Various thoughts and Questions

Etholod

Member
In class, there has been an uncertainty about the reason for which Gandalf does not allow Bilbo to tell of his giving the Ring away. It has also been suggested that this reason is connected to the proof of the Ring's identity not being repeated before the Council. I have a theory as to this reason, and indeed they may be connected: There is never any reference to the difficulty, or even impossibility of harming or giving up the Ring during the council, except Isildurs "I will not risk harm to it", which is rather neutral and might just as easily reflect his grief over his fallen father and brother as possessiveness towards the Ring. If Bilbo had told of his troubles, or anyone had tried to cast the Ring into a brazier before the council, the incredible hold that the Ring has over its bearer would likely have become clear. I think it is not n any way a stretch for Gandalf to imagine that some if not most of the members would have lost the hope in the ultimate plan which Gandalf and Elrond want them to agree to. The task of bringing the Ring to Mordor seems almost impossible in itself, nobody expects the casting into the fire to be even more difficult. Boromir at least, I think, would never have gone along with the plan had he thought it must fail. Would Glóin? If, as I believe is rather likely, the point of the Council was chiefly to get everyone to realize that Mount Doom is the way that must be chosen, taking away any Amdir for the success of that quest is not a smart move. Elrond, Aragorn and Gandalf may have enough Estel to carry them, but the others might not. Boromir, in fact, does not, from what we see.

-Turambar of Many Names

Hey so I’ve got a question I’d like to hear some thoughts on. I’m a couple episodes behind on Exploring LOTR and I just listened to the one with the discussion about the word “cast” and its popular usage. I know it was discussed that Tolkien did not use it with the word “spell” in the D and D sense, but I think it still has a magical connection in its meaning. To “cast a spell” brings to my mind, not throwing a spell over someone, but forming one, much like it was discussed of casting metal. When I think “cast a spell” I think of someone channeling magical energy (the material) using either their mind or words or both (the mold). Therefore whatever spell is created, it is “cast” as in “formed.” Sorry, I know that’s a lot for a discussion from a month ago, but I wanted to hear your guys’ thoughts on that

-Camlost7


Finally a thought from me regarding portrayal and adaptation

As usual, Peter Jackson's films have, while not ruined, certainly clouded our views of the Council. In one of the recent discussions, Corey was discussing the difference between 'Book' Aragorn and 'Movie' Aragorn and the reverence paid to The Shards of Narsil. If you have heard Tom Shippey's talk on the PJ films, you will know that the general trend of the films was to Teenagerise. For example, Legolas surfing down Helm's Deep with his bow or his bringing down the Mumak at the Pelennor (in fact most of the egregious examples of 'Teenagerising' involve Legolas). But one instance where Peter Jackson does not 'Teenagerise' is this plotline with Aragorn. PJ makes the decision to make Aragorn unsure of his Kingship and pay the respect for Nasil under the auspices, perhaps of making him more appealing to the audience'. However, this doesn't seem to fit the general trend to 'teenagerise' the films. Why make this decision?. The answer maybe lies in another character Boromir. Transformed into the 'Gondor wants no King, Gondor needs no King' spouting character. Peter Jackson wanted to make Boromir into a traditional isolationist to present a foil for this message of unity. As usual in film-making, the characters become mere caricatures of the original text. But this still doesn't answer the question about Aragorn. Why insert that 'reverence', that unsurity, which goes against the trend of 'Teenagerising'. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and opinions.
 
Hi Etholod,

Some very interesting questions here.

On your first question: I take your point that pointing out how hard it is to surrender the Ring might cause doubts about the quest. I particularly think that giving Frodo doubts about whether he will be able to cast the Ring into Mt. Doom might not be a good idea. That is the theory I would go with, except that Gandalf has already told Frodo, "You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make" you - except by force, which would break your mind."

So, Gandalf has already told Frodo enough to warn him that casting the Ring into the Fire may be impossible.

This brings up another mysterious question; If Gandalf does not think that Frodo can easily let the Ring go, nor will to damage it, what does he think will happen if Frodo ever reaches Mt. Doom, to make the quest seem a good strategy?

On your second question: "Cast" is an important word in TLOTR. After all, the entire book is about the effort to 'cast' the Ring into Mt. Doom. There is a thread on this word somewhere in the discussion forum. The original meaning of 'cast' is 'throw', but it has acquired additional meanings over time, usually derived from throwing metaphors (cast a shadow; cast a spell). The second most common meaning in modern speech is probably 'to make', or 'to form', as in casting church bells or cannon. I think that Tolkien also uses a less common meaning, 'to un-make' (particularly in the usage (literal or implied) of 'cast down'. This is taking the meaning 'to make' and just inverting it to create a meaning of 'un-make'.

Gandalf says to Frodo, "It (the Ring) cannot be unmade by your hands, or by mine." This is followed shortly by, "There is only one way: to find the Cracks of Doom in the depths of Orodruin, the Fire-mountain, and cast the Ring in there, if you really wish to destroy it."

So, when LOTR talks about 'casting' the Ring into Mt. Doom (which is the preferred verb throughout), I think JRRT is using a double meaning: 'throw' of course, but also the more unusual meaning of 'un-make'.

On your third question:
I prefer not to spend any time trying to interpret the films.
 
re: 1st Question: I think, Flammifer, that Gandalf fully expected to be by Frodo's side at the point of throwing the ring in.
 
Hi Nancyt.

