying, there is ambiguity over what the Ban itself means. One possible reading is that in stepping foot in Valinor, mortals would become immortal, and we can't have that so instead here's a Ban. However, one could also read it as saying that the Undying Lands are only for the undying, and though the Numenorians live long, they aren't undying and therefore are Banned. I think the line about the Valar being unable to take their mortality from them supports this second reading more than the first.

As to whether the idea of Frodo and Bilbo becoming undying makes the tale better, I suppose it's a matter of personal preference, but I would tend towards disagreeing. When I was younger, I would have preferred the idea of them becoming immortal, but as I've grown older I find myself more and more in favor of the "healed, then died" reading. As Aragorn says at his parting from Arwen, "Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory." I think that what lies beyond is, at least for some, even better than Valinor; and I would not see Bilbo and Frodo denied that.
 
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).”

This passage is broken into two parts: the statement of the Ban, and then the reasoning for the Ban.

Given that the source for Appendix A is most likely to be the descendants of the Numenoreans, this account of the reasoning is subject to corruption and re-interpretation by the Numenoreans as each generation retold the story to the next.
It could be that the reasoning is like that found in Bladerunner: ' The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long....' and that the extended lifespan in Numenor would lead to a greatly shortened life in Elvenhome.
It could be part of a grand Valarian plan to keep the Men and Elves separated where possible.
It is possible (though unlikely) that the Valar simply delivered the Ban without reason at all, and the Numenoreans created a rationalisation that at first supported compliance with the Ban, then later lead to discontentment, and finally disobedience due to rejection of the reasoning.
Another possibility is that the Numenoreans never sought a reason until they were already discontent with the Ban, and then Sauron provided the 'reasoning' to foment rebellion.

Within TLotR, we can't know if any of these (or none of these) are true as we don't get the Elvish continuity in the story.
 
Hi JJ48,

I take your excellent point, that both passages can be read several ways. It is not possible to definitively determine the Doom of Frodo and Bilbo from them. However, throw in the Earendil poem as well, and I think the weight of evidence favors the '60s interpretation, and explains why this was the prevalent interpretation in the '60s.

As to whether this reading makes the tale better? I agree with you that it does not necessarily do so. However, what I am interested in is more the question of whether we should form our interpretations from TLOTR only? How much should we use the unpublished 'lore' material? How should we use it?

We know that Tolkien, when commenting on TLOTR, or building new stories around it, seems to have treated it as a work he discovered, rather than created. He often changed his mind about what it 'meant' and how it should be interpreted. A good example is that Tolkien wrote (in the Silmarillion I believe) that Orcs were corrupted Elves. Later, he doubted this interpretation and began to muse that they were corrupted Men. But he never was very happy with this interpretation either. I'm pretty sure that when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit and TLOTR, he had no idea what was the origin story of Orcs. He just introduced them from the world of Faerie, to play an antagonist role. Then, later, he tried to explain them (in a way that did not contradict Catholic doctrine) and struggled.

So, how should we use the C. Tolkien stuff when trying to understand TLOTR? The question of the Doom of Frodo and Bilbo is a good illustration of that question, because the interpretation pre-C. Tolkien, was so different from the interpretation post, and it is a pretty important interpretation when it comes to understanding the story.
 
Last edited:
Hi Anthony,

All your interpretations are possible from an in-story perspective.

However, please don't go all postmodernist on us. I know that the post modernists believe that there are vast numbers of possible interpretations of anything, and that it is impossible to privilege one interpretation over the others (largely because they do not believe in grand narratives). It is, I think, a terrible ideology. I believe Tolkien would have abhorred it (maybe he did abhor it, but, as it was only starting to become prevalent very late in Tolkien's life, he possibly never engaged with it).

My own thought is though the postmodernists are correct in thinking that there are a large number of possible interpretations, there are only a few 'true' or 'valid' interpretations.

To be 'valid', the interpretation should have supporting evidence, and there should be a lack of contradicting evidence. That brings us back to the question of how should we use C. Tolkien published 'lore' when interpreting TLOTR?

My current thought is that it can be 'evidence', but it is unreliable evidence, so, should be used very cautiously, and evidence from within TLOTR should be privileged in interpretation above evidence from the 'lore'.
 
Hi Anthony,

All your interpretations are possible from an in-story perspective.

