Tolkien responds to many letters from fans and reviewers about the failure of Frodo, in the end, to complete the Quest. I have a lot more to say on this – Tolkien’s discussion of Pity, and Mercy – and how salvation can only come through those things – not through Power, Might, or even Success. But I’ll get back to that.
Here’s a couple excerpts on what Tolkien calls “the failure of Frodo”:
26 July 1956 Draft of letter to Miss J. Burn
If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honoured because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and then had done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved – by mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.
Corinthians I x. 12-13 may not at first sight seem to fit (“Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”) – unless “bearing temptation” is taken to mean resisting it while still a free agent in normal command of the will. I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one’s power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not “arrange” the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. (Gollum had had his chance of repentance, and of returning generosity with love; and had fallen off the knife-edge). In the case of those who now issue from prison “brainwashed”, broken, or insane, praising their torturers, no such immediate deliverance is as a rule to be seen. But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.
No, Frodo “failed”. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. 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.
27 July 1956 Letter to Amy Ronald
By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the failure of Frodo. Very few seem even to have observed it. But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly inevitable, as an event. And surely it is a more significant and real event than a mere “fairy story” ending in which the hero is indomitable? 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. In this case the cause (not the “hero”) was triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted. Gandalf certainly foresaw this. (“Pity? It was pity that stayed [Bilbo’s] hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.”) Of course he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later – it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life.
Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), “that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named” (as one critic has said). (Gandalf to Frodo: “Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-Maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker.”)
A third (the only other) commentator on the point some months ago reviled Frodo as a scoundrel (who should have been hung and not honoured), and me too. It seems sad and strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good will are tortured, “brainwashed”, and broken, anyone could be so fiercely simpleminded and righteous.
I’ve not gotten around to re-reading Return of the King yet, but Frodo’s weakness was one point of the film that really bugged me. Here are his friends, charging into certain death to defend him, give him a fighting chance to finish the quest, and the only reason the Ring ends up in the fires is because he’s pissed that Gollum bit his finger off. I know there’s probably some deeper meaning about the all-consuming forces of evil that we’re supposed to walk away with, but I think it would have made a better ending in the film version if Frodo somehow recalled the affection of his friends and was driven to let go of the Ring as a result of that.
I know that sounds stupid and shallow, but I don’t care.
Emily –
I know what you mean. I thought, when I saw the film, that Gollum biting Frodo’s finger off and then falling into the pit was a cop-out. We didn’t really get to see the heroism of Frodo. After all that, after that whole journey – Frodo caves to the power of the Ring and it is only through the nasty rodent Gollum that the Ring is destroyed?? Bummer, man!
But – (and this is just my interpretation of all the letters I’ve read of Tolkien) – the point he was making was much more difficult and ambiguous. That there is Evil in this world – Evil too great for one person, or one hobbit, to combat.
The only thing that will save us is Mercy and forgiveness towards others.
If Sam had killed Gollum, then Gollum would not have been there at the end, to make the Quest succeed. And so – even little snotty evil creatures like Gollum have their place in the larger plan. And who are we to decide beforehand who is essential to the plan, and who is not?
At least, that’s how I understand Tolkien’s reasoning.
That’s an excellent point, Sheila. I think one of the things that has endeared me to the story is that it is not about one hero, but a group of heroes, working together for a common goal. It’s just the thought of it…I wonder if Sam ever told the rest of the Fellowship after they were safe “hey, do you guys know that this little he-bitch was literally going to let you die so that he could spend like, 300 years wallowing in a cave chanting ‘my precious’? Man, I totally wanted to kick the shit out of him when he said that.”
he-bitch. HA
I don’t think one can judge Frodo harshly at all. Remember how difficult it was for anyone to give up the ring anywhere at all. The only person who ever voluntarily gave up the ring was Bilbo. And Frodo was tired, exhausted, and sitting right at Oronduin, where the ring was forged. He did what he could be getting the ring there, and the rest was “fate” or whatever force for good there was that made it so Bilbo found the Ring.
Personally, I’m more disappointed in the movie that Frodo sent Sam away. (To where?)
Emily, I didn’t see the film’s version of Frodo as fighting with Gollum about his finger, but trying desperately to get the Ring back and largely ignoring his finger (at least far more so than after the Ring gets destroyed). But Frodo’s weakness and Sam’s tenacity did seem overly much of a contrast: although Sam is tempted to keep the Ring when he finds Frodo at the top of Cirith Ungol, it’s hardly even a glimmer of the delusions of grandeur that the book shows us the Ring pushining on him. The film makes your point too easily that Sam might have been able to just toss it into Mount Doom and be done with it, something Tolkien would have regarded as impossible.
