Leave me your Q&A questions down below! I've always loved looking into these elements of Tolkien's thinking. AND remember 1 new patron each month will win a free paperback signed copy of On Writing and Worldbuilding, so come say hi and join the community :D www.patreon.com/hellofutureme Stay nerdy! ~ Tim
What are your thoughts on how Tolkien's military service affected what he wrote and the affect of PTSD on Frodo. I know Tolkien said the war wasn't a base for the trilogy but it Sure as hell coloured it. For example the end scene in the return of the king at the Green dragon with the four hobbits all siting at the table together and yet alone kinda kills me (In the movie I still need to read the last book.).
"Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check. But that is not what I have found. I have found it is the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk, that keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love."
Additional reason for tears of joy: the leitmotif of Valinor (Into the West) swells in this moment, showing that the Valar are focused in like a laser on what's happening. The Gods have not abandoned the world after all!
I never understood this. Sam clearly has a resistance to the ring and if hobbits have a natural resistance anyway, why CAN'T Sam carry the ring for Frodo?
@@WobblesandBean Mostly because it would break Frodo, at that time, sure, Sam probably did have the will to resist it, although it is quite possible that he didn't, since the rings effects seem to grow stronger as it nears Mordor. But Frodo would never have given up the ring willingly, and Sam was never going to violently take it from him, which means that he could not carry the ring (for Frodo).
@@DutchDread I suppose not, but st the very start of their journey, I don't see why he couldn't have. Samwise really didn't get the recognition he deserved, he saved Middle Earth just as much as Frodo; arguably moreso. He should have been offered a place in Valinor, too.
"I can't recall the taste of food, nor the sound of water, nor the touch of grass. I'm naked in the dark. There's nothing--no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I can see him with my waking eyes." God how I love Tolkien
The quote in the book is somewhat different: "No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.’"
"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?" Love this quote that has even more meaning when you consider the final act.
I think that Tolkien and Lewis diverged when it came to the Paragon. While both refrained from imposing said archetype on their protagonist, Lewis was perfectly willing to do so with an allegory of God. Lewis's idea of God was that of a deeply personal being, something he could fashion into an allegorical character. Tolkien on the other hand saw God as a more hidden and unknowable force, not something that could be represented by any character.
It's a very interesting contrast, because in Christianity there is an element of both, in that God is both a deeply personal being and also a hidden and unknowable force, to varying degrees.
I wonder if it has something to do with C.S. Lewis being a protestant and Tolkein being a Catholic... I believe historically Catholics held up the deep transcendence/unknowability/mysticism of God. I believe Protestants hold the idea of casual yet loving friendship with God as though God directly talks to us ("God told me to tell you..."). Not sure but maybe?
Tolkien was a devout Catholic, hence he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I don’t know how you could get a more personal notion about God than that! Unless it were if God entered into the world to experience it as one of us, and that was the God I think Lewis wrote about, the one (and the same) we are more able to relate to. But even there, the magnitude, majesty, etc., can only be hinted at, much like some of Tolkien’s characters do, too, though, especially in The Silmarillion, and even in the character of Illuvatar.
I'm all for erudite discussions of various story elements, but ... Let us just consider for a moment, that when Frodo puts on the Ring at Sammath Naur, right at the very edge of the fire that could destroy it, Sauron becomes instantly aware of its location. We know that. This is nothing new. Now just take a moment to consider how much Sauron filled his shorts at that precise instance. In seconds, he goes from having his enemy exactly where he wants him, outnumbered and about to be slaughtered in front of Morannon, to having the very thread of his life dangling over the fire. I like to think that even the powerful and deep-minded Sauron suddenly lost his shit, ran across his throne room, slipping and tripping as he did so, then upon reaching the window, shouted, "Everyone! That way, right F&*king now!"
I know this is 10 months later but here's the passage when that exact thing happens: And far away, as Frodo put on the Ring and claimed it for his own, even in Sammath Naur the very heart of his realm, the Power in Barad-dûr was shaken, and the Tower trembled from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown. The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were at last laid bare. Then his wrath blazed in consuming flame, but his fear rose like a vast black smoke to choke him. For he knew his deadly peril and the thread upon which his doom now hung. From all his policies and webs of fear and treachery, from all his stratagems and wars his mind shook free; and throughout his realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, and his captains suddenly steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired. For they were forgotten. The whole mind and purpose of the Power that wielded them was now bent with overwhelming force upon the Mountain. At his summons, wheeling with a rending cry, in a last desperate race there flew, faster than the winds, the Nazgûl the Ringwraiths, and with a storm of wings they hurtled southwards to Mount Doom.
We see this in the movie, too. Right when Frodo puts on the Ring in the Crack of Doom, the Eye of Sauron was originally focused on the battle at the Black Gates. Then the Eye widens in shock, and looks immediately to Sammath Naur, and the Ringwraiths immediately pulled from the battle and beelines for Mount Doom. Like Sauron realized "My Ring is THERE!"
5:34 But the destruction of the Ring was only possible because Frodo brought it all the way to Sammath Naur. So maybe it should say: "Evil will always destroy itself, *as long as the Forces of Good fight it as far as their can.* "
I mean, that is Tolkien's whole point about the struggle against reaching your absolute limitations. He believes that good men will always come forth to resist evil, but it is within ourselves to overcome our more selfish natures to help in that resistance. It is only through that resistance, no matter how long and hard it is, that evil will be overcome by it destroying itself.
That's because he himself outright stated his religion did not have a part in his books, they were based more or less on Nordic and Germanic mythology, a lot of the things people attribute to Christianity like the idea of forgiveness being given and taken freely, for example, can be found in most religions.
@@hyperion3145 No, he said it was not Allegorical. That's not the same as saying the values and lessons aren't transferable, applicable, or any less relatable. The Murder of Deagol against Smeagol or the first kin slaying of Aqualonde isn't an allegory for Cain And Abel. However, the values and lessons to be taken away are most certainly Judeo/Christian. He wrote his values (which were Judeo/Christian) through stories that aren't side to side direct bible references. Tolkien understood that enlightenment is impossible without a Mythological background where narrative and history meet.
@@hyperion3145 Tolkien himself said otherwise in one his letters... "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."
One thing I always found interesting about the One Ring's destruction is how it doesn't come out of nowhere - back in the Two Towers, Smeagol swore by the Precious despite Frodo's warning that the Ring would hold him to that promise. Later, Frodo warned Gollum that he would never get the Precious - that, if it came to it, Frodo would use the Ring to command Gollum, and Gollum would have to obey, even if he was told to leap from a precipice or cast himself into the fire "and such would be my command". So, however unintentionally, Gollum follows Frodo's implied command and leaps from a precipice, casting himself into the fire...
Pretty much my thought. As Galadrial told Frodo, "you've never tried" that is to say tried to weild the power in the ring (which includes great power over others, power to command, etc.) In the taming of Smeagol, Frodo had his greatest motivation/cause to apply the power of the ring - keeping Gollum from re-taking it, and it worked did it not? Gollum even held to it, although he thought he had a surefire loophole with Shelob. The failure of that plan and the realization (Sam deduced this himself earlier) that Frodo was going to destroy it brought out the Stinker, as Sam called him. The ring itself seemed caught in the dillemma itself at the end, on one hand (literally, ha ha) it was eager to dominate Frodo, but the power of Frodo's curse on Gollum still remained. And that curse took effect as soon as Gollum took the ring. If it was anyone else (except maybe Tom Bombadil), then the quest would have failed. idk why, but I just can't picture Bombadil riding an eagle. It's an earth thing or something.
He never, as Gollum himself would say. He never swore any oath, merely made a meaningless promise. It would be good for someone to subject this very strange scene to a detailed critique. Because it might appear that The Ring destroyed Itself to fulfill the oath that Gollum never actually swore.
@@alanpennie8013 If one can quibble that, then they can quibble anything. To a person who can be characterized as an oathkeeper, it is enough for that person to say "I will do this or that." To an oathbreaker, any and all words may be false, no matter how sincere or carefully worded they appear.
@@semperintrepidus16 It seems to me it's you who's quibbling. I don't understand this scene of Gollum not swearing an oath and I'd be interested in a detailed analysis by someone.
@@alanpennie8013 clarrification: I've used the word quibble in its traditional meaning. It refers to someone trying to evade a greater issue by use of minor irrelevancies. I think you took it as the dumbed down version which is more akin to squabbling. As for the ring and who wields it, we're all speculating here to some degree. The ring is full of malice. It has a will of its own, borne of that malice, but it's still an inanimate physical object. It's a tool, and the real power is how it is used and by whom. I don't think the ring could sense it's own destruction any more than it's maker could anticipate than anyone would seek that end. Who, but Isildur, ever came so close? and he failed. So maybe the real important questions are, who does the ring obey? Is such a thing on its own mightier than the he who bears it? I like to think that the Ring>Smeagol>Frodo interplay is a masterful case of good defeating an evil that seems invincible. Tolkien writes about other powers at work. Something at work in Frodo led to the curse he proclaimed while at the same time he demonstrated mercy. That curse was the ring's undoing, but Frodo's pity made it possible. Sam is the one who saw things clear enough all along. Thankfully, his loyalty to Frodo had no rival. That loyalty even proved stronger than the ring itself. Gollum was malicious indeed, but look how long he was tamed by Frodo. Who among the fellowship would have believed it? (maybe Legolas, idk) For all the ring knew, here were two recent bearers returning the precious to it's maker and rightful owner. But Frodo, more than any, was really most underestimated and maybe still is. He indeed struggled with the ring, but when he declared his curse, it was irrelevent whether Smeagol/Gollum agreed or not, promised or not except that for a time, Smeagol experienced a little taste of freedom from the ring.
Nice analysis. The only thing I would add to your discussion of the grace aspect is Tolkien’s idea of “eucatastrophe” and how that plays into the Crack of Doom scene. Specifically, in one of his letters (don’t remember the number off-hand), Tolkien explicitly attributes the success of the quest to supernatural grace, pointing out that not only could Frodo not have succeeded in his own merit, but in fact no one could have, and his real job was to do as much as he could and let grace make up the difference, in this case through Gollum’s accidental self-destruction.
Which reminds me of the book of revelations where it says that Not even the most just could withstand evil - permit me to paraphrase - and would fall and fail - but that Jesus would wash away all sins in the end.
Joshua Scott: Tolkien doesn't say that. He says that Frodo couldn't destroy the Ring _in the state that he was in._ This was after Frodo used his last strength against Gollum, AND used the Ring's power against Gollum to command him cast into the fire. So Gollum's destruction was no accident "Disney Villain Death," but Tolkien simply didn't want an allegorical "Bridge of Death" scene.
When I'm working, I like to 'watch' videos on youtube like podcasts, just listening to them from an nonactive tab. That scared the shit of me. Not cool, dude! (like, really, don't do that)
Yeah I had to skip that one scene as well. :P It got me this time, because the video was playing on my second screen, and my attention was split between it and something else.
I know I’m late to the party, but I just wanted to say how much I truly appreciate this video. As a Catholic and Lord of the Rings fan myself, I thought your video touched closer to the heart of the story than any other interpretation. Please never take down this video, as I will be watching it for decades to come. Thank you so much, I got goosebumps and may have shed a tear or two. Absolutely phenomenal work! You’re fantastic!
The end of The Return Of The King was the most extraordinary piece of art I've ever seen. It surpassed opera, painting, music, etc. I've never seen anything like it. It's like an opera of Wagner but 10000 times better. But the thing is that it's beyond the artistic quality. It's above all full of meaning and philosophy. Like Sam said, it's a simple story that remains with you and means something. So simple, yet so deep.
You can not really explain it. It something that goes beyond everything else in entertainment history. Those three movies will always be my favourite ones. I can watch them countless times without ever getting bored.
The book is better ! I loved the books they had a lot of meaning for me . I was suffering through heroin addiction and the ring symbolized that horrible addiction. I felt like Frodo battling the powers of the ring to keep his soul was so much like my struggle . How heavy , dark and soul crushing it was . And the farther I carried it the heavier it got. It gave me hope that love could set me free as well . I wonder deeply if Tolkien ever witnessed opiate addiction in the war. It seems very similar to Frodo’s addiction to the ring. And how it slowly sucks away your soul and takes your will and ability to see the worlds beauty.
Thank you for this! I've always felt very strongly about Lord of the Rings (admittedly through film before book) and this is one of the many subtleties that are harder to name for yourself in loving this masterpiece. I am not Catholic, or religious in any name, but the message and themes still hit home and leave such a lasting impression. George RR Martin criticizes the tropes and idealism of Tolkien's work, which inspired his cynical exploration on the evils of mankind in A Song of Ice and Fire, but I believe that Tolkien does a far superior job of demonstrating the evil within us all. The biggest difference: Tolkien wants us all to stand against that evil to the bitter end (despite the inevitable failure amid most dire circumstances) while Martin just leans into it with the face of "realism." Every Fellowship Member's journey, failure, and accomplishments are so genuinely real and apparent in the world around us--from Boromir's temptation to Sam's championing of Good--that ignoring them for "realism" is ironically unrealistic. People can be evil and cowardly, but also good and just. Idealism and realism are not mutually exclusive, and that is why I believe Lord of the Rings will forever remain the gold standard in literature while A Song of Ice and Fire will remain popular but not nearly as important.
His intention is to show that one cannot overcome sin themselves but require the grace of God to do so. Because Frodo and Sam did not give in to sin and overcame the hardest commandment to love their enemy by expressing mercy through not killing Gollum they were able to destroy the ring with Gollum as an agent of God’s Grace.
I thought wisecrack had some insightful ideas, but I actually lol'd when they started dancing around the whole religion topic... Guys, we all know what you mean, it's okay to talk about it
It doesn't invalidate them, but it gives a reason for why they would want to downplay or ignore any Christian themes. If you weren't aware, both communists and jews hate Christianity with a serious passion.
I believe the technical term for the allegory-lite which Tolkien embraced is "applicability". The story isn't set up to be one specific thing with one explicit message, but a collection of things with a variety of messages. A World War 1 veteran could see their own experiences reflected in LotR, but so could a WW2 vet or a Korean War vet or an Iraq War vet. However, none of them are likely to see their own experiences reflected in _Animal Farm,_ which is too specifically based on the conflicts which wracked the Soviet Union.