However, please don't go all postmodernist on us. I know that the post modernists believe that there are vast numbers of possible interpretations of anything, and that it is impossible to privilege one interpretation over the others (largely because they do not believe in grand narratives). It is, I think, a terrible ideology. I believe Tolkien would have abhorred it (maybe he did abhor it, but, as it was only starting to become prevalent very late in Tolkien's life, he possibly never engaged with it).

My own thought is though the postmodernists are correct in thinking that there are a large number of possible interpretations, there are only a few 'true' or 'valid' interpretations.

To be 'valid', the interpretation should have supporting evidence, and there should be a lack of contradicting evidence. That brings us back to the question of how should we use C. Tolkien published 'lore' when interpreting TLOTR?

My current thought is that it can be 'evidence', but it is unreliable evidence, so, should be used very cautiously, and evidence from within TLOTR should be privileged in interpretation above evidence from the 'lore'.
I'm not 'going all postmodernist' on you. I'm simply pointing out that the text of TLotR, without any support from the Silmarillion (which is what you have been urging us to consider until this week), does not give definitive support for either interpretation. When you bring the Akallabêth into the consideration it definitely opposes the 'Frodo lives' position; something that you have pointed out yourself.
 
Hi Anthony,

Glad you are eschewing the postmodernist ideology. You had me worried there for a moment.
 
I'm not sure the Eärendil poem really adds much weight, as I'm not sure it really makes it clear that Eärendil is not an Elf. When we check his lineage in the appendices, I think it quite easy to consider him a special case, and not a real data-point.

As for the Silmarillion and other sources, I think it depends. On some topics, the other sources completely alter or recontextualize something from the LotR, in which case I'd stick with the LotR. On other topics, the LotR is ambiguous or silent, in which case I have no problem going to other sources.

I think this case is one where the LotR has been ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
The piece of evidence I would offer is the one instance when a Valar-level being did extend immortality to mortals — the Rinks of Power. Bilbo’s response to that influence was that he was feeling stretched — as if his years were being drawn out to cover more than they should have. That is a kind of immortality but not a pleasant one. All Frodo has — and will ever have — is “the time that is given him.“

We also have a Valar-level being’s reflection on justice: “There are many who live that deserve death. There are many who die who deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?” The answer, of course, is no. There is also the implied statement that neither can Gandalf.
 
The piece of evidence I would offer is the one instance when a Valar-level being did extend immortality to mortals — the Rinks of Power. Bilbo’s response to that influence was that he was feeling stretched — as if his years were being drawn out to cover more than they should have. That is a kind of immortality but not a pleasant one. All Frodo has — and will ever have — is “the time that is given him.“

We also have a Valar-level being’s reflection on justice: “There are many who live that deserve death. There are many who die who deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?” The answer, of course, is no. There is also the implied statement that neither can Gandalf.

There is a discussion here that seems to capture the important details. Ultimately, in Letters 246 and 325 Tolkien provides the answer to these questions. If you reject these Letters and other post-mortem publications as non-canonical then you are left with nothing but conjecture.
 
When I was growing up, I hadn't gotten into The Silmarillion, let alone the other supplemental works. I hadn't even read the appendices, since I listened to the trilogy on audio cassette.

The impression I developed as a reader ignorant of the background material was that Valinor is a mystical realm, almost like a separate dimension, where the laws of reality work differently and the aging process either does not apply, or works very differently. I assumed that people don't live according to the same cycles and rhythms they do in Middle-earth (and our world) there, and that they do not die. Kind of like the timelessness of Lothlorien cranked up to eleven, if not higher.

Somehow, I had this mixed in with the elves' immortality. I read Arwen's gift to Frodo as very much a transactional arrangement: "I'm giving up the immortality that is my birthright by refusing my seat in the boat to Valinor. Since I'm not using it anyway, and in recognition of the great service you've done myself, my husband, and all of Middle-earth, why don't you take my ticket, Frodo, in case you ever decide to cross the sea and dwell in a land beyond life and death?" Basically, I thought elves could, if they so desired, gift their destined immortality to another person, although they only did it in very rare circumstances.

This did leave my puzzled at how both Frodo and Bilbo were able to go to Valinor (not having read the appendices, I was ignorant of Sam and Gimli's* later journeys). I never could figure that out, but since I knew so little of the process, I figured there must be some mechanism I wasn't aware of.

So yeah, my ill-informed opinion, based just on the text of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, was that neither Bilbo nor Frodo died; for whatever that's worth.


