One Sixteenth

Evil didn't win in LotR. Mercy, compassion and pity (Good in other words) did. Gandalf foreshadowed Gollum's role in the second chapter of FotR in his discussion with Frodo, so I never felt ripped off by it.

Besides, if Frodo had simply tossed it, then wouldn't people have wondered if the whole threat was overblown? A simple Hobbit just walked up to Mount Doom and threw it in? It just doesn't add up to the power that the nearly sentient and ultra-powerful Ring was supposed to have.

I think you have it right on - the previous choices of Frodo (and Sam when he almost killed Gollum) saved Middle Earth. Would Aragorn have hesitated in killing Gollum? Legolas or Gimli? I don't think so. LotR is a great parable about how we reap what we sow; how the smallest bit of compassion can bring forth larger and better consequences.

Posted by: Mark L on February 25, 2004 04:02 PM

I've been thinking of this since yesterday. I guess it all depends on whether your definition of a hero contains the necessity of 'completes the final big bang task'. Boromir was heroic, and yet the hobbits were taken.

I haven't read the books in a while, and I'm only halfway through Fellowship. However, I thought that part of the book was the idea that each person was destined to play a part. I don't like this argument, that they were just cogs in a predestined triumph over evil. The idea of predestination seems to steal the heroism from the heroes.

I'm off to think about this some more.

Posted by: Sarah on February 26, 2004 09:08 AM

Sarah, that's part of what is bothering me. Someone else on TORN said that in LOTR you can't act outside of your nature (unless you are in the ring's grip). Well if you can't act outside of your nature, and it's the actions that you take along the way (actions that are dictated by your nature) that determine the outcome ... isn't that essentially the same as predestination? And that does take the heroism away from the heroes. I don't like it.

I've always believed in a kind of karma, and that we do reap what we sow. I am also finding that as I get older, this concept gets scarier. There's something about the way Tolkien sets it up that terrifies me. One wrong choice along the way and all of Middle-earth would have been lost. And no one had any way of knowing that so much hinged on the smaller choices. It is a great illustration of how important character is, even in the little choices in life.

But okay. So Frodo, and Sam, stayed true to their character and made the right choices, all along the way. And this set up the situation whereby the ring was destroyed, even though Frodo didn't take that final action himself. What was that final power that carried the events? Circumstance? Karma? God?

But wait, here's another wrinkle. When Gollum reappears on Mt. Doom, doesn't Frodo make an oath, while holding the ring, that if Gollum ever touches the ring (or Frodo? I don't have it in front of me and I don't remember clearly) again, he will be destroyed. I'll have to see if I can find that passage. Gollum takes the ring and is destroyed.

I do think that Frodo is a hero, and that that was decided in two places: where he realized that since the Nazgul were heading for the Shire he had to get the ring away, and more definitively at the council where he volunteered to take the ring to Mordor having very little idea of what it meant; and sticking to his decision no matter what. I don't feel ripped off by the ending any more like I did at first (Mark, I did expect Gollum to try to take the ring, but I truly was blindsided by Frodo's choice. I expected to be very difficult for him, but to never give in.).

But with Tolkien's quote about " (Frodo's actions) ... produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved ... " I'm having to reevaluate the ending. Again. LOL. Tolkien deliberately avoided putting God into these stores, but even so, did he make God responsible for this ending?

Does your brain hurt yet? Hey, have I mentioned that I'm in the middle of this philosophical kind of searching phase in general?

Posted by: Stephanie on February 26, 2004 10:21 AM

Go back to Chapter Two again (or Moria in the movie). Gandalf talks about how Bilbo and Frodo were "meant to find the Ring". Tolkien didn't have God in the story per se, but (and you've read the Silmarillion so you know this) there are divine forces in Middle Earth. So, while God didn't determine the outcome, there was a nudge.

So, I think we are left with: "How much free will is there after you are nudged along the way?"

