Gandalf's Announcement

TThurston

Member
I know this question is a bit behind the flow of the sessions, but after watching the discussion regarding Gandalf's Announcement, and why or why not Gandalf should accompany Frodo to the Cracks of Doom, I wondered...

Clearly, Frodo will need some help to get there, both to guide to protect him. But perhaps shouldn't the question be, who needs help besides Frodo, who is the right person or people to provide that help, and how can we get them to the place where they can provide that help?

Clearly from the text, Gandalf needed to be sent to Rohan (which Elrond's council may not have known), to deal with Saruman (which Elrond's council did know was a problem), to Minas Tirith (which they knew was a problem). There were other places where Gandalf was needed, but perhaps the most surprising was that he (or somebody) needed to take Frodo to Moria so that a 10th member of the company could be added, Gollum. It is interesting that from the time Gollum joined Frodo's company, he seemed to take the roles of Gandalf (guide) and Boromir (protection, but also temptation), both of whom were lost to the larger company (at least for a time). How short sighted of Elrond's council for not considering the larger question of where to send help, and who to send there. It is also a bit surprising that Elrond's council did not consider the need to include someone like Gollum (or perhaps Boromir), because it was already clear from the text that the ring bearer would not be able to destroy the ring of his own volition.

We also see from the text other folks that needed help and the surprising way that help was delivered. Treebeard needed motivation to deal with the Saruman problem, so Pippin and Merry were sent there by the hands of the Uruks, surprisingly. Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas were needed in Helm's Deep, so they followed the helpful Uruks to Rohan, arriving just in time. It goes on and on. Elrond's council just didn't know what all-wise providence knew.

Or course, going back to the original question, why should or shouldn't Gandalf accompany Frodo to the Cracks of Doom, a simple response might be, not that he would (or wouldn't) be a good help to Frodo, but perhaps there would be some way to help Frodo elsewhere, say by distracting Sauron by creating a disturbance in Minas Tirith or by providing a palantir to Aragorn or by providing an army as bait at the front gate of Mordor, while Frodo slipped in the back.

Excuse me if this issue was discussed in sessions that I may have missed. I've just started watching the sessions again after a long break.
 
Last edited:
There are two main logical reasons why Gandalf should accompany Frodo:

1. Gandalf has snuck into Sauron's domains twice before, and attacked them once. He has experience and skills in sneaking in.

2. Probably the only way to get Frodo to actually throw the Ring in the Fire is for Gandalf to influence him through some combination of encouragement and threat. Like he did with Bilbo. We know from the parlor in Bag End that Frodo cannot even throw the Ring into his hearth fire, even after seeing that it has been in that fire without any harm shortly before.

True, that Gandalf could be (and will be) useful in many other situations on other fronts. However, others might be effective on those fronts as well. It is hard to see anyone who would be as useful in the treck through Mordor, and at Mt. Doom than Gandalf.

Unless Gandalf can be in many places at once, logic determines that accompanying Frodo is his most valuable and indispensable role.

Of course, Providence intervenes to ensure that even though Gandalf is not able to accompany Frodo, mission is accomplished.
 
Gandalf had it right at Bag End - Sam should go with Frodo.

It's a long trip from Rivendell to the Cracks of Doom, and Elrond is clear that none of the members of the Company are committed to finish the quest with Frodo. As it turns out, there are many other things that need to be done along the way and somehow everyone gets to where they can accomplish these tasks (defeating Saruman, saving Theoden, saving Eowyn and Faramir, for example). Even if the plan Aragorn proposes at Rauros had been used - meaning, if Boromir hadn't tried to take the Ring, and Aragorn, Sam, and Gimli had gone on with Frodo, and the others with Boromir to Minas Tirith - so much would have been missed, not least of which is that Aragorn would not have gotten the Palantir to show himself to Sauron and to see the need for him to fight the forces getting ready to attack Minas Tirith from the South by ship. Not to mention getting Gollum to the Cracks of Doom to finish the task.

So in the end, what should have been, was.
 
True that what should have been was.

However, Providence has proved pretty darn capable during the story we have in ensuring that. No reason Providence could not have adapted and delivered a favorable outcome despite different particulars?
 
However, Providence has proved pretty darn capable
She had to, as there was no other way to accomplish the needed result due to the incompetence of other agents involved. Im my experience Providence prefers her work to be more subtle, but this was not possible in this case.
 