His primary beef with allegory was that "experts," would pull out the metaphor, say "this is what the story is about," and then presume the literal meanings of the words on the page to be meaningless. Treating the story itself as a mere wrapper to be discarded once it has been opened up to reveal the true meaning... Tolkien rightly hated that school of analysis and thus avoided allegory as much as possible.
This is also shown with Saruman. Which I wish you would do a video on his corruption, fall and diminishing to petty vindictiveness in his final end in the shire.
I agree! I was just discussing it with my sisters about it and we were wondering how and when exactly did he betray his office. I didn’t like the hobbit movies, but it was interesting to see how far back Saruman’s betrayal went if the movies were accurate in that regard. I didn’t know this before seeing the movie and I have not read every book either so it would be nice to know!
@@lexinoel7 Well in the books he did about a few decades before the Hobbit as since he landed he grew gradually more and more resentful and jealous of gandalf as upon landing at the Grey havens Cirdain the Shipwright(a high elf) gave Gandalf the ring of fire(one of the three elven rings) instead of Saruman, then Galadriel wanted Gandalf to be head of the Council instead of Saruman. He also began wanting the ring for himself to overthrow and replace Sauron himself. In the films they changed this to him turning after the Hobbit which i was actually happy about because Sir Christopher Lee(the actor who played Saruman) wanted to play gandalf and was very tired of always playing villains so one of his last roles he got to play Saruman when he was still a good guy and it made Lee exceedingly happy.
@@grandadmiralzaarin4962 It's been a while since I read those books but I seem to remember the deal was that Saruman was not called The White for nothing, he was exceedingly virtuous which makes his fall all the more tragic, especially since it was only an error of judgment that caused him to fall (he thought he could resist the influence of Sauron's evil texts and learn something from them that could defeat Sauron, and probably had much more resistance than Gandalf but still not enough).
So I do not know if you will read this far back. But this video hit me where I needed to hear. In summary, I had my own Mt. Doom moment. 13 years ago I had to make the choice to go home from basic training, and thus failing a dream of mine. This haunted me for 13 years. But watching LOTRs and wondering what people thought of Frodo's failure lead me to this video. At basic training, I faced the doctor, there I was broken, back was hurting, emotionally in despair and self-doubt, and I was afraid. There in that room I was asked "do you want to go home". Faced with a choice that will forever affect my life. There, it wasnt my physical self nor my intellectual. It was my heart and what will I do. I said yes and made the choice under the guise of not hurting myself further. Retreating. I failed, I could not physically complete the task, and thus it made me doubt myself and my very soul. I carried this burden since then, guilt, shame, lost of honor. But this scene in LOTR spoke to me. I came to realize at least in part, I failed as a warrior yes, but did I fail my soul. In that I did not, I kept fighting to succeed in life, and more importantly, it wasn't a failure of my moral character. I hope this came out clear. However, pointing me towards this realization might have finally allowed me to accept it and more importantly accept I am also still me. Thank you.
“The Road goes ever on and on / Down from the door where it began. / Now far ahead the Road has gone, / And I must follow, if I can.” - The Fellowship of the Ring. "if you can," and you physically could not, and that's ok cause the world will go on and other roads will disappear and a new road will appear. Hope this helps you heal.
Yes... LOTR doesn't really have that happyend that so many people think and say it has. First reading appeared to me as happyend, but with second I could feel the sadness... Tolkien is great also because he doesn't say "this is sad, you should feel like it", but you feel it in your heart (not only the ending, but also do many times in the middle of the story or in the begining)
I don't really comment on videos, but thank you for making me stop and think about the structure of LOTR and also the story telling beats in a way that I haven't approached and appreciated before. Have my likes sir, out of cookies at the moment.
This video truly explains that iconic scene from the masterpiece that is The Lord of the Rings so perfectly. And it truly delves so deep into what Tolkien believed. One of the many reasons why I love Tolkien's works and the incredible world he created is just the utter deepness of it. Even things that may see so subtle and insignificant in his narrative turn out to actually be so deep and complex and meaningful. Ya know, I feel like one of the greatest misconceptions on Tolkien himself and his work is that it's a "generic battle between the forces of good and evil". But this is just utterly false in my eyes, and this video explains why in the most perfect manner!!! :)
When I first read LOTR as a kid, I think one of the things that I really enjoyed about it were the subtleties. Tolkien was great at hinting at things, but leaving the rest for you to guess at or interpret for yourself.
@@lukeskywalkerthe2nd773 An example of that is the distrust and outright discrimination between the Elves and the Dwarves. Tolkien makes it clear that they dislike each other (even though they were willing to work together), but in LOTR itself he doesn't get into why.
Another interesting perspective was Gollum's promise to Frodo at the very beginning. Gollum swears to serve Frodo "on the precious", despite Frodo's warning that it is treacherous and will hold him to his word, tying into the theme of good and evil. Gollum performs a moral act (assisting Frodo) at a point where he seems to act genuinely on behalf of his good nature. Eventually, his harsh experience at Ithilien tips him over to evil and brings him to betray Frodo. That moral failure of Gollum is very parallel to Frodo's and they both end up "failing" *together*. At the end, it can be seen as though the ring indeed holds him to his word and betrays Gollum to both their ends. And so it is, that it's not only in his guiding the hobbits, but also in his word of good faith that Gollum ultimately brings to the end of the ring.
I was thinking about that when I was watching this video. I can't blame WiseCrack, to read those paragraphs that are core to an institution that with the power it gathered through the ages to evil and sin (hate, lust, greed, to name a few) made myself have unsavory memories of my rising. That said, I still call myself a catholic and I don't blame the religion nor Tolkien for the wrongdoings of the institution. (It's funny just what I wrote has reference to what happened to the bearers of the Ring)
RCs do love to push it. What is noticeable in Tolkien’s work is the almost complete lack of organised religion and how Illuvatar does not require worship.
@@SvenTviking I understand your confusion, but Catholics do not believe that God requires worship. Rather, worship is something we do for ourselves, not because God needs our thanks, but because after all he has done for us it would be wrong not to thank him. He doesn't care that we thank him, nor punish us if we don't, but to lead a life so filled with pride and lacking in charity as to begrudge your creator of taking the time to thank him is a sign of deeper problems in the soul, which may well be the cause of our damnation.
@@Matthew-of9sp For your message to be understood, you need to speak the words the person you speak to can understand as you understand them. With love ❤️
Thank you for this! Just the other day I got involved in an argument where someone said Tolkien's treatment of morality was too simplistic because his villains are all evil orcs & dark lords, etc., unlike Game of Thrones where the characters are more morally gray. I argued at the time that Tolkien's moral views are just as complex & profound, if not even more so, but that he was just telling a different sort of story than George R.R. Martin. However, I was finding it hard to really explain exactly what I meant by that. I feel like this video expresses a lot of what I wanted to say at the time but couldn't think of. Frodo's failure to destroy the Ring is one of the biggest WTF moments I've ever experienced in any story, and it's so amazingly brilliant. Next time someone says that Tolkien's characters are too morally simplistic, I'm just going to point to that scene and leave it there.
Having read four of Martin's books I would have to question if moral greyness is somehow more complex than saying that some people are better than others. It seems like such a childish view, that if something is bad or uncomfortable it must be more mature. Thing is, you don't often see people embracing this philosophy, trying to always discomfort themselves to be more "adult". No, instead they act like everyone else, trying to maximize comfort and saying that their views are right. Tolkien at least wants us to struggle to be good, whereas Martin seems to be of the opinion that we might as well turn into a pedophile pimp it all doesn't matter in the end.
@@adams13245 Are you sure you read them? The characters are constantly questionning themselves if they should do what they are doing. Even Cersei, arguably the most evil pov in the serie, gets inconfortable when torturing/seeing someone tortured. Characters like Theon or Jaime experience regret for things they have done in the past, characters like Tyrion do what they consider the good decision even if it opposes the wish of their family, Daenerys realizes she might have done more wrong than good by freeying all slaves and close combat arena, because now she has to do with a economical crisis, which leads to wars and murder by the Son of the Harper. She now understand that she has to make compromise to eventually reach these goals. All that to say that I don't understand how it encourage to be pedophile...
It's complex, but still black and white. Frodo is white, he WANTS to do good, and does, until at the end he fails. Martin's characters, on the other hand, are much more like real life. There are some who are almost white or black, but most are gray.
@@edgepixel8467 Personally I love both Lord of the Rings and... well, I'm not sure I *love* Game of Thrones, but I do enjoy it quite a bit. I'll certainly agree that Tolkien's characters do tend to lean more clearly to either the black or white side of the moral spectrum (with some exceptions like Gollum, or Feanor in the Silmarillion), while Martin's characters generally tend to fall somewhere in the middle (with exceptions like Brienne on the pure side, and Joffrey & Ramsay on the monstrous side). I only take issue with the implication that, because Tolkien has fewer truly gray characters, that therefore makes Tolkien's stories "less complex" or "less mature." To me, that's a very simple-minded and frankly kind of childish argument (and usually made by people who like to think of themselves as very un-childish). The stories are just two different treatments of morality and humanity, that's all. You could say it's like abstraction vs. realism in art. Tolkien is looking at morality through a somewhat more abstracted lens, while Martin is attempting to depict his world more through a lens of stark realism. Neither approach is objectively more or less valuable than the other (regardless of what you personally might find more enjoyable). Both can be equally challenging and complex, and both have the ability to reveal truths about ourselves and the world: Tolkien's approach can reveal & explore things in ways that Martin's approach can't, and vice versa.
Sauron was a charming bastard that convinced Numenor to wage war on the gods, and Numenor were the descendants of men that got rewarded for standing against evil. Also, one of the reasons Sauron gets so much men to follow him is that Numenoreans were notable assholes to what they considered lesser men. Also, Sauron plays on the elves' fear of change to make the rings. It's pretty morally grey. The problem is, by the point Lotr starts, Sauron has done so much evil that he can't fool anyone into thinking he's good (and he still makes Saruman fall by playing to his pride). Song of Ice and Fire has the White Walkers who are pure evil (or at least strictly antilife), but the story starts a while before they become the main threat. The only thing I wish Tolkien had addressed was Orcs being all evil, but it was even mentioned that some of the smallest orcs were slaves ruled by fear.
I always interpreted the scene to mean you can't do it alone. Frodo could never have gotten to the Crack of Doom without Sam, and could never have destroyed the Ring without Gollum. It was Frodo and Sam who got to the place where all it took was Gollum intervening to destroy the Ring. So evil destroys itself, but good has to push it to the point where it will.
I don't think that Tolkien was implying that Good depends on Evil to destroy itself but rather that Eru Illuvatar chooses to do it that way to amplify the triumph of Good Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will now show forth, that ye may 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 but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined. - Silmarillion Ultimately, God triumphs even if his vassals fail.
Chow Yee Lee I was actually going to comment something very similar to what you have just said thank you for saying what needed to be said! I agree completely! Since Tolkien was a Christian his worldview influenced his work.
I don't think the two views are separate - you are totally right that he saw Eru's plan as final, but within the scene, the nature of evil is self destructive. ~ Tim
@@HelloFutureMe Agreed. I guess to push the matter further would be to confront the very nature of omniscience and omnipotence, probably the heaviest of all theological subjects.
@@HelloFutureMe Perhaps self-limiting would be a better way of putting it. To combine the two views you might say that attempts to defy Eru's/ God's will originate from a will to destroy that inevitably consumes itself before that evil intent can do any more than serve the divine plan it sought to disrupt. It's an interesting take on the problem of evil that is in dramatic tension with story the audience sees, are we meant to take the sacrifices of the heroes and the costs inflicted upon them and the many innocents they fail to protect while evil burns itself out as the "devising of things more wonderful"? Perhaps from Eru's perspective but only if he cares less for the characters in drama unfolding than we, the readers, do. Edit: I just remembered what this reminds me of, brewing beer! The yeast that creates the alcohol is self-limiting in a similar way to that described above. The more the yeast uses sugar to grow and spread the more alcoholic the beer gets until the alcohol content becomes too high for the yeast to survive, stopping the process. I wonder if Tolken had any interest in brewing because the parallel is quite nice, even resulting in the creation of "things more wonderful" if you are a fan of beer.
@@dcnockels notably the greatest failiures come when men and elves seek to go against the will of Illuvatar. The Rings of power for example were created so the elves could go against the nature of middle earth by not fading and look what happened then... but it also resulted in beautiful holy things like Lorien. Or when Ar Pharazon rejected the Gift of Men and tried to seize Valinor to be immortal but the survivors did tremendously heroic deeds and defeated Sauron. Why did Eru allow Melkor to poison Arda itself? Maybe because that struggle matured the Children of Illuvatar in a way they could never have gained otherwise (third theme). And yes, on an individual level it brought suffering but after death the children were hallowed either in body (elves) or soul (men) for eternity.
Nah great fate defining battles were a thing before tolkien was writing, ask the norse about their religion or read The Worm Ouroboros both were among his inspirations I believe. He revolutionised genre and made it what it was to be for quite a while, but he did not literally create it.
I have read the books and watched the movies (including the extended version), but Lord of the Rings reveals more depth and fascination the older I become and the more I learn. Tolkien was a literary genius for the ages. After watching this video, I have to go see the movies all over again. No complaints! XD
I've been reading these stories for nearly 40 years and every time I read them I find some subtle detail I've missed. This is a masterpiece of heroism in the face of near certain failure. But, despite that near certainty, they continue with no expectation that they will succeed or that their effort will even be remembered. One line that has always hit me emotionally (yet was unfortunately left out of the movies) is the scene at the opening of the chapter "Lothlorien". Aragon, lamenting the loss of Gandalf in the mines of Moria and says ".... Gandalf, you were our only hope.... We must continue without hope". Heart breaking.
Good analysis. Well presented. The Catholic concept you are looking for (for that mysterious connection between people's free-will and God's sovereignty over everything) is called 'Divine Providence'.
@@edgepixel8467 No, I don't mean impossibility. If you think it is impossible, then you have to deny one of the two: either the freedom of people or the almighty powers if God. No serious theologian denies either one of them.
Diego Mercier This is why I don't agree with theologians. The two can't be made compatible, not in a comprehensible, logical manner. Saying "God can do it, because He's so special, we just can't understand how" isn't solving the paradox. Hence I call it impossible. Frankly, I don't believe in the objective existence of either, but I admit that belief in both can make living easier :)
@@edgepixel8467 I see what you mean. The explanation lies on the fact that God's existence lies outside (and it is not affected by) time. Only matter is affected by time. So, if God lives outside time, everything is 'present' for him, and so he can have control over everything without forcing his will on us. It make sense to me, to a great extent, but it still is kind of a mystery, obviously.