*Side note: Do you suppose Legolas got a special dispensation to visit Gimli in the hauls of Aule after Gimli's death? I like that as a headcanon.
 
I can understand why many people didn't (and don't) read the Appendices, as without reading them it seems like the end of the narrative is the end of the story, and many are seemingly spent at this point; perhaps a comment on the density of the story.

I was hungry for more, and as my first experience was on paper, rather than audio cassette, I continued through the Appendices (all of them).
The mind-blowing twist thrown in casually at the end of Appendix F was totally worth the effort of reading the Appendices. I was also left with the understanding that multiple mortals had gone to Valinor and sufficient doubt as to whether mortals lived forever in that place.
 
I think it is safe to say that Hobbits don't really know what happens to mortals who sail into the West.

I think it's also a bit of a 'let down' for readers to find out after the fact that Frodo and Bilbo could only go to Tol Eressëa, rather than to Valinor proper, and that they would eventually die.

But. I am also reminded of Frodo's insight in Lothlorien, that long after he left Cerin Amroth, he would remain: "Though he walked and breathed, and about him living leaves and flowers were stirred by the same cool wind as fanned his face, Frodo felt that he was in a timeless land that did not fade or change or fall into forgetfulness. When he had gone and passed again into the outer world, still Frodo the wanderer from the Shire would walk there, upon the grass among elanor and niphredil in fair Lothlorien." And a page later, we see Aragorn interacting with a memory in this place.

So, my interpretation is that, yes, Frodo and Bilbo and Sam will all die on Tol Eressëa, eventually, but their memories will walk there forever and the immortal elves may 'visit' them, if they like.

I can understand wanting a text to stand on its own, and being frustrated by 'author commentary' after the fact being used to read the text. But in the case of J.R.R. Tolkien, I am mostly content with his vision of Middle-earth, and eager to hear what he has to say about his story. If keeping an initial interpretation requires throwing out everything else he had to say on the subject, then I don't really feel like that is the truest interpretation. A possible one, sure, and one the author left the door open for...but not the best possible interpretation available.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting question to wonder how much 'author commentary' should affect our reading of a work of literature (or music, or painting, or dance).

Tolkien comments on his own creations in an interesting way, in that he usually takes the stance of an interpreter, rather than an authority. I am always fascinated by Tolkien's interpretations of his own work. But, I am reluctant to take them as authoritative.

How do artistic creations emerge? Where do they emerge from? Great stories are 'true', but they are not full.y articulated, abstracted, and rationalized explanations of truth. In some ways, they are 'truer' than fully rationalized articulations. Perhaps because we are not fully rational beings, and stories can speak to us in ways that rational articulation cannot. Music certainly speaks to us in ways that are very difficult to articulate. So do stories.

Where do stories come from? Well, the author seems to pull them from dreams, from experience, from other stories, from meta-stories and archetypes, in ways that are not fully conscious, nor fully capable of being articulated. Many authors recount the experience of their stories and characters seeming to 'write themselves', or seeming to surprise their author with their actions or development.

So, Tolkien is not necessarily aware of exactly why the work of art that is TLOTR turned out the way it did. His stance, in commenting on it as an external observer, and interpreter, is, I think, a very good one. He is aware that he is not aware of why some things are the way they are in TLOTR. Thus he tries to interpret it, rather than proclaim on it (most of the time).

So, how much should we take account of Tolkien's commentary when reading TLOTR? I try to not use it too much. Here's an example:

There has been a discussion in the the thread, "Elrond and Cirdan - ulterior motive?", on the question of why did Frodo claim the Ring at the Crack of Doom?

We know (from 'Sauron Defeated' in THOME) that Tolkien had a previous draft where he explained that Frodo claimed the Ring due to the temptation to rule and dominate the world. The published version, however, gives no explanation at all about why Frodo claimed the Ring.

This leads us to wonder whether Frodo claimed the Ring, or the Ring claimed Frodo?

Now, if we went to Tolkien's own commentary on the subject we would find the following:

1. "But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us." (Letter 252)

2. "It is possible for the good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil which is too great for them to overcome - in themselves." (Letter 253)

3. "I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible... for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence)." (Letter 326)

If we took Tolkien's commentary as authoritative, we would conclude that the Ring claimed Frodo.

But, I don't. (Well, that is the reading I am inclined to, but not because of Tolkien's commentary.) I think that both readings are possible from TLOTR. There is no explanation as to why Frodo claims the Ring in the text. The secondary evidence in the text, I think, inclines towards 'the Ring claims Frodo', but not definitively.