One could also say that Providence saw to it that Gandalf was prevented from going with Frodo, as he was needed elsewhere.

Is that how Providence works in TLOTR?

I'm not sure. Providence does not usually work through the actions of the evil ones. Would Providence act through the Wargs, the Watcher in the Water, the Balrog? I don't think that is the pattern. Evil works it's own will. Providence acts to try to ensure that the acts of evil are ultimatley in vain.

So, I don' think it likely that Providence saw to it that Gandalf was prevented from going with Frodo. Evil saw to it that Gandalf was prevented from going with Frodo. Providence just worked to ensure that even this unfortunate event eventually worked to the benefit of the good. (Of course, this required one of the most major, direct, and obvious actions of 'Providence' in the entire LOTR!)
 
I'm not sure. Providence does not usually work through the actions of the evil ones.

100% disagree. Providence does not cause the acts of evil, but it absolutely does allow them to happen and work through them. Evil things happen. Therefore, either Providence allows them to happen, or else Providence is powerless to stop them. If Providence is so impotent, then any ultimate hope in Middle-earth is in vain, as there is then no guarantee that there may not eventually come an Evil stronger than it in the long run as well as in the moment.
 
100% disagree. Providence does not cause the acts of evil, but it absolutely does allow them to happen and work through them. Evil things happen. Therefore, either Providence allows them to happen, or else Providence is powerless to stop them. If Providence is so impotent, then any ultimate hope in Middle-earth is in vain, as there is then no guarantee that there may not eventually come an Evil stronger than it in the long run as well as in the moment.

Hi JJ48,

I agree. I don't think that Providence 'caused' Gandalf to part from the Company. That was caused by the actions of evil creatures. Sure Providence 'allowed' that. But what Providence really did was nudge things along so they would turn out well whatever the choices of evil were.
 
Another thought about the hand of providence...

If something had not led the Hobbits into the barrow downs, Merry would not have had a blade capable of wounding the chief Nazgul. In discussions of long ago, I believe Narnion argued that it was an agent of evil that caused the mist that entrapped the Hobbits and allowed them to be captured. I disagreed with that, but if true, it would suggest that an agent of evil provided the means of destroying the chief Nazgul. It's not that simple, of course. All the intervening choices, deeds, and events are woven together in such a fashion that one can merely suggest that had the hobbits not happened to get caught in the barrow, Merry would not have had the blade that he needed. Was it providence or an agent of evil? Hard to say.
 
Was it providence or an agent of evil? Hard to say.

I think the answer is both. Consistently, we not only see evil folk make choices that are ultimately turned to good; we see good come from evil choices when good doesn't appear like it would have come had the evil choice not been made. Consider Gollum's evil choice to betray and attack Frodo at the Cracks of Doom. Not only does this evil turn to good (with Gollum taking the Ring with him to heir mutual doom), but it's hard to see how that could have turned out well without such an occurrence (at least, not without killing off Frodo, as well). Personally, I think if we view Providence as just another actor, striving with the evil actors, we're limiting it too much. I don't think it merely reacts to and corrects evil, nor does it simply plan for and accommodate the possibility of evil; rather, it plans for specific evil choices, and fits them in precisely where they need to fit.
 
I think the answer is both. Consistently, we not only see evil folk make choices that are ultimately turned to good; we see good come from evil choices when good doesn't appear like it would have come had the evil choice not been made. Consider Gollum's evil choice to betray and attack Frodo at the Cracks of Doom. Not only does this evil turn to good (with Gollum taking the Ring with him to heir mutual doom), but it's hard to see how that could have turned out well without such an occurrence (at least, not without killing off Frodo, as well).

Actually, I think that is one huge instance when good choices undid the evil choices. Bilbo showed pity and chose not to kill Gollum. Frodo not only showed pity himself, but also pleaded with Faramir to spare Gollum and allow Gollum to leave with Frodo and Sam. And finally Sam on Mount Doom feels pity and spares Gollum, running up to find Frodo who has gone ahead so he doesn't see Gollum turn and follow.

We could even come up with an argument that there is something good that came even from the Ring. The Ringbearers all made it possible for Gollum to complete the destruction of the Ring, all feeling at the point a kind of kinship with him. Even Gollum, also a Ringbearer, comes close to reversing his evil choice because he is able for a moment to feel a real affection for Frodo.
 