I am currently coming out of a emotionally abusive relationship with a narcissistic person and trying to make a sense of things on a larger scale then my everyday emotions. I clicked on this video because of something mentioned in one of the videos on narcissistic abuse, where analogy was used of the One ring being the abusive relationship (One ring to rule them all) and how the journey inevitably changes Frodo, yet he survives. Even after all these years it still amazes me how deep and true Tolkiens work is that it can convey truth about our nature in so many situations. Your explanation touched on the importance of humble mercy in a way that makes me more hopeful for the future. So truly - thank you!
Do a video on my all-time favorite character: Smeagol/Gollum. IMHO the and I mean *the* best representation of how evil corrupts. Or in Christian lingo what is sin... This bit from The fellowship of the Ring ALWAYS, always gets me. The horryfing nature of evil, the repulsive nature of the Evil-Ed and how they still are pitiful. “All the ‘great secrets’ under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night: there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering. He was altogether wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything ,and the Ring most of all. “What do you mean?” said Frodo. “Surely the Ring was his precious and the only thing he cared for? But if he hated it, why didn’t he get rid of it, or go away and leave it?” “You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,” said Gandalf. “He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.” (page 54)
"All the ‘great secrets’ under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night" I think this line, given when it was said, directly foreshadows the Mines of Moria, that the dwarves were so blinded by the pursuit of riches, that they convinced themselves that they hadn't already found the best, and only digging deeper into darkness can bring MORE. They became addicted to loot crates, until they stared so long into the darkness that it stared back, and they found the hiding place of Evil's servant. I wonder, too, if this is a metaphor for humanity's futile efforts to explore deep space. That Tolkien was trying to say we should be happy for what we already have and take care of it, lest we lose ourselves to the vast empty dark, where either we find nothing, or just confirm what we already know and gain no new knowledge, OR 'best' case scenario we discover something we couldn't have predicted, and it destroys us. I'm a believer in the consciousness of the infinite, that given a long enough time, life is inevitable, and will eventually evolve into the universe discovering itself, learning about what makes it up, and that human imagination, our dreams and ambitions and desire to learn and grow and explore, is our 5th dimensional need to reveal new truths to ourselves, so that the infinite may itself be conscious, and we become one with God (or whatever we call it). If that's the case, then all the best stories are our guide to bring us closer to the infinite, and its through Tolkien we have taught ourselves of the nature of good and evil, of monsters and men, and a foundation of fantasy to explore new stories, to seek out new life, and new ways of communication, to boldly go deeper into ourselves.
Agree but as a Christian I feel it’s a better analogy for addiction not sin. The implications are different too because addiction has more to do with weakness than making evil choices
Hatred , is when there is no good thing left in you , . Socialism reduced to hatred, is mankind over the brink , and all is lost , ring ,faith , mercy , ,all swept away by fire , .
I have a different reading of the fall of Frodo that you might like, and I think this is where Tolkien's preference for applicability over allegory comes into play. It's actually telegraphed pretty well that Frodo's going to fail to resist the ring in the end because of the scene with the Mirror of Galadriel. Frodo asks why he can't see the holders of the three elven rings and know their thoughts, and Galadriel replies "You have not tried... Do not try, it would destroy you! ... before you could use that power, you would first have become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others." Throughout the journey of Frodo and Sam with Gollum, Frodo progressively exerts more power to over Gollum. The only person who escapes the ring and continues to grow after it is destroyed is Sam. Sam could be seen as a type of paragon character. Sam has lots of faults, but he is defined by three things; humility, love, and in the end mercy. Sam talks up other people all the time, but he never boasts about himself. He is a servant who loves and is wholly dedicated to his master. Finally, in the end, when placed with the choice to kill or spare Gollum after his final attempt to get the ring before the cracks of doom, Sam chooses mercy once he has a faint idea of the torture that the lust for the ring places on people. This is actually a good symmetry with Bilbo's act of mercy, because immediately after choosing to spare Gollum, he believes that he has lost the ring, and feels a faint echo of Gollum's loss and despair.
Pluveus I don't think even Sam could have destroyed the ring or anyone else. The best people could do was let it go, it is literally impossible to destroy it willingly.
Sam wouldn't have been able to destroy the ring either, I believe. He's wasn't as tempted as Galadriel or Aragorn because he was less powerful, and he didn't fall under the ring's power like Frodo did because he wasn't its owner and bearer for 17 years. In one of his letters Tolkien suggests that probably noone else would have gotten as far as Frodo. And love, humility and mercy are certainly traits to be found in Frodo as well. Given the ring's power the quest could only be achieved by Frodo basically giving himself up, his sanity, his peace of mind, and he did that. Sam wasn't tested in the same way.
@@Lothiril This is authorial commentary and doesn't have much weight. I think a good many readers have felt that Sam's love of Frodo (touching though it is) finally hindered the quest. It would have been a lot easier to carry only The Ring up rather than taking Frodo as well.
Thoughtful and thought-provoking. Interestingly, I think there's a second reason that those who followed Tolkien's steps (Terry Brooks in particular) failed : the quality of their prose. When, as a teenager, I first read the Shannara trilogy, I was hooked on its "more of the same" story. However, when I came to re-read it a decade or so later, I found it almost incoherent : it is full of 20th-century colloquialisms; and the various characters (irrespective of their age and education) all use the exact same forms of language. Tolkien, by contrast, gives each character their own mode of speech, which reflects their upbringing and life experience. And Tolkien's narrative itself often feels as if it is speaking from deep time - because he knew the provenance of most of the words in the English language.
Alagory is not the same as applicability. Tolkien wasn't saying he disliked meaning in a work but more disliked the author trying to force his ideas on people
He also didn't want people looking at his work and saying things like "The Ring = Nuclear Bombs" or "Mordor = Nazi Slave Camps" or what-have-you. There are no simple 1:1 things where "X = Y" in a literal sense, where everything is a stand-in for a real-life counterpart.
when I feel like I have completely messed up my life and I have no hope I watch this video and it gives me enough to carry on for another day. Thank you.
While the religious influence is obvious throughout the works, its worth pointing out, that the expanded quote about allegory is "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history - true or feigned- with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." This is to say that Tolkiens primary intention is not a lucidity of interpretation, but rather to take what you will from it as a reader, the Author is merely providing the vehicle for your journey. As an Atheist the religious undertones, subdued or obvious, are rather lost on me. They hold little to no appeal. Its the love of nature, and the strong bonds of friendship, as well as the rejection of classic literary tropes, like the Paragon archetype as you said. Its also the mythological presentation of the narrative and the "story grew in the telling" style that draws me in. Just a perspective from someone who views it a little differently and desperately loves Tolkien. Love your videos, keep it up! 👍
I also think that on a lighter note, part of that scene was important to establish one thing "no one could resist the one ring". unlike many other franchises that often undercut this by having an insurmountable evil by having it be overcome with ease by the character. It also establishes without a doubt that this evil cannot be allowed to continue or be used by anyone. their is no person that can control this evil, it will corrupt, pervert, and break the person using it. no matter who (yes even mary sues cannot use the one ring)
@@Freshwater121 one was extremely temporary and Tom bomadil litterly does not care about anything other then going for walks and tending to trees. He has nothing remotely human about him in that sense.
@@irontemplar6222 So the solution to not letting evil corrupt you is to just not give a fuck? Maybe the Jedi are onto something with their whole "there is no emotion there is peace" and dismissal of all attachments. I guess the argument here is that when you care, you may wish to use evil but since using evil is basically impossible you are just giving it a chance to corrupt you.
Someone hire this man you do a hundred times better job with writing and story building than all of Disney, fox, universal everyone combined Tim! Thanks for all your hard work bro the ring of gyges/the one ring is a very fascinating topic. Keep at it good sir!
Another interesting perspective was Gollum's promise to Frodo at the very beginning. Gollum swears to serve Frodo "on the precious", despite Frodo's warning that it is treacherous and will hold him to his word, tying into the theme of good and evil. Gollum performs a moral act (assisting Frodo) at a point where he seems to act genuinely on behalf of his good nature. Eventually, his harsh experience at Ithilien tips him over to evil and brings him to betray Frodo. That moral failure of Gollum is very parallel to Frodo's and they both end up "failing" *together*. At the end, it can be seen as though the ring indeed holds him to his word and betrays Gollum to both their ends. And so it is, that it's not only in his guiding the hobbits, but also in his word of good faith that Gollum ultimately brings to the end of the ring.
Wow. In the ocean of mediocrity that is TH-cam, this is a remarkably thoughtful, thorough, and intelligent analysis of LOTR and the author's deeper messages. Thank you for this great perspective.
I always saw that moment as more of an overload of ring temptation. Like the level of temptation the ring has on it's bearer (in this case Frodo) rises steadily the longer it is beared and the closer it comes to it's master. In the case of the ancient king and ancestor of Aragon (I didn't want to butcher his name's spelling) the temptation was innately far stronger, starting out at something like 30% the moment it fell into his possession, and when he went into Mount Doom and held the ring out to destroy it I always kind of thought that in somewhat of a last ditch effort to keep itself alive the ring draws on it's bearer's mind with all its power, adding what must have been 60% temptation onto the already 30. And with Frodo it grew from 5% in Hobbiton, to 25% at the Black Gates, something like 40% at Minas Morgul, and peaking out at 60% once inside of Mordor, and the sudden throttling 30% added at Mount Doom just brought him over the edge.
Geoff Britton I would disagree. Good does not depend on evil in fact it’s the other way around. Evil depends on good. Power, strength, intelligence, beauty, and existence itself are good things but can be used for the wrong purposes. Evil itself is spoiled goodness that is good things used in the wrong way
@@shawnboahene5231 I'm talking about the quote only in the context of this video and in Lord of the Rings. Of course it isn't applicable to most situations; but in the narrative structure of Lord of the Rings, it applies brilliantly and with a lot of gravity, and it was that to which I was responding. I apologize that I wasn't at all clear on that in my comment.
You have no idea how much I love your words and point of view on this. I'm tired of people beating up on Frodo for failing while he is my favorite. Thanks for giving him a fair stance.
This was a beautiful video Tim, and as a Catholic who became such largely due to the influence of Tolkien, I must say that I felt well represented and respected here. Thanks for that.
Catholicism in the modern day is humble Christianity and fierce theology has no place in it. I love it for that. In my experience as a cradle Catholic, most practicing Catholics are humble and have a lot of patience.
@@davidrojas6457 Fierce is not a good thing. St. Paul wrote in the later days men will become... he listed many bad things. Fierce was among them. Modern churchs speak with a loud fierce attitude so sure of themselves. Some won't even back down from calling others not in their group not saved; not Christians. That is having fierce theologies. Practicing Catholics don't do that. They trust Christ, they place their hope in Him and they wait. That's it.
@@tempstep4058 I have to say, what an interesting "arc" religions go through. Let's use the Catholic faith as an example (but we could use Islam, Judaism, or any other ancient religion as well): First religions start as organized beliefs, spread slowly from person to person. Often times, said religion encounters fierce opposition, from larger more established religions or governments and institutions. Ultimately, though, the religion spreads and becomes popular because, largely, it is representative and illustrative of the core beliefs and values this religion's followers adhere to. But notice, after quite some time, the organized religion becomes quite commonplace, and the original teachings and beliefs are changed with time and interpreted by different people. Due to the dominant nature, the religion now becomes THE institution of power. It's at this point that we see division of beliefs (see the Great Schism, or the different branches of Islam). However the power of the institute remains powerful, and unfortunately many people will use it to justify crusades, genocides, inquisitions, persecution, and terror. This ultimately will disillusion many followers, and it is then that reforms and changes come, as people attempt to change or adapt the faith to represent the present values of the people in their modern times. Often times, however, this must result in catastrophic changes (the Protestant Reformation). And so, after losing power and influence, it is in this new found humility that the religion may continue to serve the generations of people in the new age, or risk becoming legend and lost to the sands of time, as many ancient religions have in Greece or Egypt. I know this is just my own personal opinion, but I would think others may agree. We could argue that Catholicism has gone through it's ugly stages, and now has better place in our lives than it did in the Medieval age. I suppose we could say Islam is struggling to get out of it's turbulent stage, and many in the West often criticize or ridicule those of Protestant or non-Catholic beliefs. The only modern Western religion i can think that hasn't gone through that, perhaps, is Judaism.
I love that you actually talked about and brought in the background of Tolkiens Christianity! Well done sir. Many people miss this very very important thing.
I think that a story that comes close to this scale of storytelling and analogy for the relationship between good and evil is the Fullmetal Alchemist series by Hiromu Arakawa, and probably has my favorite depiction of God in a story written by someone who doesn't have a traditional Western Idea of what God is. To spoil the primary conflict of the series, it's about the nature of God, aka Truth, and the way we relate as people in response to the nature of Truth. Very entertaining and just as intriguing.
I don't even write and I'll probably buy your book when it comes out! Your content is just so enjoyable, and if the book is anything like that, then it'll definitely be worth it!
fun fact: i actually watched the lotr trilogy for the first time over the last week, and now i’m mostly glad that i can finally go back and watch all your tolkien videos and enjoy even more of your content!!
Lexort 420 i mean i remember trying to watch the first one when i was like 8/9 because my older brother was really into them but i just found it boring and didn’t bother until now when a friend suggested watching it
@@FreakigesSternchen Alright fair enough, you better thank that friend though lol. Now you gotta read the books, they are so good and they have more content then the movies did. Glad you gave the movies another go!
It always saddens me when people focus on how “one dimensional” Sauron was, or how “absolutist” Tolkien was. It’s much more complicated than that. And you described it beautifully! I’ll be pointing to this video in many discussions about Tolkien in the future.
Sauron is not at all one dimensional. The only thing we the reader lack with respect to Sauron is his own explanation of his actions and vision of the future of middle earth, and the million dollar question we would also ask Satan - do you really think you can win? What was the point? But we are told in no uncertain terms that Sauron thinks he's the Prometheus of middle earth with the only way to its progress, freedom, and growth, if it will just give in to him, and he thinks, not without good reason, that the higher powers have all but abandoned it to him. And we are also told that if someone like Gandalf took the ring, they would quickly become the new Sauron with the same ideas - impose their will on the world in pursuit of their idea of good. Tolkien leaves something to be desired, though. His world is divided between black and white good and evil, no matter how he may half-heartedly subvert that in specific ways in the main story. I think something was lost when Sauron's servants were made orcs and not men serving Sauron and fighting for their own conception of the good and right. Tolkien is unconsciously motivated by his English background and its fear of vicious foreigners threatening it for no discernible reason than evil. The Shire couldn't make that more obvious.