So, I think Tolkien's commentary is interesting. It tells us a lot about Tolkien. It contributes to my hypothesis that Tolkien's commentary on TLOTR was often shaped by his own desire to interpret his work as more aligned with 'Catholic thought' than perhaps it really was. But I don't think it should be regarded as 'authoritative' on to how to interpret TLOTR.
 
While I can understand that reluctance, I have to admit that there is something very dismissive about that approach. Do I acknowledge that there are earlier drafts, and unfinished stories, and things that Tolkien did not allow to be part of the 'final version' of Lord of the Rings? Of course. Are there questions he never fully answered to his own satisfaction?' Undoubtedly. I am not suggesting that every scribble be considered canon and ruthlessly defended as such. In fact, I have myself never read the volumes of the History of Middle-earth dealing with the early drafts of Lord of the Rings, and have no intention of ever doing so. Certainly, some things were cut for a reason, and no doubt that reason was often to leave the story open for interpretation, so that the reader could tease out the most reasonable, believable, 'true' explanation or interpretation from the story as it was written. The 'unexplored vistas' motif applies to many aspects of Tolkien's writing - not only do we not get detailed descriptions of a character's appearance or clothing style very often, but we don't get all the why's spelled out for us, either. In that sense, what the author left in was the important substance of the story, and you are free to do with it what you will. There is not necessarily a need to reach an answer that is the 'most correct interpretation' of the work. There is room for more than one valid reading of a story. And Tolkien seemed in many instances at great pains to leave interpretation in the hands of the reader.

On the other hand...it is difficult to ignore that Tolkien spent a great deal of time thinking about his stories. He spent years writing them. He has some consistent themes and questions he was addressing throughout, if not in a didactic or fixed way, then still in an internally consistent way. So, no, you don't have to start with, 'Well, Catholic theology says this, therefore Lord of the Rings must mean that.' But you can only say, 'Well, I don't consider the author's word after the fact to be meaningful,' in this particular point if you are willing to seriously downplay the fact that Tolkien considered Death and Deathlessness to be one of the main themes of the story, and in fact one of the main 'side effects' of the Rings of Power was to meddle in this (as Matt DeForrest points out above). In other words, mortals becoming immortal and immortals becoming mortal was not just a side point that Tolkien didn't work out all the details of or choose to share explicitly in the text, but was actually a running theme that connected back to the very first chapter. Bilbo being 'well-preserved' or even 'unchanged' is at first considered good luck (though ominously judged to be 'unnatural'), but when he talks to Gandalf about being butter spread too thin, and then later when we learn what the Ringwraiths are and eventually meet Gollum and see what his life has become...potential immortality of the Ringbearers is clearly not an incidental question to the story. One could posit that Frodo and Bilbo become immortal at the end of Lord of the Rings. One could say that the text as written doesn't deny that possibility. But one could still argue that that particular ending doesn't fully fit with the rest of the story.

I am not saying that one has to take Tolkien's word for it. But I do think it important to notice how the idea that Frodo could sail into the West and become immortal does seem to fly in the face of some of the other points in the story. A possible interpretation, given the text? Sure. A fully correct interpretation that takes everything into account or is 'just as good' as other interpretations if one limits oneself to the texts published in Tolkien's lifetime? Ehhhh....

From the Letters that Anthony Lawther referenced above, we have these thoughts of Tolkien:

'Alas! there are some wounds that cannot be wholly cured', said Gandalf - not in Middle-earth. Frodo was sent or allowed to pass over Sea to heal him - if that could be done, before he died. He would have eventually to 'pass away': no mortal could, or can, abide for ever on earth, or within Time. So he went both to a purgatory and to a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and in greatness, spent still in Time amid the natural beauty of 'Arda Unmarred', the Earth unspoiled by evil.' Letter 246, to Mrs. Eileen Elgar (drafts) - 1963


