Frodo isn’t the only character that Tolkien wrote about who suffered this fate. Eärendil, hero of the First Age in the Quenta Silmarillion, experiences something remarkably similar—his voyage to Arda to inform the Valar of the plight of the Eldar is successful, but he is never able to return to Middle Earth. In addition, he is largely separated from his wife Elwing. Both end up leaving Middle Earth despite saving it, and I want to know why.
It seems I am not the only person thinking about this, because Tolkien actually addressed it in one of his letters. In Letter 181, he says “I think that ‘victors’ can never enjoy ‘victory’ — not in the terms that they envisaged; and in so far as they fought for something to be enjoyed by themselves … the less satisfactory will ‘victory’ seem.” Frodo furthermore comments in The Return of the King that “when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.” This theme of sacrifice feels true to the story of both characters—and has Christian thematic ties as well—but why Eärendil and Frodo specifically? Other major characters—Beren and Luthien, Sam, Aragorn are all able to live happy lives after their adventures. Why the discrepancy in the application of Tolkien’s rule? What do Frodo and Eärendil do (or not do) that sets their fates apart?
After careful rereading of certain scenes, I think we can highlight two common threads that explain why Frodo and Eärendil left Middle Earth over other characters. The first is failure—compared to some of Tolkien’s other characters, Frodo and Eärendil both fail crucial tasks or responsibilities. Eärendil’s failure is to break the rule that the Eldar may not return to Valinor. He was, of course, journeying there under exceptional circumstances, and without the Silmaril would not have been able to make it there in the first place. Yet despite those potential excuses, it’s clear Eärendil recognizes he is violating the Valar’s law—he says “that peril [violating the ban] I will take on myself alone,” though Elwing eventually follows him. When Manwe passes judgment, he exempts them from punishment for violating the ban “for love of the Two Kindreds,” but decrees “they shall not walk again ever among Elves or Men in the Outer Lands.” It’s not a punishment, necessarily, but there is a consequence to Eärendil and Elwing’s failure to abide by the law.
Frodo, like Eärendil, also fails—he succumbs to the Ring’s influence at the last moment and fails to throw it into the fires of Mount Doom. Tolkien is clear in Letter 246 that “Frodo indeed ‘failed’ as hero,” though he is clear that it is not really a moral failing given the Ring’s power. This is quite similar to Eärendil—both were not morally wrong, yet still failed in their responsibilities. Tolkien observes that guilt and disquiet slowly grow in Frodo as a result of this failure, and it is one of the reasons Gandalf and the elves suggest that he leave with them. Thus Frodo’s departure can be read similarly to Eärendil’s—it is a consequence of failure, albeit one he is not morally responsible for.
Other characters don’t suffer failures of this type. Sam, as a servant to Frodo, is entirely dedicated to his master and does everything he can to support him. Aragorn, meanwhile, successfully travels the Paths of the Dead, defends Gondor, and becomes King. Even Beren and Luthien completed their quest to retrieve a Silmaril. Though they failed in some respects, it was not in a core responsibility like Eärendil and Frodo. Thus, they escape the same fate.
These core failures explain why there has to be a consequence for Frodo and Eärendil, but why leave Middle Earth specifically? Frodo offers Sam an explanation for why he must leave; he says he has “been too deeply hurt” to stay. Tolkien adds in Letter 246 that Frodo “saw himself and all he had done as a broken failure.” In other words, he feels guilty and tormented about his failure and struggles to feel like he can peacefully enjoy the Shire that he almost failed. Thus, it is natural for him to sail over the Sea, where he can find the “reflection and peace” that he can’t get in Middle Earth. Frodo is in a state very different from the other surviving members of the Fellowship—he is psychologically distressed, and thus Valinor is a better place for him.
Interestingly, we can infer that Eärendil might be in a similar position. He has always been torn between his elven and human sides, and Tolkien notes “he could not rest” and was constantly at sea. This restlessness seems to have taken a toll—when Elwing and him must choose to be elven or human, he tells her, “‘Choose thou, for now I am weary of the world.’” His words imply he’s in a state similar to Frodo in that Middle Earth; he’s conflicted about his life, and the material world no longer brings joy to him. Thus, being removed from Middle Earth makes sense for Eärendil if he wants to find a different purpose.
Of course, neither Eärendil nor Frodo really suffer a “punishment”—in fact, leaving Middle Earth may have been better for both of them given that each became weary of their previous life. But to me their respective failures are still an important reason why they had to leave, why the “victor” couldn’t enjoy their “victory.” Though their failures are completely understandable and not the fault of either Eärendil or Frodo, they still have consequences, suggesting that moral responsibility does not shield us from the fallout of what we do. It also connects strongly back to ideas of sacrifice present in Christian traditions (we did refer to The Lord of the Rings as a “sacred history” after all). Though I wasn’t necessarily wrong to feel melancholy that Frodo and Eärendil were unable to stay in Middle Earth after saving it, the fact remains that both may actually be in a better place after leaving. Their departure from Middle Earth was a consequence of their failure, to be sure, but perhaps they both found peace afterwards.
-AS (wildcard)
4 comments:
I found this post to be very thought provoking because it truly examines what it means to be a hero. Is Frodo a hero? Is Eärendil a hero? These questions are very hard to grapple with because our natural urge is to want them to be. But upon further examination maybe they do not fit that perfect mold and that is why they get “banished” and do not get to reap the rewards of their sacrifice. As you outlined, Frodo fails to stay pure and untainted by the evil of the ring, but does this make him not a hero? This is a question I have grappled with throughout this quarter and the many discussions we have had, what actually makes a hero, and who is the hero in The Lord of the Rings? Or rather is it possible that there is no true one hero, as there is truly a collection, or a fellowship, of individuals who each bear their own unique cross, making sacrifices along the way in order to save Middle Earth? But if this is true than it does again bring into question the idea of why does Frodo in particular suffer the fate of having to leave Middle Earth and not get to experience the peace and harmony that he played a large part, likely the largest, in creating.
TJG
When I first read the ending, there were a couple more points I thought of as to why Frodo had to leave. In the Hobbit, Bilbo goes on his journey, and although very long and stressful, is not nearly as extreme as Frodo’s. Not only is Frodo’s journey significantly longer, but it’s also more perilous. This instills in Bilbo a great desire to see the world, and he finds Shire life too quaint and isolated, prompting him to leave. This is sort of paralleled in Frodo’s experience, which I’m sure played a part in his decision to leave. It’s very easy to fall out of love with a place after seeing many others.
-BTS
I found this post interesting because it made me think about some things in a different way than I had previously seen them. Oftentimes when reading a story there are different lenses to look at how to define success when the end of the story is reached. I think when I first came across The Return of the King, I was looking at the success of the overall mission and not any of the specific characters and their journeys. I always considered the idea of the journey as a whole, and because the ring was destroyed, I saw it as a success, but looking back now from the perspective of specific characters it is interesting to see their individual journeys. Looking back at Frodo’s journey it is clear that while he personally did not accomplish what he set out to do, his end goal was still accomplished. I think I put my own feelings into the characters too much and thought that because they accomplished their goal that they would be happy and content, but after reading this post and reevaluating it is interesting to look at it from a different perspective.
-RL
I am reminded of Niggle, too: he "fails" to help Parish as he feels (knows?) he should, so he ends up in the Workhouse, aka Purgatory. Tolkien was not writing hagiography, but history—and history is full of stories about failure to become saints. Perhaps this is what he is trying to show through Frodo's and Earendil's lack of "victory"? Which is, of course, a caution and reminder: only One conquered Death. RLFB
Post a Comment