I'm a fairly devout Catholic writer myself who has been in love with Tolkien for as long as I can remember. I applaud you for spending so much time and care to research Tolkein's faith and how it effected his storytelling, even going so far as to quote the Catechism - something I've only ever seen explicitly Catholics TH-cam channels do. I learned so much from this video, not only about Frodo's struggle, but about my own faith as well. Thank you a thousand times for doing everything you do for your followers! It does not go unappreciated!
If you are interested in more Catholic themes in Tolkien. Look up the three fold role of priest, prophet, and King. Three of the main characters portray the embodiment of these roles. Priest - Frodo Prophet - Gandalf King - Aragorn
As a Catholic, LOTR is amazing for explaining some of these themes to people when they have questions about the faith. I can point them to a 'secular' book, and it has great examples right there.
I can't see how Frodo is a priest. The chief role of a priest in a religion that has priests is to carry out a cycle of sacramental acts. Killing calves on the altar, turning water into wine, whatever. Frodo does not fill that role.
@@sourisvoleur4854 His role is to carry and destroy the ring. It is very sacramental and symbolically in line with the role of a priest in Catholicism. Of course you are correct it is not perfectly one to one. Frodo is not a priest. However, that is because Tolkien did not do allegories. The characters do not usually literally embod their roles when using the priest, prophet, king literary analysis. (Though in this case Aragorn does.) You can apply this analysis to many stories like you can apply the hero's journey. It is not meant to be a perfect fit, but help uncover underlying structures of character or story. The general overview is; priest - grounded and focused on immediate tasks, prophet - high level thinker with a broad view, king - leader and mediator.
For me, the story of Frodo's Journey was like an angel's journey through hell. Its view of the world is simple, good and bad, but as the angel continues its journey it is forced to compromise, it even loses control a few times. The closer it gets to the center of hell, the Devil's throne, the weight of its torn morality grows oppressive, the guilt of choices a continual punishment until self-doubt enters the equation. Along the way, demons chitter and whisper lies in the Angel's ears, 'just rest, you don't need to continue so soon, your burdens are so heavy'...etc. Until, finally, at the crack of doom, that weight overcomes the angel's fragile morality, it had never been truly tested after all, and he falls to corruption, and instead of killing the devil, he kneels. In comes another angel, the good voice, the idealistic version of the now fractured morality, he buoys the angel from the pit of hell, and from the devil's wrath until delivering him safely from the gates, with the lesson of his failure learned, and a new burden of guilt to bear. However, the angel no longer bears this burden alone, for he has learned that to journey through life alone is weakness, that we require others to bolster our strength as we bolster theirs. The lesson was learned, and so the angel was allowed to return to heaven with open arms.
Boromir was also stuck in a terrible position from which many would succumb to but he didn't recieve as kind a fate as Frodo. I think this is because he despaired well before anyone else in the Fellowship due to how obviously conflicted he was with his morality and his identity. A noble warrior of Gondor or a ring thief as his father wished him to be. These concepts of despair vs hope are stronger with the pagan anglo saxon Beowulf philiosophy than Christian though. Great video
love the video! i am also from Christchurch and love to see people from a small country like new zealand doing well and sucseding on a global level. keep up all the great work
Well there's my preorder. Honestly if you can outdo yourself with this book series, like you seem to do with every video you release, then it'll be well worth it.
16:25 this is one reason I love LotR.. the exploration of what happens to people after the battle is over, and how Frodo was traumatized by what he went through. Ursula Le Guin also explored this in the later books of Earthsea, and made it all the more interesting.
amazing analysis, always knew Tolkien had an exceptional ability to tap into the weave of the reality and of the forces that guides us in life. What truly an amazing human being he was.
Could you do an "On Writing/On Worldbuilding" for Culture? How you develop it, how the characters interact with it, how cultures and religions interact with each other, ect.
I looked through his backlog of videos, loaded the last 2-3 years of videos, and did a crtl+f search for 'culture', which turned up nothing. If anyone knows what its alternate name is, could you point me towards it? Thanks!
I was always touched when Sam offered to cook Gollum fish and chips if they all managed to survive the quest. It was a real offer of friendship which Gollum was too imperceptive to appreciate.
This is wonderful, thank you so much!! I especially appreciated your delving deep into his philosophies and parallels, because those are things highly fundamental to his work that don’t often get discussed. Great job here!
"Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. 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 but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'"
There are a few parts of Silmarillion that absolutely shake me down to my socks, and this is one of them. Thanks for sticking that in here. T-dog wounds my heart with sweet words. Another great one is when Eonwe, herald of Manwe, brings a message to the Men of Numenor, but I can't for the life of me find it on the Web.
@@tempstep4058 Good question. The God allegory isn't Tolkien's point here. In this quote, he is basically having Illuvatar explain and address the Problem of Pain, and he does it in astonishingly few words. That Problem of Pain is one of a handful of really compelling arguements against the existence of God - if there is an all knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God, why is he hanging out ouside of time and space and letting evil happen to good people? Well, I-dog here, big Eru, lays it out: he has allowed evil to exist because greater good will come from it. What is the point of virtue if it's easier than vice? How can you be courageous without danger, or charitable without want? Solution: "I hereby set y'all created things (Ainur and Children) so completely free that you can even disobey me, your Maker." All manner of bad things ensue, but much greater is the good because it is tested by evil. I love this passage a lot.
@@oogalook The first time I read The Silmarillion, that question hit my head. I concluded, despite the fact that Tolkien disliked allegory, he does realize that it is one form of literature or the creation thereof. And if he has to use it, then in bringing God into his world like he did, he can get away with it without explaining or describing God or Ilúvatar. God is there, He created the Valar and everything else ensues and Ilúvatar is in the background instead of the forefront of the stories, so no need to fall into the blasphemy of explaining and describing God as if I know Him with my mortal mind. Either way, if Tolkien's answer is what you said or what I just stated, it is an absolutely genius way of having God in your story without having to describe the unknowable thereby committing blasphemy.
@Karl Quetzacoatl Hrm, good comment. You put that in a difficult way, but I agree, I think. The term "dangerous" you use is important here - a truth can be misconstrued and used to rationalize evil. Any truth can be distorted so. Lol, let me add another wall of text to this monolithic string. I want to further distinguish the idea of "suffering as a good" from the idea of "the ends justify the means" (Nazi garbage, also repeated by anybody trying to hide from morality). Vital to this particular case - the case of Tolkien's (and Christianity's) understanding of hardship as a positive good permitted by God - strife is not evil in and of itself. A hurricane isn't evil, nor a house fire, nor a flood. They are just accidents that happen, and they can hurt or kill you. But strife pushes people to the limit, and only at one's limit does one reveal and play out one's true inclinations. That's why you only get heroes (and looters) during great upheaval. Life's challenges constantly teach you and constantly test you, you know what I mean? Big challenges do it more, faster. What _would_ be evil would be to _cause_ strife for the stupid reason that you want to mess with people or shake them up. If you can _cause_ a hurricane or a house fire or a war, the excuse of "teaching and testing" people can't outweigh the fact that you're knowingly killing people and destroying their stuff. I don't think you meant to say that Tolkien was wrong, but I want to put down a point here which I think gets lost in the Internet shouting matches: Who says something doesn't affect its objective veracity. That's called the Genetic Fallacy, and it's a sucky thing that politicians and polemics have gotten us used to. One can't say the idea - hardship as a good to the world - is false because Nazis said it. The Nazis also held that science was important and medicine was good for you. The idea Tolkien presents in the passage waaaay up there, that idea has pretty obvious truth to it. Tolkien used the concept in a good way. God is the only one to know whether the good of a disaster will outweigh the harm. The Nazis tried to use it in a bad way. Thankfully they got theirs. Cheers!
Wow. This is good. Inspired me as a beginning writer. It’s been a while since college and I haven’t done any literary analysis in a while. I love tropes and digging into the writers life to unlock lessons, outlook and philosophy that the author tried to get across.
Holy cow, this was a good essay. It has been decades since I last read "LotR", and I have over time forgotten much of the elements that made it a masterpiece. This video reminded me of such profundity.
i died laughing at the "jesus christ!!!" but lmfaooo X'D also, a quick question: how does it feel to have a video sponsored by something you made yourself? xx
@@HelloFutureMe... the word you are looking for is Esotericist. J R R R Tolkien knew all the Christic esotericist myths and lore. Words and places like Aragon, Minas Morgul Galadriel etc
"A battle is noble because it's impossible." This is a really inspiring quote. Very useful tbh, because it gives you strength despite having no chance at success.
Honestly, this is a fantastic video. I am thoroughly impressed in your literary analysis and I think you are spot on with what exactly Tolkien was trying to communicate through his work
The more interesting question and view is how Eru impacted the story for the outcome to be as it was. You can see the Eru's influence in a few events that happen. Did Frodo really take the ring to Mt. Doom on his own, or was the sacred flame involved? If so when and how? It would seem Gollum was used by Eru to make sure WHEN frodo failed the ring would be destroyed. Which brings up free will. The talk that Gandalf had with Frodo about not killing Gollum points to very interesting questions that were never really asked or answered. It would seem it was the fate of Frodo to fail, he never had a chance...no free will...just playing his role. No one talks about this point.
It's not allowed. To mention it in Hollywood would be like an advertisement for the Church, but the Church is not of this world. We can talk about it with the people we meet, and invite them to become brothers and sisters.
Frodo had that ring around his neck almost a year. They walked and rode horses 1200 miles, nearly completely across Middle Earth, to get that ring from Bag End to the Crack of Doom. Frodo was so pure and good he held up until the end when the Rings pull was at its strongest. Gandalf couldn’t handle it for even a short time that’s why he forced Frodo to take it. Remember Gandalf freaking out by the fire? He hadn’t even left Bag End with it. Yet, Frodo tossed it in a chest where it’s pull didn’t influence him for TEN YEARS. Then Gandalf came back and said go destroy it. Boramir was ready to kill Frodo for it. The group had t even split up yet and he already couldn’t control himself to the point Frodo left them. Even Aragorn felt it and said keep it away from him. Smeagal murdered his best friend for that Ring and lived 2000 years underground with it until he turned into Gollum. Galadriel totally flipped out over the possible power. SO Sam held the ring less than half a day verses the YEAR Frodo held it. It hadn’t been slowly killing Sam physically and mentally so of course he could carry Frodo at the end. I hate when people say Sam was the true hero. There are so many heroes and the Ring couldn’t have been destroyed without them. In the end, Gollum destroyed it dancing around like an idiot and misstepping into the Crack.
Watching this videos is both a torture and a blessing, a blessing because it helps me make my novels better, a torture because I know that my stories will hardly ever be as good as Tolkien’s miraculous lore.
I don't believe I have ever viewed a more fair-minded, knowledgeable, and above all understanding commentary on the Prof's most beloved work. I can't re-subcribe-however much I wish I could-but I'd like to say that your channel name is a guarantee of some of the best commentary on fictional works of writing, and I both hope for and dread the day I'll have watched or listened to every last one of your videos.
![On Writing: Mentor Characters [ Iroh l Obi-Wan l Cersei l Lupin ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/djnao3Ey3zc/mqdefault.jpg)
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Leave me your Q&A questions down below! I've always loved looking into these elements of Tolkien's thinking. AND remember 1 new patron each month will win a free paperback signed copy of On Writing and Worldbuilding, so come say hi and join the community :D www.patreon.com/hellofutureme Stay nerdy!
~ Tim
What are your thoughts on how Tolkien's military service affected what he wrote and the affect of PTSD on Frodo. I know Tolkien said the war wasn't a base for the trilogy but it Sure as hell coloured it. For example the end scene in the return of the king at the Green dragon with the four hobbits all siting at the table together and yet alone kinda kills me (In the movie I still need to read the last book.).
Thank you for posting I love your videos!
Do you plan to do a video on how to write war
That jump scare got me good.
for God's sake read Tolkien's Letters, written by his own hand. There is one, Letter 246, dedicated entirely to explaining Frodo's failure.
"Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check. But that is not what I have found. I have found it is the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk, that keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love."
The best line from the hobbit
Oliver Schöneck yes I have that page permanently bookmarked.
Great line that!
If you exchange "Saruman" for Suleiman this excerpt sounds very close to what St. Francis of Assisi said to the Muslim leaders when in their courts!
Never forget that Tolkien was an anarchist.
"I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you!"
My heart breaks and my tears flow every single time.
Light weight
Additional reason for tears of joy: the leitmotif of Valinor (Into the West) swells in this moment, showing that the Valar are focused in like a laser on what's happening. The Gods have not abandoned the world after all!
I never understood this. Sam clearly has a resistance to the ring and if hobbits have a natural resistance anyway, why CAN'T Sam carry the ring for Frodo?
@@WobblesandBean Mostly because it would break Frodo, at that time, sure, Sam probably did have the will to resist it, although it is quite possible that he didn't, since the rings effects seem to grow stronger as it nears Mordor.
But Frodo would never have given up the ring willingly, and Sam was never going to violently take it from him, which means that he could not carry the ring (for Frodo).
@@DutchDread I suppose not, but st the very start of their journey, I don't see why he couldn't have. Samwise really didn't get the recognition he deserved, he saved Middle Earth just as much as Frodo; arguably moreso. He should have been offered a place in Valinor, too.
"I can't recall the taste of food, nor the sound of water, nor the touch of grass. I'm naked in the dark. There's nothing--no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I can see him with my waking eyes."
God how I love Tolkien
Ikr!!! :)
The quote in the book is somewhat different:
"No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.’"
That line always makes me tear up
That's what you feel when you sin and sodomize, when you sale your soul.
@@hulking_presence No, you're thinking of acid.
I actually thought that Gollum impersonation was pretty good.
He got it to sound like Gollum, but he was trying to sound like Gollum screaming.