Well, welcome to Philosophy 101 - and fortunately (or unfortunately), there's no wrong answer as long as you are logically consistent. :)

Posted by: Mark L on February 26, 2004 01:18 PM

Steph, it's amazing to think about what effects our small actions can lead to in the big picture. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of the butterfly effect. Also remember "A Sound of Thunder" or, for that matter, "It's a Wonderful Life". The little decisions we make in life can have such large repercussions. If George Bailey doesn't save his brother's life as a child, then Harry Bailey fails to save the lives of thousands of soldiers as an adult. It may not be a comforting thought if you fear making a wrong choice, but I like to think glass half-full and realize what great things can happen by just being good. Like you said, it really shows the importance of character at all times. I feel that making a wrong choice is not always something that cannot be rectified; sure we have to accept the fallout of that choice, and it may be a bad result, but I believe we do have an ability to right that wrong - to make things better. As it relates to LOTR, the wrong decision at the wrong time could have doomed Middle-Earth, but I believe other bad decisions could have been overcome. If anyone but Frodo (or I believe Sam) had been chosen as the ring-bearer at Rivendell, the quest would have failed. But if Frodo did not part with the Fellowship when he did, I think chances would have materialized to part company later. Unfortunately, we don't always know which choices we make are going to have disastrous consequences; we can only do our best. That was what Frodo did; that was his character.

Now, in the LOTR, you really have to take into account that the ring has a will of it's own. It will fight with all of it's (considerable) power to survive. Frodo's heroism is his ability to resist the ring long enough to get it to Mt. Doom. This is a ring that Gandalf and Galadriel had to refuse to even touch once for the fear that, even though their intentions would be to use it for good, in the end it would corrupt them, making them as terrible as Sauron. That Frodo could bear that burden so long and not be corrupted is a testament to his will. Obviously his decision to be merciful towards Gollum affected the outcome. In the end the will of the ring was too strong for Frodo to overcome. Was it luck that destroyed the ring? It certainly wasn't luck that allowed Gollum to be there. Was it luck or a larger force: destiny, fate, predestination, or even karma? Well, that is most definately going to come down to your own spiritual beliefs. Are there such things as luck or predestination? These are answers we must find in ourselves, and it will be different for different people.

Personally, I never even thought about any of this. I just thought 'Man that was a greast book!'. That was good enough for me. Sometimes a story can just be a story without larger philosophical ramifications. Usually, I'm just too lazy to worry about it, though. : )

Posted by: Brian on February 26, 2004 03:31 PM

Hey Steph!! I just attacked this question on my blog. Here's the excerpt:

___________________________________________

Uh-Oh.

Rats, Steph, now you've done it! You've started the Inevitable Discussion about the implicit theology contained in the Lord of the Rings.

Steph, what you may not know is that the Lord of the Rings was written by a foremost theologian of his times. J. R. R. Tolkien assisted in beginning the process that transformed the life of unbeliever C. S. Lewis (of _Lion, Witch and Wardrobe_ fame, among his theological works, of course) WAY before he even began drafting his LOTR novels.

J.R.R. Tolkien was an amazing theologian; an amazing Reformed theologian, actually, and his _Lord of the Rings_ books are his adaptation of the process of redemption by Christ.

The Ring is sin, Steph. One cannot analyze the messages implicit in the LOTR without coming to a fundamental understanding of the theology of the one who wrote them.

So, with that in mind, I will offer to you that you are now haggling over the "free will" of the process of salvation as presented by Tolkien in his stories. The question becomes: can we conquer sin on our own? Can Sauron/the ring be defeated by the will of man (Frodo), or must other forces (God, by way of using the actions of others) intervene in the deliverance?

LOTR is an amazing novel of the story of mankind's salvation, written by one of the leading theologians of all time. Everywhere you look, the novels point to God's plan for the redemption of mankind. Frodo, of course, cannot resist the Ring in the end, as can any of us. I can totally understand the frustration you felt over Frodo's desire to hold onto the Ring at the end of the story, but Tolkien's message is that not even Frodo (representing people who are otherwise "very good people") can conquer that which is irresistible (sin) all on his own, regardless of his good intentions.

For example, take the story of Joseph in the Old Testament. This story is a testimony demonstrating that even though some may mean a circumstance for evil (the brothers selling their younger brother into slavery), God can transform every iota of the circumstance into good (whereby through this sale and slavery of Joseph, God brought about the entire deliverance of the Israelites from starvation).

It is the same sort of message in LOTR. God works all things together THROUGH intervening circumstances, WITH intervening circumstances and even AGAINST intervening circumstances in order to bring about His plan. God cannot be mocked; Frodo would never have been victorious entirely on his own, for this would go against everything Tolkien was writing toward.