Ron, I’ll have to go back and read that part, but as I recall, Sam willingly gave the Ring back to Frodo, although with difficulty. But yeah, Frodo sending Sam “home” in the movie was pretty ridiculous: home down the stairs with no food to try slipping past the Witch-King’s army? Even subject to both the Ring’s and Gollum’s manipulation, Frodo wasn’t stupid; that would have been a death sentence.
In fairness to Frodo, he did carry the bloody thing across all of Middle Earth before he was finally overcome by it’s power. I think Tolkien was trying to say that even the best of can be overwhelmed by the ring’s power.
Isildur gave in after what, 10 minutes?
I was just reflecting on the ‘failure’ of Frodo and came across this post here in 2019, 15 years later. Outside of the obviousness of why the failure must occur, which actually seemed right to me in the end; this was a story about the metaphysical forces of good and evil played out over a large expanse of time and many lifetimes after all, but Bill McCabe’s comment made me laugh out loud, 10 minutes indeed.
Bill, true.
Tolkien seemed to take a very realistic approach to humanity, and to sin. There are no heroes, no black and white. We all are capable of “ennoblement”, which he talks about so much, and we all could become a Gollum. He was a Christian. His belief in free-will, and that we all have the choice, at any moment – between good and evil, or whatever – was very strong.
No one is exempt.
Saruman started out like Gandalf.
Oh wait, I don’t mean that those who are not Christians don’t believe in free will. But he spoke of his belief system in very Christian (ie New Testament) terms.
I’m not Christian, and I believe in free will. I have no choice.
Emily,
Your comment should be listed in a compilation of great epigrams.
Sheila,
You’re right, but he also makes the point that no man could hold an object with such power without succumbing to it’s power. While he makes the one point that men are weak and easily corrupted, he also shows the men of Gondor and Rohan finding the strength within to stand againt the Dark Lord.
I’m wondering if any of the letters address this in more detail.
Bill,
I’ll find some more quotes on this. Readers were tormented by the Frodo moment and wrote to him obsessively – so he explained his theory of the Ring and its power over people many many times.
Ah, I stand corrected. Bilbo and Sam are the only two to ever voluntarily give up the Ring. I find Bilbo doing so more impressive given how many years he had the Ring. Even though they were at Mount Doom, the Ring hadn’t had much time to work on Sam. Sam gives it back, albeit with some reservations. I loved that whole bit about Sam offering to take it for a while just to “ease Frodo’s burden”. It shows how the Ring corrupts by exploiting the good tendencies. I think the Ring is a wonderful symbol of how even good intentions can turn to evil.
Yes, men are weak and easily corrupted, in a general sense and relative to others, but not necessarily in particular cases or under particular circumstances.
I’m reminded here of the difference between what happened to the men and the dwarves that Sauron gave rings to: the men ultimately become undead Nazgul because the conquest of death is Tolkien’s persistent image of human arrogance and folly, the classically human understanding of what ultimate power would be, and mean. The seven rings of the dwarves do not wind up extending their already long lives, but like Odin’s ring Draupnir in Norse mythology, they breed wealth, which is what dwarvish hearts crave far more than dominion over others or over their mortality: one of the Seven was at the heart of the treasure hoard of the dwarven kings of Erebor that was ultimately claimed by Smaug.
That, in turn, reminds me of the fact that Frodo volunteered to give up the Ring several times, once to Gandalf and once to Galadriel, and did himself also once willingly surrender it, namely to Tom Bombadil, over whom it had no power at all.
Dave,
You’re right about Frodo of course. I suspect in the cases of Gandalf and Galadriel the Ring itself was working to try to make its way to someone who already had a Ring of Power. The case of Bombadil is interesting. As I recall, Tom Bombadil had complete control over his domain so it may be that Frodo had no choice. Clearly, however, Hobbits had an inner strength in them to resist the ring that no other did, though its hard to say as the only one to have the Ring other than Sauron and Hobbits was Isildur, who did not survive long with it.
(I am not sure if one can technically call Smeagol a Hobbit, but he was referred to as one of the Stoors, so if not a true Hobbit, he may as well have been one.)