Everyone can do gullum impression, its literally the easiest one
@@digitalnomad9985 he managed to sound like gollum screaming though, imo it was pretty good
Suspiciously good 🤔
Yeah man it's cool that he talks and looks like golem throughout the entire video
"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?" Love this quote that has even more meaning when you consider the final act.
I just never understood the way the movie glossed over when Gandalf spoke those words. I guess I was looking forward to it so much it disappointed me.
I think a lot of people need to spend more time pondering "Can you give it to them?" in this context.
Do not be so fast to deal out death and judgement.. for even the wisest cannot see all ends.
@@shutout951 a choice to let life flourish or not. at this case a human: will you let him/her live or end it?
I think that Tolkien and Lewis diverged when it came to the Paragon. While both refrained from imposing said archetype on their protagonist, Lewis was perfectly willing to do so with an allegory of God. Lewis's idea of God was that of a deeply personal being, something he could fashion into an allegorical character. Tolkien on the other hand saw God as a more hidden and unknowable force, not something that could be represented by any character.
This is so fascinating to me haha thanks for the great comment.
@@calebcreates8555 Welcome
It's a very interesting contrast, because in Christianity there is an element of both, in that God is both a deeply personal being and also a hidden and unknowable force, to varying degrees.
I wonder if it has something to do with C.S. Lewis being a protestant and Tolkein being a Catholic... I believe historically Catholics held up the deep transcendence/unknowability/mysticism of God. I believe Protestants hold the idea of casual yet loving friendship with God as though God directly talks to us ("God told me to tell you..."). Not sure but maybe?
Tolkien was a devout Catholic, hence he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I don’t know how you could get a more personal notion about God than that! Unless it were if God entered into the world to experience it as one of us, and that was the God I think Lewis wrote about, the one (and the same) we are more able to relate to. But even there, the magnitude, majesty, etc., can only be hinted at, much like some of Tolkien’s characters do, too, though, especially in The Silmarillion, and even in the character of Illuvatar.
I'm all for erudite discussions of various story elements, but ...
Let us just consider for a moment, that when Frodo puts on the Ring at Sammath Naur, right at the very edge of the fire that could destroy it, Sauron becomes instantly aware of its location.
We know that. This is nothing new.
Now just take a moment to consider how much Sauron filled his shorts at that precise instance. In seconds, he goes from having his enemy exactly where he wants him, outnumbered and about to be slaughtered in front of Morannon, to having the very thread of his life dangling over the fire.
I like to think that even the powerful and deep-minded Sauron suddenly lost his shit, ran across his throne room, slipping and tripping as he did so, then upon reaching the window, shouted, "Everyone! That way, right F&*king now!"
I know this is 10 months later but here's the passage when that exact thing happens:
And far away, as Frodo put on the Ring and claimed it for his own, even in Sammath Naur the very heart of his realm, the Power in Barad-dûr was shaken, and the Tower trembled from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown. The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were at last laid bare. Then his wrath blazed in consuming flame, but his fear rose like a vast black smoke to choke him. For he knew his deadly peril and the thread upon which his doom now hung.
From all his policies and webs of fear and treachery, from all his stratagems and wars his mind shook free; and throughout his realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, and his captains suddenly steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired. For they were forgotten. The whole mind and purpose of the Power that wielded them was now bent with overwhelming force upon the Mountain. At his summons, wheeling with a rending cry, in a last desperate race there flew, faster than the winds, the Nazgûl the Ringwraiths, and with a storm of wings they hurtled southwards to Mount Doom.
"Filled his shorts" has made my day. Also, thanks Hector, that is an awesome passage. Been too long since I read it.
We see this in the movie, too. Right when Frodo puts on the Ring in the Crack of Doom, the Eye of Sauron was originally focused on the battle at the Black Gates. Then the Eye widens in shock, and looks immediately to Sammath Naur, and the Ringwraiths immediately pulled from the battle and beelines for Mount Doom. Like Sauron realized "My Ring is THERE!"
@@masterofmythology He was like, "Oh SHIT."
I'd imagine the fact Gollum slipping being the killing blow and the last thing he sees didn't help either
5:34
But the destruction of the Ring was only possible because Frodo brought it all the way to Sammath Naur.
So maybe it should say: "Evil will always destroy itself, *as long as the Forces of Good fight it as far as their can.* "
Thank you ❤️
I mean, that is Tolkien's whole point about the struggle against reaching your absolute limitations. He believes that good men will always come forth to resist evil, but it is within ourselves to overcome our more selfish natures to help in that resistance. It is only through that resistance, no matter how long and hard it is, that evil will be overcome by it destroying itself.
Dang, finally someone who actually covers Tolkien's Religious views and how it reflects in the story. Almost everyone avoids it.
That's because he himself outright stated his religion did not have a part in his books, they were based more or less on Nordic and Germanic mythology, a lot of the things people attribute to Christianity like the idea of forgiveness being given and taken freely, for example, can be found in most religions.
@@hyperion3145 No, he said it was not Allegorical. That's not the same as saying the values and lessons aren't transferable, applicable, or any less relatable.
The Murder of Deagol against Smeagol or the first kin slaying of Aqualonde isn't an allegory for Cain And Abel. However, the values and lessons to be taken away are most certainly Judeo/Christian. He wrote his values (which were Judeo/Christian) through stories that aren't side to side direct bible references.
Tolkien understood that enlightenment is impossible without a Mythological background where narrative and history meet.
In his letters, tolkien said that LOTR was "a fundamentally catholic work."
@@hyperion3145 lmao, most religion you says?
This show how little you know about history of the world.
@@hyperion3145 Tolkien himself said otherwise in one his letters...
"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."
When Frodo says, "The Ring is mine!" outwardly he appears to be claiming the Ring but inwardly it has just claimed him.
Deep
Exactly my thoughts.
Nice catch.
One thing I always found interesting about the One Ring's destruction is how it doesn't come out of nowhere - back in the Two Towers, Smeagol swore by the Precious despite Frodo's warning that the Ring would hold him to that promise. Later, Frodo warned Gollum that he would never get the Precious - that, if it came to it, Frodo would use the Ring to command Gollum, and Gollum would have to obey, even if he was told to leap from a precipice or cast himself into the fire "and such would be my command". So, however unintentionally, Gollum follows Frodo's implied command and leaps from a precipice, casting himself into the fire...
Pretty much my thought. As Galadrial told Frodo, "you've never tried" that is to say tried to weild the power in the ring (which includes great power over others, power to command, etc.)
In the taming of Smeagol, Frodo had his greatest motivation/cause to apply the power of the ring - keeping Gollum from re-taking it, and it worked did it not? Gollum even held to it, although he thought he had a surefire loophole with Shelob. The failure of that plan and the realization (Sam deduced this himself earlier) that Frodo was going to destroy it brought out the Stinker, as Sam called him.
The ring itself seemed caught in the dillemma itself at the end, on one hand (literally, ha ha) it was eager to dominate Frodo, but the power of Frodo's curse on Gollum still remained. And that curse took effect as soon as Gollum took the ring. If it was anyone else (except maybe Tom Bombadil), then the quest would have failed.
idk why, but I just can't picture Bombadil riding an eagle. It's an earth thing or something.
He never, as Gollum himself would say. He never swore any oath, merely made a meaningless promise.
It would be good for someone to subject this very strange scene to a detailed critique.
Because it might appear that The Ring destroyed Itself to fulfill the oath that Gollum never actually swore.
@@alanpennie8013 If one can quibble that, then they can quibble anything. To a person who can be characterized as an oathkeeper, it is enough for that person to say "I will do this or that." To an oathbreaker, any and all words may be false, no matter how sincere or carefully worded they appear.
@@semperintrepidus16
It seems to me it's you who's quibbling. I don't understand this scene of Gollum not swearing an oath and I'd be interested in a detailed analysis by someone.
@@alanpennie8013 clarrification:
I've used the word quibble in its traditional meaning. It refers to someone trying to evade a greater issue by use of minor irrelevancies.
I think you took it as the dumbed down version which is more akin to squabbling.
As for the ring and who wields it, we're all speculating here to some degree. The ring is full of malice. It has a will of its own, borne of that malice, but it's still an inanimate physical object. It's a tool, and the real power is how it is used and by whom. I don't think the ring could sense it's own destruction any more than it's maker could anticipate than anyone would seek that end.
Who, but Isildur, ever came so close? and he failed.
So maybe the real important questions are, who does the ring obey? Is such a thing on its own mightier than the he who bears it?
I like to think that the Ring>Smeagol>Frodo interplay is a masterful case of good defeating an evil that seems invincible. Tolkien writes about other powers at work. Something at work in Frodo led to the curse he proclaimed while at the same time he demonstrated mercy. That curse was the ring's undoing, but Frodo's pity made it possible.
Sam is the one who saw things clear enough all along. Thankfully, his loyalty to Frodo had no rival. That loyalty even proved stronger than the ring itself.
Gollum was malicious indeed, but look how long he was tamed by Frodo. Who among the fellowship would have believed it? (maybe Legolas, idk) For all the ring knew, here were two recent bearers returning the precious to it's maker and rightful owner.
But Frodo, more than any, was really most underestimated and maybe still is. He indeed struggled with the ring, but when he declared his curse, it was irrelevent whether Smeagol/Gollum agreed or not, promised or not except that for a time, Smeagol experienced a little taste of freedom from the ring.
Nice analysis. The only thing I would add to your discussion of the grace aspect is Tolkien’s idea of “eucatastrophe” and how that plays into the Crack of Doom scene. Specifically, in one of his letters (don’t remember the number off-hand), Tolkien explicitly attributes the success of the quest to supernatural grace, pointing out that not only could Frodo not have succeeded in his own merit, but in fact no one could have, and his real job was to do as much as he could and let grace make up the difference, in this case through Gollum’s accidental self-destruction.
A literal deus ex machina.
@@rikk319 Not exactly.
Which reminds me of the book of revelations where it says that Not even the most just could withstand evil - permit me to paraphrase - and would fall and fail - but that Jesus would wash away all sins in the end.
@@rikk319 More rather a Deum in igne (God in the fire) ;)
Joshua Scott: Tolkien doesn't say that. He says that Frodo couldn't destroy the Ring _in the state that he was in._
This was after Frodo used his last strength against Gollum, AND used the Ring's power against Gollum to command him cast into the fire.
So Gollum's destruction was no accident "Disney Villain Death," but Tolkien simply didn't want an allegorical "Bridge of Death" scene.
12:04 Why would you do that? That scared the shit out of me. I used to skip that entire scene as a kid because it freaked me out too much.
WanderingRandomer
Even after reading your comment, it still got me, I literally jumped.
When I'm working, I like to 'watch' videos on youtube like podcasts, just listening to them from an nonactive tab. That scared the shit of me. Not cool, dude! (like, really, don't do that)
I saw it coming. Basically the main scene I thought of when he was leading up to it.
Yeah I had to skip that one scene as well. :P
It got me this time, because the video was playing on my second screen, and my attention was split between it and something else.
No
I know I’m late to the party, but I just wanted to say how much I truly appreciate this video. As a Catholic and Lord of the Rings fan myself, I thought your video touched closer to the heart of the story than any other interpretation. Please never take down this video, as I will be watching it for decades to come. Thank you so much, I got goosebumps and may have shed a tear or two. Absolutely phenomenal work! You’re fantastic!
The books are about blood and soil
"Here, at the end of all things" man I cry every time
too bad you didn't join the military
@@ffxiarcadius lmao you probably dont realize how pathetic that makes ya sound lol
@@ffxiarcadius ?
Right in the feels. Just imagine they died then. That would've been the cruelest ending in the history of fantasy
The end of The Return Of The King was the most extraordinary piece of art I've ever seen. It surpassed opera, painting, music, etc. I've never seen anything like it. It's like an opera of Wagner but 10000 times better.
But the thing is that it's beyond the artistic quality. It's above all full of meaning and philosophy. Like Sam said, it's a simple story that remains with you and means something. So simple, yet so deep.
You can not really explain it. It something that goes beyond everything else in entertainment history. Those three movies will always be my favourite ones. I can watch them countless times without ever getting bored.
@C Hmmm ... I like reading ...
The book is better ! I loved the books they had a lot of meaning for me . I was suffering through heroin addiction and the ring symbolized that horrible addiction. I felt like Frodo battling the powers of the ring to keep his soul was so much like my struggle . How heavy , dark and soul crushing it was . And the farther I carried it the heavier it got. It gave me hope that love could set me free as well . I wonder deeply if Tolkien ever witnessed opiate addiction in the war. It seems very similar to Frodo’s addiction to the ring. And how it slowly sucks away your soul and takes your will and ability to see the worlds beauty.
Yes, too bad the movie ruined it.
It’s good but Star Wars is better ;)
God dammit that Bilbo scare got me good, for the thousandth time
never fails
Jeez... I wish he hadn't stuck that in. Not nice.
Yeah that didn't happen. Frodo just hallucinated it, due to the Ring-induced paranoia.
Unfortunately movie-makers aren't always all that literate.
@@SovereignStatesman mmm yay, gatekeeping
He will certainly be missed.
Of all days, I saw this on the day of his passing.
Frodo: *Fails to throw the Ring, and then fails to fight Gollum for it*
Illuvatar: I created idiots
Gollum: *trips*
Iluvatar : thank god I created idiots
@@Hellothere-lk7xi Iluvatar thanking god... I'm sensing some narcissism here.
Illuvatar: oh, wait...
i mean, if you're god you're probably allowed to be a narcissist
can hardly be accused of having a god complex
@@Hellothere-lk7xi ''can hardly be accused of having a god complex''
this
Thank you for this! I've always felt very strongly about Lord of the Rings (admittedly through film before book) and this is one of the many subtleties that are harder to name for yourself in loving this masterpiece. I am not Catholic, or religious in any name, but the message and themes still hit home and leave such a lasting impression. George RR Martin criticizes the tropes and idealism of Tolkien's work, which inspired his cynical exploration on the evils of mankind in A Song of Ice and Fire, but I believe that Tolkien does a far superior job of demonstrating the evil within us all. The biggest difference: Tolkien wants us all to stand against that evil to the bitter end (despite the inevitable failure amid most dire circumstances) while Martin just leans into it with the face of "realism." Every Fellowship Member's journey, failure, and accomplishments are so genuinely real and apparent in the world around us--from Boromir's temptation to Sam's championing of Good--that ignoring them for "realism" is ironically unrealistic. People can be evil and cowardly, but also good and just. Idealism and realism are not mutually exclusive, and that is why I believe Lord of the Rings will forever remain the gold standard in literature while A Song of Ice and Fire will remain popular but not nearly as important.