I hope this makes sense. I always jumble up theological arguments! :)

_________________________________________________

~k

Posted by: Kolbi on February 26, 2004 09:17 PM

Actually, it's interesting to look at the characteristics of the various characters, and see how they play out in the quest. There are four seminal characteristics that Bilbo, Frodo and Sam share, which allow them to possess the Ring without becoming possessed by it, at least not completely.

The first characteristic you have already noted: strength of character, or willpower if you prefer, allows them to make good choices, even when expedience and desire dictate a different choice. Bilbo, Frodo and Sam each have the chance to kill Gollum, and each spares him. Frodo has the chance to forego the quest and quietry retire, having had an "adventure" getting to Rivendell. Sam has the chance to turn back when he thinks Frodo dead below Cirith Ungol, and take the Ring to Gondor. Bilbo had the choice to keep the Ring after the Party. Yet each of them chose the more difficult choice, not because they preferred it, or perversely because it was difficult, but because they knew it was the morally correct choice.

The second characteristic that Bilbo, Frodo and Sam share is steadfastness, dependebility, or if you prefer stability. They are all deeply reliable, and having made a choice, will not deviate from it to the detriment of others. Ninety per cent of success is just showing up, and consistently showing up requires that steadfastness. Through great perils and nightmare stretches of mind-numbing fear, Frodo and Sam continue to simply put one foot in front of the other - sometimes beyond thought itself, simply moving - and never surrender to the temptation to give up. Bilbo was in a similar situation with Smaug, and later with the dwarves before the Battle of the Five Armies, and similarly was steadfast.

The third characteristic that Bilbo, Frodo and Sam share is comradeship, or friendship. Having committed to a relationship, whether one of blood or of trust or of love, they each would bring harm upon themselves rather than fail a companion or a loved one - or in many cases even a stranger. Each of them is there to support the others, and Sam's boundless love for Frodo in particular is key to the destruction of the Ring.

All of these toghether add up to trust, honor, will or justness, whichever you prefer to call it. And this in totality is what allows them to bear the Ring with relatively little loss of self.

Note the other characters who freely chose not to bear the Ring. Gandalf and Galadriel both knew that their attempts would end badly, because they did not have the will to have the Ring, but not use the Ring. Faramir, having been given a glimpse of what the Ring portended, pushed Frodo and Sam along as fast as possible, saying that if he saw the Ring upon the ground at the side of the path, he would not stop to pick it up for anything in the world. He knew that he did not have the characteristics to have the Ring and not be consumed. Sam, too, had a chance to use the Ring, not just to bear it, and decided that what he really wanted was a small plot of land that was his freely, not a world that was his in thrall; this too is a choice made from character.

One of the powerful things for me about the Middle Earth myth cycle is that Tolkien does not make his protagonists perfect. They are many times deeply flawed, yet their essential nature is such that they end up being more good than not, and are thus able to accomplish great deeds. In many ways, the books are a testament to the ability of an everyman to rise to a situation.

In a sense, it's not that Frodo is a hero, but that he acts heroically in a particular situation. It gives hope and encouragement that any person can be better, in time of crisis, than they would believe themselves to be.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf on February 26, 2004 09:34 PM

Whoops!

I made a mistake in my post below about Tolkien. I said he was "Reformed." Oops! That was C.S. Lewis. Tolkien was most decidedly Catholic.

And since I blabbed on forever and a day about my views, I figured I would go the internet and dig up some stuff to support my views:

______________________________________________________

This is what Tolkien had to say about his LOTR works:

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘‘religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

The above was taken from this article that I agree with in part and disagree with in part. Other excerpts include:

"Tolkien may not talk about God directly, but he does do so indirectly, in a manner consistent with an appreciation of revelation grounded in the idea of salvation history, according to which God is best revealed in and through the story. It is in terms of the grand scheme of salvation history that I will explore the theology expressed and explored by Tolkien in his fiction.

Tolkien's Catholicism has done more than simply influence his work. Tolkien's creative world is also, at one level, a sustained reflection upon the Gospel. His imaginative world grants him a certain amount of creative freedom in grappling with the theological implications of the Christian understanding of creation, incarnation, and salvation, enabling him to find new ways to think through old problems. Tolkien has tried to subject his imaginative exercise to the discipline of theological consistency. But in doing so Tolkien has been able to theologise in a novel way with benefit of a certain creative and reflective distance."