I agree that Gandalf probably expected this. Which leaves a lot of questions. Gandalf has already said, "You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make" you - except by force, which would break your mind." (Of course, Gandalf seems to be forgetting that Bilbo managed to 'let it go' without force from Gandalf - though with some forceful persuasion. And his mind did not seem to be broken.)

So, what is he thinking he might do if he is by Frodo's side at the point of throwing the Ring in? Make Frodo do it by force and break his mind?

That seems an unlikely Gandalf plan. So, why does Gandalf think it a good idea to take the Ring to Mt. Doom? What does he think will happen there? It is not at all clear.
 
I'm not sure, Flammifer. I believe Gandalf intended to go, and was probably figuring that anything could happen on the way and he wasn't going to borrow tomorrow's trouble today. But in the end it turned out that his intention was not destined to happen. Somewhere, somehow he was going to fall in defense of the fellowship, so that he could be upgraded to 2.0.
 
Hi Nancyt.

I agree that Gandalf probably expected this. Which leaves a lot of questions. Gandalf has already said, "You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make" you - except by force, which would break your mind." (Of course, Gandalf seems to be forgetting that Bilbo managed to 'let it go' without force from Gandalf - though with some forceful persuasion. And his mind did not seem to be broken.)

So, what is he thinking he might do if he is by Frodo's side at the point of throwing the Ring in? Make Frodo do it by force and break his mind?

That seems an unlikely Gandalf plan. So, why does Gandalf think it a good idea to take the Ring to Mt. Doom? What does he think will happen there? It is not at all clear.

The comment on making Frodo give up the Ring was in direct response to Frodo's questions 'Why did you let me keep it? Why didn’t you make me throw it away, or, or destroy it?’, so it was not that Gandalf had forgotten the example of Bilbo. I think Gandalf's plan hinged on the example of Bilbo.

I think Gandalf's plan was to accompany Frodo to provide sufficient moral support for Frodo to be able to make the choice to destroy the Ring himself, in a similar way to how he helped Bilbo give up the Ring; while one might be tempted to think that a last ditch solution would be to force Frodo to throw it into the fire if he refused in the end, I think the peril would not be just to Frodo's mind, but even more so to the mind of the forcer. Of course, we can't know because Gollum was already in a compromised state of mind, and his actions were more like assault than extortion.

While we are playing 'what might have been': If Saruman had remained faithful in his efforts, then Saruman would have been available to face down the Witch-King and help lead the assault on the Morannon, while Gandalf did his stealth attack with Sam and Frodo; Grey would blend with the terrain of the plateau of Gorgoroth better than bright White.
 
Hi Anthony,

I totally agree with your reading that Gandalf probably hoped that he could be with Frodo at the Cracks of Doom (after all, he had experience in sneaking in to the fastnesses of Sauron) and that he hoped that he could persuade Frodo to cast the Ring in, much as he had persuaded Bilbo to give it up.

I still don't see why he says to Frodo, that he couldn't let it go nor damage it unless Gandalf exercised force enough to break Frodo's mind?

I, like you, don't really think that Gandalf means this. And I don't see any benefit from Gandalf saying this. So why? It is a curious statement.
 
Hi Anthony,

I totally agree with your reading that Gandalf probably hoped that he could be with Frodo at the Cracks of Doom (after all, he had experience in sneaking in to the fastnesses of Sauron) and that he hoped that he could persuade Frodo to cast the Ring in, much as he had persuaded Bilbo to give it up.

I still don't see why he says to Frodo, that he couldn't let it go nor damage it unless Gandalf exercised force enough to break Frodo's mind?

I, like you, don't really think that Gandalf means this. And I don't see any benefit from Gandalf saying this. So why? It is a curious statement.
Flammifer,

I have to disagree with your parsing of Gandalf's statement here.

I present Gandalf's statement broken into the relevant components to answer Frodo's questions followed by my analysis:
Why did you let me keep it? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, - not that it would be impossible, but it was less about Gandalf's permission and more about Frodo's will to release it.
Why didn’t you make me throw it away, or, or destroy it? nor will to damage it. - This bit is problematic for the Mt Doom plan, but with the right method of support Frodo might overcome this and choose to destroy the Ring.
And I could not "make" you - except by force, which would break your mind. - this is separate from the actions Frodo proposes and instead focuses on the impetus behind those actions, which is part of the reason it is delivered as a separate sentence. Whatever is done by Frodo must be Frodo's choice or else Gandalf believes it would break Frodo's mind.

There are a few possibilities to consider why Gandalf draws this conclusion:
- Is it the application of external force at all? Probably not, as Gandalf certainly applied some force to Bilbo to help him give it up.
- Is it the level of external force required in the predicted circumstances? Closer, but I think there's one more thing to consider.
- Is it that Gandalf reckons that he would need to uncloak himself to apply sufficient force to make Frodo do this against his will? This, I think, is what Gandalf posits would break Frodo's mind; being faced by the full force of a Wizard's power. As Gandalf is the Wizard that has studied Hobbits the closest, he is probably best placed to make this determination, regardless of whether it is actually true.

Part of Gandalf's methodology is to support and inspire people to make decisions and take actions of their own accord, rather than bullying or commanding - not that we haven't seen him do these things at times when the situation turns dire.
 
I think the distinction between making someone do something and strongly encouraging someone to do something is an important one. Making someone do something requires ignoring or even actively opposing their will. Encouraging someone involves strengthening and guiding their will.
 
Back
Top