His intention is to show that one cannot overcome sin themselves but require the grace of God to do so. Because Frodo and Sam did not give in to sin and overcame the hardest commandment to love their enemy by expressing mercy through not killing Gollum they were able to destroy the ring with Gollum as an agent of God’s Grace.
I ain't christian, but you're probably goddamn right :D
A better philosophy of Tolkien than wisecrack did!
Agreed! Though that one was great too, this was more "complete"
I thought wisecrack had some insightful ideas, but I actually lol'd when they started dancing around the whole religion topic... Guys, we all know what you mean, it's okay to talk about it
Wisecrack is just a bunch of Jewish communists
@@wulfocrow5549so even if they were jewish or communist, that would invalidate them in what way?
It doesn't invalidate them, but it gives a reason for why they would want to downplay or ignore any Christian themes. If you weren't aware, both communists and jews hate Christianity with a serious passion.
I believe the technical term for the allegory-lite which Tolkien embraced is "applicability". The story isn't set up to be one specific thing with one explicit message, but a collection of things with a variety of messages. A World War 1 veteran could see their own experiences reflected in LotR, but so could a WW2 vet or a Korean War vet or an Iraq War vet. However, none of them are likely to see their own experiences reflected in _Animal Farm,_ which is too specifically based on the conflicts which wracked the Soviet Union.
His primary beef with allegory was that "experts," would pull out the metaphor, say "this is what the story is about," and then presume the literal meanings of the words on the page to be meaningless. Treating the story itself as a mere wrapper to be discarded once it has been opened up to reveal the true meaning... Tolkien rightly hated that school of analysis and thus avoided allegory as much as possible.
This is also shown with Saruman. Which I wish you would do a video on his corruption, fall and diminishing to petty vindictiveness in his final end in the shire.
I would love to know more about this!
@@lexinoel7 it's quite a fascinating character study. I'm always amazed how little bio or analysis on Saruman there are on youtube
I agree! I was just discussing it with my sisters about it and we were wondering how and when exactly did he betray his office. I didn’t like the hobbit movies, but it was interesting to see how far back Saruman’s betrayal went if the movies were accurate in that regard. I didn’t know this before seeing the movie and I have not read every book either so it would be nice to know!
@@lexinoel7 Well in the books he did about a few decades before the Hobbit as since he landed he grew gradually more and more resentful and jealous of gandalf as upon landing at the Grey havens Cirdain the Shipwright(a high elf) gave Gandalf the ring of fire(one of the three elven rings) instead of Saruman, then Galadriel wanted Gandalf to be head of the Council instead of Saruman. He also began wanting the ring for himself to overthrow and replace Sauron himself. In the films they changed this to him turning after the Hobbit which i was actually happy about because Sir Christopher Lee(the actor who played Saruman) wanted to play gandalf and was very tired of always playing villains so one of his last roles he got to play Saruman when he was still a good guy and it made Lee exceedingly happy.
@@grandadmiralzaarin4962 It's been a while since I read those books but I seem to remember the deal was that Saruman was not called The White for nothing, he was exceedingly virtuous which makes his fall all the more tragic, especially since it was only an error of judgment that caused him to fall (he thought he could resist the influence of Sauron's evil texts and learn something from them that could defeat Sauron, and probably had much more resistance than Gandalf but still not enough).
So I do not know if you will read this far back. But this video hit me where I needed to hear.
In summary, I had my own Mt. Doom moment. 13 years ago I had to make the choice to go home from basic training, and thus failing a dream of mine. This haunted me for 13 years. But watching LOTRs and wondering what people thought of Frodo's failure lead me to this video. At basic training, I faced the doctor, there I was broken, back was hurting, emotionally in despair and self-doubt, and I was afraid. There in that room I was asked "do you want to go home". Faced with a choice that will forever affect my life. There, it wasnt my physical self nor my intellectual. It was my heart and what will I do. I said yes and made the choice under the guise of not hurting myself further. Retreating.
I failed, I could not physically complete the task, and thus it made me doubt myself and my very soul. I carried this burden since then, guilt, shame, lost of honor. But this scene in LOTR spoke to me. I came to realize at least in part, I failed as a warrior yes, but did I fail my soul. In that I did not, I kept fighting to succeed in life, and more importantly, it wasn't a failure of my moral character. I hope this came out clear. However, pointing me towards this realization might have finally allowed me to accept it and more importantly accept I am also still me. Thank you.
“The Road goes ever on and on / Down from the door where it began. / Now far ahead the Road has gone, / And I must follow, if I can.” - The Fellowship of the Ring. "if you can," and you physically could not, and that's ok cause the world will go on and other roads will disappear and a new road will appear. Hope this helps you heal.
I always identified well with " some hurts go too deep." As I feel some wounds never heal ..
The end of the story is extremely sad. I don't much like Frodo as a character but there's no doubt God (or rather the author) dealt unkindly with him.
Yes... LOTR doesn't really have that happyend that so many people think and say it has. First reading appeared to me as happyend, but with second I could feel the sadness... Tolkien is great also because he doesn't say "this is sad, you should feel like it", but you feel it in your heart (not only the ending, but also do many times in the middle of the story or in the begining)
I don't really comment on videos, but thank you for making me stop and think about the structure of LOTR and also the story telling beats in a way that I haven't approached and appreciated before.
Have my likes sir, out of cookies at the moment.
This video truly explains that iconic scene from the masterpiece that is The Lord of the Rings so perfectly. And it truly delves so deep into what Tolkien believed. One of the many reasons why I love Tolkien's works and the incredible world he created is just the utter deepness of it. Even things that may see so subtle and insignificant in his narrative turn out to actually be so deep and complex and meaningful.
Ya know, I feel like one of the greatest misconceptions on Tolkien himself and his work is that it's a "generic battle between the forces of good and evil". But this is just utterly false in my eyes, and this video explains why in the most perfect manner!!! :)
I enjoy3d your analysis Luke Skywalker.
J R R Tolkien was a Christian esotericist.
When I first read LOTR as a kid, I think one of the things that I really enjoyed about it were the subtleties. Tolkien was great at hinting at things, but leaving the rest for you to guess at or interpret for yourself.
@@agentm83 I couldn't agree more! :)
@@lukeskywalkerthe2nd773 An example of that is the distrust and outright discrimination between the Elves and the Dwarves. Tolkien makes it clear that they dislike each other (even though they were willing to work together), but in LOTR itself he doesn't get into why.
Another interesting perspective was Gollum's promise to Frodo at the very beginning. Gollum swears to serve Frodo "on the precious", despite Frodo's warning that it is treacherous and will hold him to his word, tying into the theme of good and evil. Gollum performs a moral act (assisting Frodo) at a point where he seems to act genuinely on behalf of his good nature.
Eventually, his harsh experience at Ithilien tips him over to evil and brings him to betray Frodo. That moral failure of Gollum is very parallel to Frodo's and they both end up "failing" *together*.
At the end, it can be seen as though the ring indeed holds him to his word and betrays Gollum to both their ends. And so it is, that it's not only in his guiding the hobbits, but also in his word of good faith that Gollum ultimately brings to the end of the ring.
This was a great video, and I think you have given a good treatment of Tolkien's Catholicism and how he uses it in LotR.
I know, so few commentators do these days.
Compared to Wisecrack's analysis, it does more openly portray his faith.
I was thinking about that when I was watching this video. I can't blame WiseCrack, to read those paragraphs that are core to an institution that with the power it gathered through the ages to evil and sin (hate, lust, greed, to name a few) made myself have unsavory memories of my rising. That said, I still call myself a catholic and I don't blame the religion nor Tolkien for the wrongdoings of the institution. (It's funny just what I wrote has reference to what happened to the bearers of the Ring)
RCs do love to push it. What is noticeable in Tolkien’s work is the almost complete lack of organised religion and how Illuvatar does not require worship.
@@SvenTviking I understand your confusion, but Catholics do not believe that God requires worship. Rather, worship is something we do for ourselves, not because God needs our thanks, but because after all he has done for us it would be wrong not to thank him. He doesn't care that we thank him, nor punish us if we don't, but to lead a life so filled with pride and lacking in charity as to begrudge your creator of taking the time to thank him is a sign of deeper problems in the soul, which may well be the cause of our damnation.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we love Tolkien’s work so much
As an atheist and former Christian, I still am very moved by the idea that mercy/forgiveness is something that is given freely, without desert.
If you are moved by that idea then accept the free gift through the gospel of Jesus Christ and consider yourself a Christian and former atheist.
@@Matthew-of9sp I'm moved by it because its profound, whether or not God is real.
@@Dirtgut How ironic that you are being told to accept Jesus again by a literal Bible verse
Eh. K.
@@Matthew-of9sp For your message to be understood, you need to speak the words the person you speak to can understand as you understand them.
With love ❤️
Thank you for this! Just the other day I got involved in an argument where someone said Tolkien's treatment of morality was too simplistic because his villains are all evil orcs & dark lords, etc., unlike Game of Thrones where the characters are more morally gray. I argued at the time that Tolkien's moral views are just as complex & profound, if not even more so, but that he was just telling a different sort of story than George R.R. Martin. However, I was finding it hard to really explain exactly what I meant by that. I feel like this video expresses a lot of what I wanted to say at the time but couldn't think of. Frodo's failure to destroy the Ring is one of the biggest WTF moments I've ever experienced in any story, and it's so amazingly brilliant. Next time someone says that Tolkien's characters are too morally simplistic, I'm just going to point to that scene and leave it there.
Having read four of Martin's books I would have to question if moral greyness is somehow more complex than saying that some people are better than others. It seems like such a childish view, that if something is bad or uncomfortable it must be more mature. Thing is, you don't often see people embracing this philosophy, trying to always discomfort themselves to be more "adult". No, instead they act like everyone else, trying to maximize comfort and saying that their views are right. Tolkien at least wants us to struggle to be good, whereas Martin seems to be of the opinion that we might as well turn into a pedophile pimp it all doesn't matter in the end.
@@adams13245 Are you sure you read them? The characters are constantly questionning themselves if they should do what they are doing. Even Cersei, arguably the most evil pov in the serie, gets inconfortable when torturing/seeing someone tortured. Characters like Theon or Jaime experience regret for things they have done in the past, characters like Tyrion do what they consider the good decision even if it opposes the wish of their family, Daenerys realizes she might have done more wrong than good by freeying all slaves and close combat arena, because now she has to do with a economical crisis, which leads to wars and murder by the Son of the Harper. She now understand that she has to make compromise to eventually reach these goals.
All that to say that I don't understand how it encourage to be pedophile...
It's complex, but still black and white. Frodo is white, he WANTS to do good, and does, until at the end he fails. Martin's characters, on the other hand, are much more like real life. There are some who are almost white or black, but most are gray.
@@edgepixel8467 Personally I love both Lord of the Rings and... well, I'm not sure I *love* Game of Thrones, but I do enjoy it quite a bit. I'll certainly agree that Tolkien's characters do tend to lean more clearly to either the black or white side of the moral spectrum (with some exceptions like Gollum, or Feanor in the Silmarillion), while Martin's characters generally tend to fall somewhere in the middle (with exceptions like Brienne on the pure side, and Joffrey & Ramsay on the monstrous side). I only take issue with the implication that, because Tolkien has fewer truly gray characters, that therefore makes Tolkien's stories "less complex" or "less mature." To me, that's a very simple-minded and frankly kind of childish argument (and usually made by people who like to think of themselves as very un-childish). The stories are just two different treatments of morality and humanity, that's all. You could say it's like abstraction vs. realism in art. Tolkien is looking at morality through a somewhat more abstracted lens, while Martin is attempting to depict his world more through a lens of stark realism. Neither approach is objectively more or less valuable than the other (regardless of what you personally might find more enjoyable). Both can be equally challenging and complex, and both have the ability to reveal truths about ourselves and the world: Tolkien's approach can reveal & explore things in ways that Martin's approach can't, and vice versa.
Sauron was a charming bastard that convinced Numenor to wage war on the gods, and Numenor were the descendants of men that got rewarded for standing against evil. Also, one of the reasons Sauron gets so much men to follow him is that Numenoreans were notable assholes to what they considered lesser men. Also, Sauron plays on the elves' fear of change to make the rings. It's pretty morally grey. The problem is, by the point Lotr starts, Sauron has done so much evil that he can't fool anyone into thinking he's good (and he still makes Saruman fall by playing to his pride). Song of Ice and Fire has the White Walkers who are pure evil (or at least strictly antilife), but the story starts a while before they become the main threat. The only thing I wish Tolkien had addressed was Orcs being all evil, but it was even mentioned that some of the smallest orcs were slaves ruled by fear.
I always interpreted the scene to mean you can't do it alone. Frodo could never have gotten to the Crack of Doom without Sam, and could never have destroyed the Ring without Gollum.
It was Frodo and Sam who got to the place where all it took was Gollum intervening to destroy the Ring. So evil destroys itself, but good has to push it to the point where it will.
I don't think that Tolkien was implying that Good depends on Evil to destroy itself but rather that Eru Illuvatar chooses to do it that way to amplify the triumph of Good
Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will now show forth, that ye may 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 but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined. - Silmarillion
Ultimately, God triumphs even if his vassals fail.
Chow Yee Lee I was actually going to comment something very similar to what you have just said thank you for saying what needed to be said! I agree completely! Since Tolkien was a Christian his worldview influenced his work.
I don't think the two views are separate - you are totally right that he saw Eru's plan as final, but within the scene, the nature of evil is self destructive.
~ Tim
@@HelloFutureMe Agreed. I guess to push the matter further would be to confront the very nature of omniscience and omnipotence, probably the heaviest of all theological subjects.
@@HelloFutureMe Perhaps self-limiting would be a better way of putting it. To combine the two views you might say that attempts to defy Eru's/ God's will originate from a will to destroy that inevitably consumes itself before that evil intent can do any more than serve the divine plan it sought to disrupt.
It's an interesting take on the problem of evil that is in dramatic tension with story the audience sees, are we meant to take the sacrifices of the heroes and the costs inflicted upon them and the many innocents they fail to protect while evil burns itself out as the "devising of things more wonderful"? Perhaps from Eru's perspective but only if he cares less for the characters in drama unfolding than we, the readers, do.