Steph, your part is discussed here:

"The relationship between human frailty and grace is clearly encapsulated in the climax of The Lord of the Rings. It is crucial to the theological logic of the story that Frodo ultimately fails in his quest. The quest succeeds, ultimately, because it is taken out of his hands.

Success, and ultimately redemption, is not the result of strength but of forgiveness. Tolkien tells us that it is ““the Pity of Bilbo and later Frodo that ultimately allows the Quest to be achieved””. Frodo and the Quest ““were saved –– by Mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.”” This is consistent with the absolute centrality of the Gospel virtue of ““forgiveness””. The consequence of our limitations and fallenness is that reliance solely upon our own merits will never be enough.

Consequently, repentance is also an important. As Richard Purtil observes, ““Choices are not irrevocable: Gollum and Saruman and Denethor are offered chances to repent and refuse, whereas Galadriel, Boromir, and Theoden, all at some point repent and change”” Tolkien does not believe in absolute evil. Nor does he believe that good intentions can ever justify the means. Even Sauron, Tolkien suggests, began with good intentions.

Freedom is an important theme in the work, but it is not for Tolkien the most important one. ““In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about ‘‘freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour.””
__________________________________________________

Furthermore, I found this other quote:

"Although Tolkien was a life-long Catholic and had no distinct conversion experience while C.S. Lewis was an atheist for 30 years before undergoing a dramatic conversion and joining the Anglican church, they both set out to ``use imaginative literature in conveying Christian truth,'' Mitchell said. ``They show us that faith is imaginatively and rationally plausible.''

The remainder can be found here.

~k

Posted by: Kolbi on February 26, 2004 09:48 PM

It is the intent that counts. The method used to acheive the goal is basically a moot point. To sucessfully complete the task is determined by many factors. None any more or less important than the constant reaffirmation of the intent of the task. Even though the process may take a different turn or end with an unimagined conclusion it never the less is a valid ending. Therefore, Frodo did the right thing according to the influence he lived under.

Posted by: Pamela on February 27, 2004 03:31 PM

Ya know, I come here for a little light reading and I get this. My brain does not work this late at night. LOL

Posted by: Susie on February 27, 2004 09:27 PM

My very quick 2 cents - I think free will exists in the sense that the characters always have the ability to choose good or evil.
However, some choices are so pivotal that they set the characters on a path which they cannot escape. Such as when Frodo offered to take the ring at the council of Elrond. Similarly, he could have chosen to let Faramir's men shoot Gollum at the falls - and if he had he ultimately would have failed in his quest.
Our choices seal our fate.
Bilbo was most likely meant to find the ring, but only Bilbo himself could decide to give it up to Frodo. If he hadn't, he might have simply become another Gollum, hiding in the wilderness, and the ring would eventually have left him and found another bearer. I think foresight (which the forces of good have) is not the same as predestination. It's that "nudge" we all get, pushing us in the right direction.

Anyway, my question has always been, what *exactly* does Frodo mean when he says, at the edge of Mount Doom, "I do not choose now to do what I came to do." Does he actually choose evil here, or does he no longer possess the ability to choose, because his will has finally been subsumed by the Ring's?

And of course these question matter! ;-)

Posted by: darby on February 29, 2004 04:02 PM

Frodo exercised free will in accepting a task that ultimately proved beyond his strength.

If you recall in FOTR, Frodo brought the Ring to the Council of Elrond for decision and then volunteered to take up the Ring again in order to destroy it. He did not have to do that nor did the Council have the right to ask it of him but when offered, they readily accepted there not being any alternatives. ( Unless you consider one of the wise - Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel, Aragorn - taking the Ring and becoming Sauron's rival and ultimately a mirror-image, an alternative)

Posted by: mark safranski on March 1, 2004 02:08 PM

Darby,

That's what I wonder too. Kolbi, it seems to me that through your interpretation, the ring is sin and therefore Frodo does not have the free will to resist it in the end; he must succumb, and can only be redeemed by God. And it seems that is what Tolkien meant, as well.

But I am haunted by Frodo's "I do not choose to do now ..." etc. Did he choose? Did what was left of his mind make a conscious decision to no longer resist the wonderful allure of power? Does Kolbi's interpretation above negate that deliberate choice? Because I'm thinking if the action is preordained, then choosing that action is not really a choice. As Mark asked, How much free will is there after you are nudged along the way?"