"The 'immortals' who were permitted to leave Middle-earth and seek Aman - the undying lands of Valinor and Eressëa, an island assigned to the Eldar - set sail in ships specially made and hallowed for this voyage, and steered due West towards the ancient site of these lands. They only set out after sundown; but if any keen-eyed observer from that shore had watched one of these ships he might have seen that it never became hull-down but dwindled only by distance until it vanished in the twilight: it followed the straight road to the true West and not the bent road of the earth's surface. As it vanished it left the physical world. There was no return. The Elves who took this road and those few 'mortals' who by special grace went with them, had abandoned the 'History of the world' and could play no further part in it.
The angelic immortals (incarnate only at their own will), the Valar or regents under God, and others of the same order but less power and majesty (such as Olórin = Gandalf) needed no transport, unless they for a time remained incarnate, and they could, if allowed or commanded, return.
As for Frodo or other mortals, they could only dwell in Aman for a limited time - whether brief or long. The Valar had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them. Their sojourn was a 'purgatory', but one of peace and healing and they would eventually pass away (die at their own desire and of free will) to destinations of which the Elves knew nothing.
This general idea lies behind the events of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, but it is not put forward as geologically or astronomically 'true'; except that some special physical catastrophe is supposed to lie behind the legends and marked the first stage in the succession of Men to dominion of the world. But the legends are mainly of 'Mannish' origin blended with those of the Sindar (Gray-elves) and others who had never left Middle-earth." Letter 325, to Roger Lancelyn Green - 1971


Unlike the early drafts of the scene in Mount Doom that were later rejected, Tolkien seems pretty consistent on what he thinks about mortality/immortality in this instance. There are also these comments as well.

(Oops, hit the word limit; continued below)
 
"As for the Elves. Even in these legends we see the Elves mainly through the eyes of Men. It is in any case clear that neither side was fully informed about the ultimate destiny of the other. The Elves were sufficiently longeval to be called by Man 'immortal'. But they were not unageing or unwearying. Their own tradition was that they were confined to the limits of this world (in space and time), even if they died, and would continue in some form to exist in it until 'the end of the world.' But what 'the end of the world' portended for it or for themselves they did not know (though they no doubt had theories). Neither had they of course any special information concerning what 'death' portended for Men. They believed that it meant 'liberation from the circles of the world', and was in that respect to them enviable. And they would point out to Men who envied them that a dread of ultimate loss, though it may be indefinitely remote, is not necessarily the easier to bear if it is in the end ineluctably certain: a burden may become heavier the longer it is bourne." Letter 245, to Rhona Beare - 1963

"That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is. And since I have not made the struggle wholly unequivocal: sloth and stupidity among hobbits, pride and [illegible] among Elves, grudge and greed in Dwarf-hearts, and folly and wickedness among the 'Kings of Men', and treachery and power-lust even among the 'Wizards', there is I suppose applicability in my story to present times. But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Domination: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!" Letter 203, to Herbert Schiro - 1957

"As for 'message': I have none really, if by that is meant the conscious purpose in writing The Lord of the Rings, of preaching, or of delivering myself of a vision of truth specially revealed to me! I was primarily writing an exciting story in an atmosphere and background such as I find personally attractive. But in such a process inevitably one's own taste, ideas, and beliefs get taken up. Though it is only in reading the work myself (with criticisms in mind) that I become aware of the dominance of the theme of Death. (Not that there is any original 'message' in that: most of human art & thought is similarly preoccupied.) But certainly Death is not an Enemy! I said, or meant to say, that the 'message' was the hideous peril of confusing true 'immortality' with limitless serial longevity. Freedom from Time, and clinging to Time. The confusion is the work of the Enemy, and one of the chief causes of human disaster. Compare the death of Aragorn with a Ringwraith. The Elves call 'death' the Gift of God (to Men). Their temptation is different: towards a fainéant melancholy, burdened with Memory, leading to an attempt to halt Time." Letter 208, to C. Ouboter - 1958

See (likewise) Letter 212 and Letter 186.

I think another issue tripping me up here is that, while anyone could argue about the ways in which someone may be tempted or their will worn down, or the effect of addiction on one's decision-making....the question of becoming immortal isn't really one that we have a lot of real-life references for. There are plenty of stories about people becoming immortal, don't get me wrong. But whether or not any of those ideas apply to Tolkien's story...is something Tolkien is in a unique position to be able to answer. Can a hobbit sail West and live forever? Well...according to the creator of this world...no. So, that's rather...definitive? I mean, you can ignore that. Say that if he wanted that to be the case, he should have explicitly stated that in his novel - either in the text or in the Appendices. But I have trouble arguing that I know better than Tolkien how the Ring works or what the Valar are capable of, because...he created them and the rules that govern them!
 
Last edited:
Hi Mithluin,

Very well articulated thoughts.