Edit: I just remembered what this reminds me of, brewing beer! The yeast that creates the alcohol is self-limiting in a similar way to that described above. The more the yeast uses sugar to grow and spread the more alcoholic the beer gets until the alcohol content becomes too high for the yeast to survive, stopping the process. I wonder if Tolken had any interest in brewing because the parallel is quite nice, even resulting in the creation of "things more wonderful" if you are a fan of beer.
@@dcnockels notably the greatest failiures come when men and elves seek to go against the will of Illuvatar. The Rings of power for example were created so the elves could go against the nature of middle earth by not fading and look what happened then... but it also resulted in beautiful holy things like Lorien. Or when Ar Pharazon rejected the Gift of Men and tried to seize Valinor to be immortal but the survivors did tremendously heroic deeds and defeated Sauron.
Why did Eru allow Melkor to poison Arda itself? Maybe because that struggle matured the Children of Illuvatar in a way they could never have gained otherwise (third theme). And yes, on an individual level it brought suffering but after death the children were hallowed either in body (elves) or soul (men) for eternity.
15:05 "He subverts this fantasy trope"
Pretty sure it was made a trope by people copying Tolkien (and missing most of what made his work cherishable).
Nah great fate defining battles were a thing before tolkien was writing, ask the norse about their religion or read The Worm Ouroboros both were among his inspirations I believe.
He revolutionised genre and made it what it was to be for quite a while, but he did not literally create it.
Clashing of mighty armies and hero’s on the battlefield have been a thing since literature was a thing.
I have read the books and watched the movies (including the extended version), but Lord of the Rings reveals more depth and fascination the older I become and the more I learn. Tolkien was a literary genius for the ages. After watching this video, I have to go see the movies all over again. No complaints! XD
I've been reading these stories for nearly 40 years and every time I read them I find some subtle detail I've missed. This is a masterpiece of heroism in the face of near certain failure. But, despite that near certainty, they continue with no expectation that they will succeed or that their effort will even be remembered.
One line that has always hit me emotionally (yet was unfortunately left out of the movies) is the scene at the opening of the chapter "Lothlorien". Aragon, lamenting the loss of Gandalf in the mines of Moria and says ".... Gandalf, you were our only hope.... We must continue without hope".
Heart breaking.
12:04 scared the crap out of me I didn't think it would happen and with my headphones up so loud it was scary
9
Good analysis. Well presented.
The Catholic concept you are looking for (for that mysterious connection between people's free-will and God's sovereignty over everything) is called 'Divine Providence'.
Diego Mercier
Mysterious connection? You mean impossibility.
@@edgepixel8467 No, I don't mean impossibility. If you think it is impossible, then you have to deny one of the two: either the freedom of people or the almighty powers if God. No serious theologian denies either one of them.
Diego Mercier
This is why I don't agree with theologians. The two can't be made compatible, not in a comprehensible, logical manner. Saying "God can do it, because He's so special, we just can't understand how" isn't solving the paradox. Hence I call it impossible.
Frankly, I don't believe in the objective existence of either, but I admit that belief in both can make living easier :)
@@edgepixel8467 I see what you mean. The explanation lies on the fact that God's existence lies outside (and it is not affected by) time. Only matter is affected by time. So, if God lives outside time, everything is 'present' for him, and so he can have control over everything without forcing his will on us. It make sense to me, to a great extent, but it still is kind of a mystery, obviously.
It's not just a Catholic concept, it is a concept held in all areas of Christian theology
I am currently coming out of a emotionally abusive relationship with a narcissistic person and trying to make a sense of things on a larger scale then my everyday emotions. I clicked on this video because of something mentioned in one of the videos on narcissistic abuse, where analogy was used of the One ring being the abusive relationship (One ring to rule them all) and how the journey inevitably changes Frodo, yet he survives. Even after all these years it still amazes me how deep and true Tolkiens work is that it can convey truth about our nature in so many situations. Your explanation touched on the importance of humble mercy in a way that makes me more hopeful for the future. So truly - thank you!
Hope you’re doing better
The key to Tolkien’s writing is Catholicism
Hope your doing well 🙏
@@Prometheus7272 no it isnt
BE MERCIFUL to YOUR SELF,
Do a video on my all-time favorite character: Smeagol/Gollum. IMHO the and I mean *the* best representation of how evil corrupts. Or in Christian lingo what is sin... This bit from The fellowship of the Ring ALWAYS, always gets me. The horryfing nature of evil, the repulsive nature of the Evil-Ed and how they still are pitiful.
“All the ‘great secrets’ under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night: there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering. He was altogether wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything ,and the Ring most of all.
“What do you mean?” said Frodo. “Surely the Ring was his precious and the only thing he cared for? But if he hated it, why didn’t he get rid of it, or go away and leave it?”
“You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,” said Gandalf. “He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.” (page 54)
Poor Smeagol . . . can you imagine how long he spent alone in the dark?
"All the ‘great secrets’ under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night" I think this line, given when it was said, directly foreshadows the Mines of Moria, that the dwarves were so blinded by the pursuit of riches, that they convinced themselves that they hadn't already found the best, and only digging deeper into darkness can bring MORE. They became addicted to loot crates, until they stared so long into the darkness that it stared back, and they found the hiding place of Evil's servant.
I wonder, too, if this is a metaphor for humanity's futile efforts to explore deep space. That Tolkien was trying to say we should be happy for what we already have and take care of it, lest we lose ourselves to the vast empty dark, where either we find nothing, or just confirm what we already know and gain no new knowledge, OR 'best' case scenario we discover something we couldn't have predicted, and it destroys us.
I'm a believer in the consciousness of the infinite, that given a long enough time, life is inevitable, and will eventually evolve into the universe discovering itself, learning about what makes it up, and that human imagination, our dreams and ambitions and desire to learn and grow and explore, is our 5th dimensional need to reveal new truths to ourselves, so that the infinite may itself be conscious, and we become one with God (or whatever we call it). If that's the case, then all the best stories are our guide to bring us closer to the infinite, and its through Tolkien we have taught ourselves of the nature of good and evil, of monsters and men, and a foundation of fantasy to explore new stories, to seek out new life, and new ways of communication, to boldly go deeper into ourselves.
Agree but as a Christian I feel it’s a better analogy for addiction not sin. The implications are different too because addiction has more to do with weakness than making evil choices
Hatred , is when there is no good thing left in you , . Socialism reduced to hatred, is mankind over the brink , and all is lost , ring ,faith , mercy , ,all swept away by fire , .
I have a different reading of the fall of Frodo that you might like, and I think this is where Tolkien's preference for applicability over allegory comes into play. It's actually telegraphed pretty well that Frodo's going to fail to resist the ring in the end because of the scene with the Mirror of Galadriel. Frodo asks why he can't see the holders of the three elven rings and know their thoughts, and Galadriel replies "You have not tried... Do not try, it would destroy you! ... before you could use that power, you would first have become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others." Throughout the journey of Frodo and Sam with Gollum, Frodo progressively exerts more power to over Gollum.
The only person who escapes the ring and continues to grow after it is destroyed is Sam. Sam could be seen as a type of paragon character. Sam has lots of faults, but he is defined by three things; humility, love, and in the end mercy. Sam talks up other people all the time, but he never boasts about himself. He is a servant who loves and is wholly dedicated to his master. Finally, in the end, when placed with the choice to kill or spare Gollum after his final attempt to get the ring before the cracks of doom, Sam chooses mercy once he has a faint idea of the torture that the lust for the ring places on people. This is actually a good symmetry with Bilbo's act of mercy, because immediately after choosing to spare Gollum, he believes that he has lost the ring, and feels a faint echo of Gollum's loss and despair.
Pluveus I don't think even Sam could have destroyed the ring or anyone else. The best people could do was let it go, it is literally impossible to destroy it willingly.
In the book Faramir is also a paragon character, and to be honest he is too perfect for me to like in the books.
Sam wouldn't have been able to destroy the ring either, I believe. He's wasn't as tempted as Galadriel or Aragorn because he was less powerful, and he didn't fall under the ring's power like Frodo did because he wasn't its owner and bearer for 17 years.
In one of his letters Tolkien suggests that probably noone else would have gotten as far as Frodo. And love, humility and mercy are certainly traits to be found in Frodo as well. Given the ring's power the quest could only be achieved by Frodo basically giving himself up, his sanity, his peace of mind, and he did that. Sam wasn't tested in the same way.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 He never felt 'real' like most of the characters did, at least at some point.
@@Lothiril
This is authorial commentary and doesn't have much weight. I think a good many readers have felt that Sam's love of Frodo (touching though it is) finally hindered the quest. It would have been a lot easier to carry only The Ring up rather than taking Frodo as well.
Thoughtful and thought-provoking.
Interestingly, I think there's a second reason that those who followed Tolkien's steps (Terry Brooks in particular) failed : the quality of their prose. When, as a teenager, I first read the Shannara trilogy, I was hooked on its "more of the same" story. However, when I came to re-read it a decade or so later, I found it almost incoherent : it is full of 20th-century colloquialisms; and the various characters (irrespective of their age and education) all use the exact same forms of language. Tolkien, by contrast, gives each character their own mode of speech, which reflects their upbringing and life experience. And Tolkien's narrative itself often feels as if it is speaking from deep time - because he knew the provenance of most of the words in the English language.
Alagory is not the same as applicability. Tolkien wasn't saying he disliked meaning in a work but more disliked the author trying to force his ideas on people
To add on to this it's the author forcing their ideas AT THE EXPENSE of the story. I think that's the main point of contention.
Tolkien employed allegory while deriding it. He was The Hobbit.
@@duderama6750 well you said it on the internet so it must be true.
@@duderama6750 what you meantion is not alagory anyway. A self insert is just a self insert. Alagory is a wholly different concept
He also didn't want people looking at his work and saying things like "The Ring = Nuclear Bombs" or "Mordor = Nazi Slave Camps" or what-have-you. There are no simple 1:1 things where "X = Y" in a literal sense, where everything is a stand-in for a real-life counterpart.
when I feel like I have completely messed up my life and I have no hope I watch this video and it gives me enough to carry on for another day. Thank you.
7 months later but.. You got this!
I'm not sure how but good on you!
Hope you are still carrying on :) best wishes
Hope you are still carrying on :) best wishes
Update: I am doing a lot better mentally. Thank you guys for your support.
While the religious influence is obvious throughout the works, its worth pointing out, that the expanded quote about allegory is "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history - true or feigned- with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."
This is to say that Tolkiens primary intention is not a lucidity of interpretation, but rather to take what you will from it as a reader, the Author is merely providing the vehicle for your journey. As an Atheist the religious undertones, subdued or obvious, are rather lost on me. They hold little to no appeal. Its the love of nature, and the strong bonds of friendship, as well as the rejection of classic literary tropes, like the Paragon archetype as you said. Its also the mythological presentation of the narrative and the "story grew in the telling" style that draws me in.
Just a perspective from someone who views it a little differently and desperately loves Tolkien. Love your videos, keep it up! 👍
Basically, he supported death of the author *cough* Rowling *cough*. Sorry, don't know what that last bit was about
I also think that on a lighter note, part of that scene was important to establish one thing "no one could resist the one ring". unlike many other franchises that often undercut this by having an insurmountable evil by having it be overcome with ease by the character. It also establishes without a doubt that this evil cannot be allowed to continue or be used by anyone. their is no person that can control this evil, it will corrupt, pervert, and break the person using it. no matter who (yes even mary sues cannot use the one ring)
Unless you’re Sam or Tom Bombadil.
@@Freshwater121 one was extremely temporary and Tom bomadil litterly does not care about anything other then going for walks and tending to trees. He has nothing remotely human about him in that sense.
@@irontemplar6222 So the solution to not letting evil corrupt you is to just not give a fuck? Maybe the Jedi are onto something with their whole "there is no emotion there is peace" and dismissal of all attachments. I guess the argument here is that when you care, you may wish to use evil but since using evil is basically impossible you are just giving it a chance to corrupt you.
Some say the One Ring is a symbol for power, in a sense that when you seek power and try to take it for yourself it will ultimately corrupt you.
@@beskamir5977 no it's more he was so powerful and his mindset was so alien the ring couldnt work.
Someone hire this man you do a hundred times better job with writing and story building than all of Disney, fox, universal everyone combined Tim! Thanks for all your hard work bro the ring of gyges/the one ring is a very fascinating topic. Keep at it good sir!
Another interesting perspective was Gollum's promise to Frodo at the very beginning. Gollum swears to serve Frodo "on the precious", despite Frodo's warning that it is treacherous and will hold him to his word, tying into the theme of good and evil. Gollum performs a moral act (assisting Frodo) at a point where he seems to act genuinely on behalf of his good nature.
Eventually, his harsh experience at Ithilien tips him over to evil and brings him to betray Frodo. That moral failure of Gollum is very parallel to Frodo's and they both end up "failing" *together*.
At the end, it can be seen as though the ring indeed holds him to his word and betrays Gollum to both their ends. And so it is, that it's not only in his guiding the hobbits, but also in his word of good faith that Gollum ultimately brings to the end of the ring.
A lot of people say this but it isn't true. Gollum never swore any oath. You should reread the chapter.
Wow. In the ocean of mediocrity that is TH-cam, this is a remarkably thoughtful, thorough, and intelligent analysis of LOTR and the author's deeper messages. Thank you for this great perspective.
I always saw that moment as more of an overload of ring temptation. Like the level of temptation the ring has on it's bearer (in this case Frodo) rises steadily the longer it is beared and the closer it comes to it's master. In the case of the ancient king and ancestor of Aragon (I didn't want to butcher his name's spelling) the temptation was innately far stronger, starting out at something like 30% the moment it fell into his possession, and when he went into Mount Doom and held the ring out to destroy it I always kind of thought that in somewhat of a last ditch effort to keep itself alive the ring draws on it's bearer's mind with all its power, adding what must have been 60% temptation onto the already 30. And with Frodo it grew from 5% in Hobbiton, to 25% at the Black Gates, something like 40% at Minas Morgul, and peaking out at 60% once inside of Mordor, and the sudden throttling 30% added at Mount Doom just brought him over the edge.
I will be buying your book as a reference. Its always nice to have another opinion no matter how much I like what I've written.
That quote, "Good does not triumph over evil, but depends on evil to deliver it," gave me chills. So perfect.