Actually, I think that is one huge instance when good choices undid the evil choices. Bilbo showed pity and chose not to kill Gollum. Frodo not only showed pity himself, but also pleaded with Faramir to spare Gollum and allow Gollum to leave with Frodo and Sam. And finally Sam on Mount Doom feels pity and spares Gollum, running up to find Frodo who has gone ahead so he doesn't see Gollum turn and follow.

We could even come up with an argument that there is something good that came even from the Ring. The Ringbearers all made it possible for Gollum to complete the destruction of the Ring, all feeling at the point a kind of kinship with him. Even Gollum, also a Ringbearer, comes close to reversing his evil choice because he is able for a moment to feel a real affection for Frodo.

This is true, but notice that none of the good choices led directly to Gollum taking the Ring into the Fire; they simply led to Gollum being present to make his choice. From there, it was his own evil choice that led directly to the ultimately good outcome.

As for there even being something good from the Ring, I think a discussion between Manwë and Mandos in The Silmarillion summarizes it best:

[Manwë said,] 'Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been.’
But Mandos said: ‘And yet remain evil.'
 
I really have to read The Silmarillion again after learning so much more this past year or so, since I found Mythgard. That's a beautiful quote. To do good, evil does not need to become good. That's powerful.

By the time we get to the Cracks of Doom, I don't think we can talk of choice for either Frodo or Gollum. Both are completely overmastered by the Ring, and for Gollum a pure desperate instinct to survive.
 
I think the answer is both. Consistently, we not only see evil folk make choices that are ultimately turned to good; we see good come from evil choices when good doesn't appear like it would have come had the evil choice not been made. Consider Gollum's evil choice to betray and attack Frodo at the Cracks of Doom. Not only does this evil turn to good (with Gollum taking the Ring with him to heir mutual doom), but it's hard to see how that could have turned out well without such an occurrence (at least, not without killing off Frodo, as well). Personally, I think if we view Providence as just another actor, striving with the evil actors, we're limiting it too much. I don't think it merely reacts to and corrects evil, nor does it simply plan for and accommodate the possibility of evil; rather, it plans for specific evil choices, and fits them in precisely where they need to fit.

Oh, it could have turn to good without Gollum's betrayal. E.g. Gollum having a glimse of conscience and persuading Frodo "If you do not want to end like me, thow this thing in" and then them thowing the ring in together. There is always the possibility to choose good, however unlikely, for humans and humanoids.
 
Last edited:
I think it is very clear from the Ainulíndale that turning evil to something yet good to have been is plan B. Plan A of providence is that all creation chooses good. Cleaning up the mess is only second best, still in the end glory will be equal (or plan B be even more beautiful?). For Melkor, Feanor, Ar-Pharazon, Gollum etc it would have been better if they had chosen good over evil. But the ultimate plan of Eru will not change in spite. Reminds me of "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
Whatever choice anyone makes. Providence will always find its way to fulfill the divine plan. It is not dependant on created beings, whether good or evil. It is sovereign. The way to its fulfillment will change though. Thinking that providence needs evil to accomplish its plan is absolutely wrong. Just wanted to clarify that.
So would the ring have been destroyed if Gollum, Sams and Frodos choices would have been all evil along the way? I say eventually yes but probably not on March 25 of 3019.
Why is it then that evil has an eligibility to exist if it is unneccessary before the almighty? Well it is because Eru holds participation in his music and free will higher than the risk of his plan A being not put in effect. Boethius is a very good source to grasp the correlation of providence, fate, destiny, doom and free will.
 
I apologize if I'm not explaining my position well. I agree that Providence does not need evil, but I think it's that type of "Plan A and Plan B" terminology that I find rather unsatisfying, mainly because it could be taken a couple different ways. If, by the different plans, we are referring to preferences, then I think I can agree. The preference, even intended plan was Plan A, sure. And yet, Providence would have known all along that Plan A was never going to come to fruition and that Plan B would be necessary. There never was a time when the plan switched from A to B, if you see my meaning; rather, A was always the ideal, and B was always to be the reality.

I think we can see this most clearly in the Music of the Ainur, particularly the third theme. On the one hand, we might say that the third theme was a reaction to Melkor's discord, in that it would not have been necessary otherwise. On the other hand, it was also clearly not reacting in a temporal sense, as the third theme wove Melkor's most triumphant notes into itself. This strikes me more as anticipation rather than reaction (though that still doesn't sound quite right), and it seems clear that it had full knowledge of the discord rather than mere possibilities.
 
Back
Top