I am curious about your lack of intention to ever read 'The History of Middle Earth'? It might be a wise intention, but I don't think it is a temptation that I could resist. I have read them. But then, decided not to re-read, and re-read, and study them.

I wouldn't say that I am totally dismissive of Tolkien's comments on TLOTR. I just consider them comments, perhaps slightly more valuable than the comments of say, Dr. Tom Shippey, but not much more valuable (not to imply that both are not valuable).

That is to say, that most valuable of all is to try to read TLOTR as a work of art, and only secondarily to investigate the thoughts of commentators (including Tolkien).

I agree with you that Tolkien left a lot of ambiguity in TLOTR. I agree that this is an important element in the art of the book. So, why did Tolkien spend a lot of time in letters and other works reducing the ambiguity?

One possibility is that he was doing this for his own benefit and amusement. He may never have expected these things to be published, and possibly create a different experience for later readers?

The fact is, that he never published any of this stuff, so we cannot assume that he would have been happy that any of it was definitive and final. For sure it is tempting to assume that anything Tolkien wrote about TLOTR is definitive. But, we know that he wrote lots of things towards TLOTR before it was published that never made it into the final version, or were very very different. It seems fair to assume, that if he had ever published anything after TLOTR, the same pattern might well play out, and that just because he had written something did not mean that that was going to remain, or remain intact, in his final version.
 
Don't misunderstand me; I've read the other volumes of The History of Middle-earth, and am in general quite familiar with their content. But I do not own and am unlikely to read the three volumes focused on the drafts of Lord of the Rings.

My point was not to claim that Letters is definitive; as you say, one can regard private remarks differently from the published works. [Just because an author tweets something....] My point was that Tolkien's own view on the place of Death/Deathlessness in this story seems firm and consistent, being repeated in letters written to various people about his books from 1956 through 1971. And so, if one is going to answer the question of Frodo's fate based on the text alone, one should be careful not to ignore scenes that are included in that text on that theme:
a) the description of the timelessness of Lothlórien​
b) the effect of the Ring on Bilbo's aging - unchanged and unnatural, and butter scraped over too much bread in the beginning, and then his succumbing to confusion and old age after the Ring is destroyed​
c) the fate of the Ringwraiths, whose unnaturally long lives leave them unable to exist in the real world, reduced to wraiths (ghosts)​
d) the fate of Gollum, who is impossibly old for a hobbit-like creature, and reduced to a starved grasping creature, but still 'living' and getting around while the Ring exists​
e) the fate of Aragorn, who gives up his life voluntarily when he reaches the end of his days​
f) everything about Numenor​
g) Frodo's inability to find healing in Middle-earth​
h) Arwen's conversation with Frodo in Minas Tirith​

Given all of this, the idea that the destruction of the Ring, which still has a hold on both Bilbo and Frodo, would lead to...immortality...for Bilbo and for Frodo? Doesn't really....fit. It is clear that in the end what they are getting is rest/healing, and that it will be good for them. This strongly indicates that they can't be desirous of the false promises of the Ring any more. They can't want to 'hold on' to life past their time. Not if where they are going in the West is good. So, yes, the story as written can be said to require both Frodo and Bilbo to willingly give up the ghost after they find healing and rest in the West.

Are other interpretations possible? Certainly. But to answer your initial question ('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?'), considering what you have to ignore to find that tenable...I consider that interpretation much less satisfying overall. I recognize that it's only human to want to live forever. But it would be the odd story indeed that decided actually doing so was...a good thing. And odder still if it was Tolkien who wrote it!
 
Last edited:
Tolkien comments on his own creations in an interesting way, in that he usually takes the stance of an interpreter, rather than an authority. I am always fascinated by Tolkien's interpretations of his own work. But, I am reluctant to take them as authoritative.
I agree. Tolkien is a great commenter on his own work, and his interpretations are of unique interest, but frankly I don't take ANY author's comments as authoritative. Sometimes I am very unhappy that I ever read them (not true of any of Tolkien's though: they always include food for thought, if nothing else).

The same kind of disappointment with an author's comments/explanations happens all the time within a TV series. How many times has the interesting mystery of an ongoing series been totally ruined for you by the final season where "all is revealed" and it turns out to be inarticulate, simplistic, lame, and unsatisfying? I hate that. "It was all a dream" is the worst (only The Wizard of Oz gets a pass on that).
 
Back
Top