Okay, so, to recap:

Frodo is a hero, because of his own free will he took up the quest at the Council of Elrond, and having done so never strayed from it. Along the way he also chose to exercise patience, and mercy, and trust, and by these choices he set up a situation whereby the Ring was destroyed ... even though he chose to not destroy it in the end. Because of all of his other actions, his ultimate choice to keep the Ring did not matter (except, presumably, to his soul). "The quest succeeds, ultimately, because it was taken out of his hands."

I like to think that his free will was not utterly vanquished in the end, though it seems to make no practical difference. Nor does it seem to be important to Tolkien. Just to me. But I am not a Christian, so maybe that is an irrevocable stumbling block to accepting the idea that Frodo had to give in. I am, after all, looking at this from a pagan point of view.

Got any good philosophy books to recommend, Mark? I think it's time I did some reading.

Jeff ... you said that it's not that Frodo is a hero, but that he acted heroically in a particular situation. Well, if you do that ... aren't you a hero?

Brian ... you think too much to pretend that you don't think.

Posted by: Stephanie on March 2, 2004 01:33 AM

In an earlier draft, interstingly, Tolkien considered having Gollum seize the Ring and then throw himself into the Crack of Doom, realising that that was the only we he could keep it from Sauron.
In the final version, perhaps it is Smeagol's lust for the Ring (along with Frodo being taken aback by a sudden attack) that gave him the strength of will to overcome Frodo's power over him as Master of the Ring.

I have recently finished reading "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien", and they give a lot of insight into his thinking.
The Christian element is clearly of enormous importance, as other posters have mentioned: the burden to heavy to be borne but too dear to be cast aside without the aid of Providential intervention; the value of mercy and compassion and unselfishness in intention; the importance of Frodo's steadfastness as long as it does remain within his capacity, but his lack of fault once his limits are exceeded; the will that aims at evil but achieves good.

Also, I think Tolkein's loathing of some aspects of "modernity" that is expressed in his letters has to be considered. There are interesting comments on his moral distaste for the use of mechanised destruction by both sides during the First and Second World Wars. Also his remark in the preface to LOTR that had the WOTR paraelled WW2 the Ring would have been taken and used.

The difference between the contemporary world and Middle-Earth was that the Ring was far more evidently and explicitly (but perhaps not inherently?) corrupting than mundane technology and dominion. So a WW2 style victory through the arts of the Enemy, as proposed by Saruman, would have been a catastrophe in very short order, as Saruman's own fate makes explicit. Apparently the taking of the Ring by any of those other than Sauron with the stature to wield it would have been worse than Sauron's victory (in one letter Tolkien state that it being taken up by Gandalf would have been the worst catastrophe of all.)

Tolkein plainly hated machine-based, power-hungry, ends oriented aspects of society, and the Ring was in part a symbol of both "technology" (in an elvish/ainur mode) "will-to-power" and deceitfulness (invisibility in part symbolising this aspect of deception?).

Thus the Hobbits, who were little concerned with either, had much greater capacity to withstand it's temptation than those of greater personal might and knowledge, such as Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Aragorn, Saruman, Faramir.

The only person in LOTR even less susceptible, to the point of absolute immunity, is Tom Bombadil. And Tolkein in his letters touches on the reason: Bombadil was by nature a being of great power and knowledge, but completely unintersted in power over others for it's own sake, or knowledge as a means of power over the material world.
The analogy Tolkein uses, IIRC, is with a disinterested observerational scientist (like an astronomer, or a nautural historian).

In part it is perhaps Frodo's exposure to such knowledge of power and will that make him so reluctant to use it (in the Scouring of the Shire), and, along with his injuries and loss, eventually unable to endure life in the Shire in peace.

Another interesting point is that Tolkien says that he did not consider Hobbits as particularly admirable. Or at least, their virtues where the other side of their vices.
Rather they were self-satisfied and smug, frivolous, complacent, ignorant, parochial, and without much aesthetic sense or capacity (a caricature of a certain type of English contryman, perhaps).

Tolkein also says that Sam had certain of these characteristics, redeemed by his sense of wonder (especially regarding the elves), desire to learn, and heroic devotion to Frodo. And arguably even Sam (and Merry and Pippin) become to some degree, though far less than Frodo (or even Bilbo) outsiders in the Shire after there experiences. Merry and Pippin end their days in the southern kingdoms, and Sam, after the death of his wife, takes the elven ship to the West.

