Frodo's Defiance at the Ford

[ForthDauntless3]

During our discussion of Frodo's struggle with Old Man Willow, we commented that he had a partial success. He overcame the sleep song, but he then succumbed to the tree's desire that Frodo should bathe his feet in the Withywindle.

When Frodo strove with the Witch-King at the Ford, he had a similar experience. He realized that he was being commanded to stop, and he could have then fought that compulsion and fled. Instead, he drew his sword in anger. It seems likely that this action was perfectly in keeping with the Witch-King's backup plan. If anything, attacking the Nazgul would have been even worse than simply stopping, because he would have been nearly instantly surrounded.

On my first reading, this defiance seemed admirable, but in fact it was quite foolish and would have ended very badly if Frodo was able to act on his impulse.

 

[Johannes]

...If anything, attacking the Nazgul would have been even worse than simply stopping, because he would have been nearly instantly surrounded.

On my first reading, this defiance seemed admirable, but in fact it was quite foolish and would have ended very badly if Frodo was able to act on his impulse.

It's always better to do something than to do nothing. Frodo will get good results with this tactic later aginst Shelob, holding the star aloft and the bright sword advanced, walking steadily down to meet the eyes.

Sometimes you just got to meet the darkness head on, you know. But Gandalf would probably agree with you, and call it foolish.

 

[amysrevenge]

How about "not wholly vain"?

 

[Zephen12]

Hmm, split opinion for me. I very much agree with ForthDauntless in that the drawing of the sword in anger was a bad move. I know the Professor approved of it during class, but I disagree with the interpretation. Given the description, it seems that Frodo drawing his sword is a result of "fear and anger" that welled up within him, just as we-the-readers are keyed into the fact that the Witch-king is sending spiritual signals to Frodo. Glorfindel also interprets Frodo's action with alarm and at that moment shouts to Asfaloth to get Frodo out of there. I interpret this scene as Glorfindel worrying that Frodo would rush the Riders and, seeing that Frodo has given into "fear and anger," directs his commands to Asfaloth. I am a little dubious of the "always" in "It's always better to do something than to do nothing." In the least, there is sometimes a "something better" that could be done.

 

[Johannes]

Given the description, it seems that Frodo drawing his sword is a result of "fear and anger"...

I don't see any problem with giving in to fear and anger in Tolkiens world. It's despair that the big no-no. Frodo is afraid and angry, yes, but he doesn't despair; he shows defiance in the face of the enemy, and that has to be a good thing.

 

[MithLuin]

Good things, useful things, and wise things...are not always the same things.

 

[Johannes]

Good things, useful things, and wise things...are not always the same things.

Absolutely, but isn't that one of the recurring themes in Tolkien? I feel like the good guys always choose to do the "good" thing, even though more could be gained from choosing "the lesser of two evils". The whole doing-the-good-thing-for-the-sake-of-doing-the-good-thing. The good guys in Tolkien doesn't believe in "the end justifies the means".

Gollum isn't killed, Aragorn chases after the Uruks to save Merry and Pippin, Faramir wouldn't use the Ring even if he could save Minas Tirith by doing so (he would not ensnare even an orc with a falsehood, for crying out loud!), Aragorn and Eomer march their pitiful army on the Black gate to draw Saurons attention, the list goes on and on.

All of these things seem unwise and not very useful at the time, but we know that all of these things are rewarded in the end, and they are what makes the good guys victory possible.

This is my third post in this thread, so I think it's time for me to shut up now. Maybe this isn't an example of Frodo being defiant in the face of evil, and he is just being manipulated by the Witch-king; but I'm a hopeless romantic, so you know... I'm hopeless.

 

[MithLuin]

I could see Frodo's action as rash, so not particularly wise and not the best strategy ever - but I do agree that defying the Witch-king is better than succumbing to him (the wound is about making him a wraith enslaved to the will of the Witch-king, after all). So, yes, defiance is good in that sense, but getting the Ring out of the Witch-king's reach is also very important - hence Glorfindel's desperate cry to the horse for Asfaloth to get them out of there. Frodo's action alone would not have 'won' this one.

I agree that one of the key characteristics of Tolkien's work is that the good guys make good choices, not expedient choices. This is unique compared to many other works of fantasy, where the good guys label themselves as good because they are fighting the bad guys - but do not quibble to torture, backstab, etc to achieve their goals. (Making the reader eventually question, 'How good are these good guys'?) Tolkien was much more interested in creating eucatastrophe, so he would much rather have his characters do the good, hard thing with no reasonable expectation that it would work...and then have it work anyway.

(And you're right; this is probably a bit too much discussion for the 'Corey Only' forum, so I will bow out as well!)

 

[Zephen12]

I’ll just say that I think Frodo acting upon “fear and anger” IS giving into the Witch-King. After the “do not go” commando is the “come here” command, and I think the description is more sinister than may seem. The good guys do tend to do what is good rather than what is useful EXCEPT when the ring is involved (I cite Boromir), and I think the Ring/Witch-King nearly had mastery over Frodo at this moment unlike the faceoff across the ford.

The beautiful thing about this is that we can agree to disagree. I too take my bow out.