free will in LotR

[Usivius]

OK, we all know how important the notion of free will is in SRD books (and many others). but I am coming across soem interesting things in LotR as I re read it for the first time since my first read over 20 years ago:

Free will is obviously important in order to properly weild power. Done. No argument. But there is an interesting moment that I have just read as the hobbits are in Rivendel at the council of Elrond with all the other big-wigs'...
The whole topic is eventually about "who do we get to go to Mount Doom and drop the One Ring in to its fires"... All the important guys seem to be pushing Frodo to do it, but in a way that is subtle. Especially when Bilbo stands up and mentions that he will do it. They tell him 'no' but hint that it should be someone who has already been touched by it, etc... (i haven't got the book in front of me...) but Elrond especially drops so many hints that Frodo should volunteer.
Now I know this is still free will, but it seems a little lik the tactics a Lord Foul would use ... prodding a person to a course ...

comments?

[High Lord Tolkien]

I think it depends on your definition of free will.
That Frodo, at anytime, COULD have said no or given up the Ring is an indication of freedom.
If he was a tool/automation of the Valar then there wouldn't have been any danger of this happening (though he might still have failed by outside means).

Gandalf hints somewhere that Frodo was "meant" to find the Ring.
But I always read it as it's almost like pieces can be put into place for things to happen (say by a higher power) but it's still up to the individual to fail or succeed.

[wayfriend]

This is one of the most re-written parts of LOTR. I believe that Tolkien strugged to strike the right cord here. Frodo needed to be the one to carry the One, but he was a weeny hobbit and there wasn't much of a practical reason that he would be chosen. So I think that the references to fate, being touched, and, earlier, of being less susceptible, arise more out of the author's need to contrive the plot than out of an attempt to say something about free will.

After all, "it's what we do with the time that is given us". It's not whether or not Frodo was doomed to carry the Ring, it's about how he carries it that in the end matters most.

[Usivius]

thanks guys.

[A Gunslinger]

This is one of the most re-written parts of LOTR. I believe that Tolkien strugged to strike the right cord here. Frodo needed to be the one to carry the One, but he was a weeny hobbit and there wasn't much of a practical reason that he would be chosen. So I think that the references to fate, being touched, and, earlier, of being less susceptible, arise more out of the author's need to contrive the plot than out of an attempt to say something about free will.

After all, "it's what we do with the time that is given us". It's not whether or not Frodo was doomed to carry the Ring, it's about how he carries it that in the end matters most.

Don't you all suppose though that Gandalf, once he realized Bilbo had puloined from Gollum, manipulated Frodo? Given their pure hearts and seeming resistance to magic, Frodo was the logical choice to carry the ring. Note that Men, given their desire for power, are always easily turned by the ring, and even Eleves are aware they cannot handle it.

The reason I suggest the manipuylation is the reaction Gandalf has in FotR when Frodo volunteers to take the ring to Mordor...a mixture of relief and terror for the hoibbit. he knew KNEW Frodod would take the burden and likely be damned for it.

[wayfriend]

The other way to look at it is that Frodo would be the least damned for it out of all the possible choices.

Is Gandalf manipulative? Hell, yeah. He was given the Ring of Fire, after all. It was his job to "kindle" the hearts of Middle Earth in order to defeat Sauron. It was NOT to defeat Sauron single-handedly. So a little manipulation is what he has to do.

[A Gunslinger]

The other way to look at it is that Frodo would be the least damned for it out of all the possible choices.

Is Gandalf manipulative? Hell, yeah. He was given the Ring of Fire, after all. It was his job to "kindle" the hearts of Middle Earth in order to defeat Sauron. It was NOT to defeat Sauron single-handedly. So a little manipulation is what he has to do.

Here's a Q.... do you think that it is possible that Gandalf might have suspected that the one ring was in the possession of gollum (or at least in the mountain) and sued the original quest with Bilbo as a means by which to root out the ring and hide it in the shire?

After really thinking about it...that is ridiculous. He'd have tried to have it destroyed immediately upon recogizing it as such. Gandalf must have thought himself a grade-a fool for not recognizing it sooner.

I do also find it interesting that Gandalf never once mentioned his regret about bringing Frodo into the ring equation at all, at least as a "man am I sorry iI used frodo", instead he seemed to regret on more than one ocassion that he had sent the physical equivalent of children into Mordor. No regret for his machinations...only that they might fail. Macho.

[Caer Bombadil]

The conflict between divine destiny or "predestination" and free will is critically important in Tolkien's Arda cycle. He made it clear that Eru intended His children be moral free agents and not forced by Himself nor any of the Ainur. Coercion and attempts to rule Eruhini by terror was the essential great crime of Melkor and Sauron.

Such phenomena as these instances of "chance" to which Gandalf constantly refers end up implementing the sovereign Will of Eru in causing a particular outcome. Random chance happpenings, minor trivial acts and omissions and decisions, clashes and interruptions of plans, and "loose ends" inthe plots of evildoers all combine and rise up at the opportune time like a "perfect storm" wave seemingly out of nowhere to defeat an evil thought to be inevitable and overwhelmingly puissant. I often refer to this phenomenon in Tolkien as "the Hand of Eru."

From their own viewpoint, the individual players make their own decisions good or bad, but when mixed together a harmony not expected in its individual parts emerges.

As Eru proclaimed to Melkor after the Music, in Ainulindale:

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove bu mine instrument in the devising of things most wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."

It does seem clear that Frodo was being prompted, but maybe not so much by Gandalf (who would never have so presumed) as by Eru Himself in Frodo's heart. As was pointed out, no one of any other race, incl. Gandalf himself, was suitable to bear the Ring. They would have attempted to claim it instead, which would have resulted in either Sauron or a new Ring-lord arising. Hobbits seemingly were custom-designed by Eru to deal with the Ruling Ring because they almost entirely lack the ambition and will to power and dominion upon which the Ring-lust could get a grip and work.

Yes, it was rough on Frodo, but perhaps one of the other three hobbits could have taken his place had he demurred. (Try to picture Pippin as Ringbearer. "Hey, guys, I'm invisible!" "Take that off, you tom-fool of a Took! This isn't a hobbit walking-party!") The necessity that some individuals basically risk and sacrifice all for the general good and the divine plan is a Christian paradox with plenty of Primary World examples. Therefore it's not surprising Tolkien would use such a figure where he must, and struggle to "hit the right note," in writing about the moment of decision.

Now in the Covenant cycle, I thought the main necessity for free will on the part of the white gold weilder was that the Creator could not insert a tool or puppet without violating the integrity of the Arch and the universe. Eru's limitation and motivation is subtly different: it is the integrity of His Children as moral free agents, not the universe Ea itself, with which He is concerned.