Frodo and Bilbo are notably atypical Hobbits; there is enough Hobbit in them to reduce the temptation of power, but enough difference that they should accept such a burden in the first place.

It is a very interesting aspect of LOTR is that for many of the characters, victory is partial or tragic.
Nothing can prevent the passing of so much of the old world from the dominion of men. I suspect Tolkein viewed this from one tradition in Christian historiography; the inevitable and increasing corrupt nature until God intervenes again. He refers to this I think, when he uses the same words as those he gives to Galadriel: "the long defeat."

Posted by: John Farren on March 2, 2004 09:53 AM

Jeff ... you said that it's not that Frodo is a hero, but that he acted heroically in a particular situation. Well, if you do that ... aren't you a hero?
My point was that heroism is something that we put on a pedestal, beyond our reach, subject only to our admiration. In actuality, being a hero is not a full-time job; it's something that happens when you act rightly in a situation where no one would blame you for not doing so. This comes out so well in Frodo's case, that I thought it would be a shame to pass it over. Frodo's heroism is not of the cartoon kind, but of the human kind: forced by the necessity of the situation to act, given every excuse to fail honorably, he nevertheless persisted at great cost.

Yes, he's a hero.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf on March 3, 2004 04:19 PM

Jeff, you've got a really good point there. It's like most historical or fantasy novels - they have a young hero who berates himself for not being brave, only to learn that everyone but fools are frightened and that bravery is acting despite the fear. In the same way, I wonder if the message of LOTR could be that everyone has the seven sins, and it's only the concious decision to employ virtues that separates a hero from a villian. In other words, the important difference between Baromir and Frodo, say, is the choice one makes to pursue a virtuous response. Don't know if those are the two best characters for my theory, but I'll just throw that out there and see what you all think.

Posted by: Sarah on March 8, 2004 02:58 PM

While I may have the minority view, when I first read the books I believed that I was reading a comng of age book. Frodo, a halfling (adolescent male) makes a decision contrary to majority opinion for himself to keep the ring and thus proves his maleness. He escapes the fate of Isuldur's descendants who have over the years been taught to be unisexual, powerless, and easy prey to homosexual seducers (Legolas). In case anybody missed the point the reforging of the sword is phallic symbolism to underscore the Return of the King. In the end Frodo decides not to put on a dress, and the trilogy is called the "Lord of the Rings" and not "The Destroyer of the Ring" or something like that. Like the Wachovia brothers, Tolkien could deny all of this as nonsense and affirm the obvious moral themes.

Posted by: Bilbo on October 14, 2004 06:28 PM

In case you're still not seeing it:

Fellowship of the Ring = bachelor party
Two Towers = societal male slur "Big Head" and "Little Head"
Trek to Mount Doom = men walking down matrimonial aisle to pitch their nuts in, men become ruled by one ring in marriage and serve under evil eye of watchful women
Gollum = "jodies", suck-up rejects who steal girlfriends while their boyfriends are away

In the end Gollum marries the witch and burns in the fires of Mount Doom - a fitting end - and Frodo returns to pimpin' lifestyle with his buds.

Posted by: Bilbo on October 14, 2004 07:07 PM

Well, Bilbo, that's certainly an interesting interpretation you have there. I think I did a reading of "Heart of Darkness" like that for a college paper.

Being a married woman myself, as well as a person who has studied Freud in some depth, I'm just going to back away slowly now ...

Posted by: Stephanie on October 14, 2004 07:34 PM

.

Posted by: mp3 on November 7, 2004 12:33 PM

lol Freud didn't understand women. fyi I received some suggested changes, including names so even if you don't agree, you must admit that it's a great way to tell a life story and not bore anyone

Two Towers - choice of married life, choice of academic life
Frodo = Dodo (a half-wit aka a younger Tolkien)
Sauron = Sharon, who was pregnant unk/father
Gollum = Willem
Sam = Tom
Sarumen = Solomon

...and yes Tolkien must have been quite a stud before he was married - his recipe to be as cocky as an elf and jolly as a dwarf to score is right on the mark - and just under the radar of a virtuous institution to escape censure.

Posted by: Bilbo on November 8, 2004 05:57 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?