Geoff Britton I would disagree. Good does not depend on evil in fact it’s the other way around. Evil depends on good. Power, strength, intelligence, beauty, and existence itself are good things but can be used for the wrong purposes. Evil itself is spoiled goodness that is good things used in the wrong way
@@shawnboahene5231 I'm talking about the quote only in the context of this video and in Lord of the Rings. Of course it isn't applicable to most situations; but in the narrative structure of Lord of the Rings, it applies brilliantly and with a lot of gravity, and it was that to which I was responding. I apologize that I wasn't at all clear on that in my comment.
Geoff Britton it’s ok I misunderstood you as well. Please forgive me. However it just seems so pessimistic to me
You have no idea how much I love your words and point of view on this. I'm tired of people beating up on Frodo for failing while he is my favorite. Thanks for giving him a fair stance.
This was a beautiful video Tim, and as a Catholic who became such largely due to the influence of Tolkien, I must say that I felt well represented and respected here. Thanks for that.
Catholicism in the modern day is humble Christianity and fierce theology has no place in it. I love it for that. In my experience as a cradle Catholic, most practicing Catholics are humble and have a lot of patience.
@@tempstep4058 Interesting... what do you consider "fierce theology", because that phrase doesn't sound like a bad thing?
@@davidrojas6457
Fierce is not a good thing. St. Paul wrote in the later days men will become... he listed many bad things. Fierce was among them. Modern churchs speak with a loud fierce attitude so sure of themselves. Some won't even back down from calling others not in their group not saved; not Christians. That is having fierce theologies. Practicing Catholics don't do that. They trust Christ, they place their hope in Him and they wait. That's it.
@@tempstep4058 I have to say, what an interesting "arc" religions go through. Let's use the Catholic faith as an example (but we could use Islam, Judaism, or any other ancient religion as well):
First religions start as organized beliefs, spread slowly from person to person. Often times, said religion encounters fierce opposition, from larger more established religions or governments and institutions. Ultimately, though, the religion spreads and becomes popular because, largely, it is representative and illustrative of the core beliefs and values this religion's followers adhere to.
But notice, after quite some time, the organized religion becomes quite commonplace, and the original teachings and beliefs are changed with time and interpreted by different people. Due to the dominant nature, the religion now becomes THE institution of power. It's at this point that we see division of beliefs (see the Great Schism, or the different branches of Islam). However the power of the institute remains powerful, and unfortunately many people will use it to justify crusades, genocides, inquisitions, persecution, and terror.
This ultimately will disillusion many followers, and it is then that reforms and changes come, as people attempt to change or adapt the faith to represent the present values of the people in their modern times. Often times, however, this must result in catastrophic changes (the Protestant Reformation).
And so, after losing power and influence, it is in this new found humility that the religion may continue to serve the generations of people in the new age, or risk becoming legend and lost to the sands of time, as many ancient religions have in Greece or Egypt.
I know this is just my own personal opinion, but I would think others may agree. We could argue that Catholicism has gone through it's ugly stages, and now has better place in our lives than it did in the Medieval age. I suppose we could say Islam is struggling to get out of it's turbulent stage, and many in the West often criticize or ridicule those of Protestant or non-Catholic beliefs. The only modern Western religion i can think that hasn't gone through that, perhaps, is Judaism.
I love that you actually talked about and brought in the background of Tolkiens Christianity! Well done sir. Many people miss this very very important thing.
I think that a story that comes close to this scale of storytelling and analogy for the relationship between good and evil is the Fullmetal Alchemist series by Hiromu Arakawa, and probably has my favorite depiction of God in a story written by someone who doesn't have a traditional Western Idea of what God is. To spoil the primary conflict of the series, it's about the nature of God, aka Truth, and the way we relate as people in response to the nature of Truth.
Very entertaining and just as intriguing.
I don't even write and I'll probably buy your book when it comes out! Your content is just so enjoyable, and if the book is anything like that, then it'll definitely be worth it!
fun fact: i actually watched the lotr trilogy for the first time over the last week, and now i’m mostly glad that i can finally go back and watch all your tolkien videos and enjoy even more of your content!!
Wow how have you slacked off that long lol. Atleast you got to it finally!
Now read the books.
Lexort 420 i mean i remember trying to watch the first one when i was like 8/9 because my older brother was really into them but i just found it boring and didn’t bother until now when a friend suggested watching it
@@FreakigesSternchen
Alright fair enough, you better thank that friend though lol. Now you gotta read the books, they are so good and they have more content then the movies did. Glad you gave the movies another go!
Lexort 420 once i’m not dying under the workload of finals, maybe haha
It always saddens me when people focus on how “one dimensional” Sauron was, or how “absolutist” Tolkien was. It’s much more complicated than that. And you described it beautifully! I’ll be pointing to this video in many discussions about Tolkien in the future.
Sauron is not at all one dimensional. The only thing we the reader lack with respect to Sauron is his own explanation of his actions and vision of the future of middle earth, and the million dollar question we would also ask Satan - do you really think you can win? What was the point? But we are told in no uncertain terms that Sauron thinks he's the Prometheus of middle earth with the only way to its progress, freedom, and growth, if it will just give in to him, and he thinks, not without good reason, that the higher powers have all but abandoned it to him. And we are also told that if someone like Gandalf took the ring, they would quickly become the new Sauron with the same ideas - impose their will on the world in pursuit of their idea of good.
Tolkien leaves something to be desired, though. His world is divided between black and white good and evil, no matter how he may half-heartedly subvert that in specific ways in the main story. I think something was lost when Sauron's servants were made orcs and not men serving Sauron and fighting for their own conception of the good and right.
Tolkien is unconsciously motivated by his English background and its fear of vicious foreigners threatening it for no discernible reason than evil. The Shire couldn't make that more obvious.
12:05, I was a bit tired, resting my eyes while listening to your video.
Then that happened, scared the shite out of me.
Yes, I'm watching this late at night and I'm still trying to slow my heart rate down!
I'm a fairly devout Catholic writer myself who has been in love with Tolkien for as long as I can remember. I applaud you for spending so much time and care to research Tolkein's faith and how it effected his storytelling, even going so far as to quote the Catechism - something I've only ever seen explicitly Catholics TH-cam channels do. I learned so much from this video, not only about Frodo's struggle, but about my own faith as well. Thank you a thousand times for doing everything you do for your followers! It does not go unappreciated!
16:35 "JR Tolkien" Missing one R. But because of the theme of the video, I don't blame you for failing. I congratulate you for trying.
Underrated comment 😂
If you are interested in more Catholic themes in Tolkien. Look up the three fold role of priest, prophet, and King. Three of the main characters portray the embodiment of these roles.
Priest - Frodo
Prophet - Gandalf
King - Aragorn
As a Catholic, LOTR is amazing for explaining some of these themes to people when they have questions about the faith. I can point them to a 'secular' book, and it has great examples right there.
Aragorn is very kind! :)
@@atk05003 haha thanks. I fixed the typo. :P
I can't see how Frodo is a priest. The chief role of a priest in a religion that has priests is to carry out a cycle of sacramental acts. Killing calves on the altar, turning water into wine, whatever. Frodo does not fill that role.
@@sourisvoleur4854 His role is to carry and destroy the ring. It is very sacramental and symbolically in line with the role of a priest in Catholicism. Of course you are correct it is not perfectly one to one. Frodo is not a priest. However, that is because Tolkien did not do allegories. The characters do not usually literally embod their roles when using the priest, prophet, king literary analysis. (Though in this case Aragorn does.) You can apply this analysis to many stories like you can apply the hero's journey. It is not meant to be a perfect fit, but help uncover underlying structures of character or story. The general overview is; priest - grounded and focused on immediate tasks, prophet - high level thinker with a broad view, king - leader and mediator.
For me, the story of Frodo's Journey was like an angel's journey through hell. Its view of the world is simple, good and bad, but as the angel continues its journey it is forced to compromise, it even loses control a few times. The closer it gets to the center of hell, the Devil's throne, the weight of its torn morality grows oppressive, the guilt of choices a continual punishment until self-doubt enters the equation. Along the way, demons chitter and whisper lies in the Angel's ears, 'just rest, you don't need to continue so soon, your burdens are so heavy'...etc. Until, finally, at the crack of doom, that weight overcomes the angel's fragile morality, it had never been truly tested after all, and he falls to corruption, and instead of killing the devil, he kneels.
In comes another angel, the good voice, the idealistic version of the now fractured morality, he buoys the angel from the pit of hell, and from the devil's wrath until delivering him safely from the gates, with the lesson of his failure learned, and a new burden of guilt to bear. However, the angel no longer bears this burden alone, for he has learned that to journey through life alone is weakness, that we require others to bolster our strength as we bolster theirs.
The lesson was learned, and so the angel was allowed to return to heaven with open arms.
Boromir was also stuck in a terrible position from which many would succumb to but he didn't recieve as kind a fate as Frodo. I think this is because he despaired well before anyone else in the Fellowship due to how obviously conflicted he was with his morality and his identity. A noble warrior of Gondor or a ring thief as his father wished him to be.
These concepts of despair vs hope are stronger with the pagan anglo saxon Beowulf philiosophy than Christian though.
Great video
Beowulf was a poem Tolkien studied obsessively.
love the video! i am also from Christchurch and love to see people from a small country like new zealand doing well and sucseding on a global level. keep up all the great work
short answer: Frodo rolled a 1 on his will save
Well there's my preorder. Honestly if you can outdo yourself with this book series, like you seem to do with every video you release, then it'll be well worth it.
16:25 this is one reason I love LotR.. the exploration of what happens to people after the battle is over, and how Frodo was traumatized by what he went through. Ursula Le Guin also explored this in the later books of Earthsea, and made it all the more interesting.
amazing analysis, always knew Tolkien had an exceptional ability to tap into the weave of the reality and of the forces that guides us in life. What truly an amazing human being he was.
Could you do an "On Writing/On Worldbuilding" for Culture? How you develop it, how the characters interact with it, how cultures and religions interact with each other, ect.
I looked through his backlog of videos, loaded the last 2-3 years of videos, and did a crtl+f search for 'culture', which turned up nothing. If anyone knows what its alternate name is, could you point me towards it?
Thanks!
I was listening to the background and 12:04 scared the living shit out of me
Just before Frodo claims the ring, Sam also felt Mercy for Gollum and lets him go.
I was always touched when Sam offered to cook Gollum fish and chips if they all managed to survive the quest. It was a real offer of friendship which Gollum was too imperceptive to appreciate.
@@alanpennie8013 I'd say that Sam didn't understand how broken Smeagol was.
@@MySerpentine
Sam hadn't worn The Ring at that point.
This is wonderful, thank you so much!! I especially appreciated your delving deep into his philosophies and parallels, because those are things highly fundamental to his work that don’t often get discussed. Great job here!
Wow I really needed to see this. Thank you so much
"Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest
among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar,
those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye
have done. 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 but mine instrument in the devising of
things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'"
There are a few parts of Silmarillion that absolutely shake me down to my socks, and this is one of them. Thanks for sticking that in here. T-dog wounds my heart with sweet words. Another great one is when Eonwe, herald of Manwe, brings a message to the Men of Numenor, but I can't for the life of me find it on the Web.
Is this an allegory for God or not? I wonder how Tolkien would explain this.
@@tempstep4058 Good question. The God allegory isn't Tolkien's point here. In this quote, he is basically having Illuvatar explain and address the Problem of Pain, and he does it in astonishingly few words. That Problem of Pain is one of a handful of really compelling arguements against the existence of God - if there is an all knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God, why is he hanging out ouside of time and space and letting evil happen to good people? Well, I-dog here, big Eru, lays it out: he has allowed evil to exist because greater good will come from it. What is the point of virtue if it's easier than vice? How can you be courageous without danger, or charitable without want? Solution: "I hereby set y'all created things (Ainur and Children) so completely free that you can even disobey me, your Maker." All manner of bad things ensue, but much greater is the good because it is tested by evil. I love this passage a lot.
@@oogalook
The first time I read The Silmarillion, that question hit my head. I concluded, despite the fact that Tolkien disliked allegory, he does realize that it is one form of literature or the creation thereof. And if he has to use it, then in bringing God into his world like he did, he can get away with it without explaining or describing God or Ilúvatar. God is there, He created the Valar and everything else ensues and Ilúvatar is in the background instead of the forefront of the stories, so no need to fall into the blasphemy of explaining and describing God as if I know Him with my mortal mind. Either way, if Tolkien's answer is what you said or what I just stated, it is an absolutely genius way of having God in your story without having to describe the unknowable thereby committing blasphemy.
@Karl Quetzacoatl Hrm, good comment. You put that in a difficult way, but I agree, I think. The term "dangerous" you use is important here - a truth can be misconstrued and used to rationalize evil. Any truth can be distorted so.
Lol, let me add another wall of text to this monolithic string. I want to further distinguish the idea of "suffering as a good" from the idea of "the ends justify the means" (Nazi garbage, also repeated by anybody trying to hide from morality).
Vital to this particular case - the case of Tolkien's (and Christianity's) understanding of hardship as a positive good permitted by God - strife is not evil in and of itself. A hurricane isn't evil, nor a house fire, nor a flood. They are just accidents that happen, and they can hurt or kill you. But strife pushes people to the limit, and only at one's limit does one reveal and play out one's true inclinations. That's why you only get heroes (and looters) during great upheaval. Life's challenges constantly teach you and constantly test you, you know what I mean? Big challenges do it more, faster.
What _would_ be evil would be to _cause_ strife for the stupid reason that you want to mess with people or shake them up. If you can _cause_ a hurricane or a house fire or a war, the excuse of "teaching and testing" people can't outweigh the fact that you're knowingly killing people and destroying their stuff.
I don't think you meant to say that Tolkien was wrong, but I want to put down a point here which I think gets lost in the Internet shouting matches: Who says something doesn't affect its objective veracity. That's called the Genetic Fallacy, and it's a sucky thing that politicians and polemics have gotten us used to. One can't say the idea - hardship as a good to the world - is false because Nazis said it. The Nazis also held that science was important and medicine was good for you. The idea Tolkien presents in the passage waaaay up there, that idea has pretty obvious truth to it. Tolkien used the concept in a good way. God is the only one to know whether the good of a disaster will outweigh the harm. The Nazis tried to use it in a bad way. Thankfully they got theirs.
Cheers!
Absolutely brilliant!! I love this video!! Great job man!!
You forgot Sam showed Gollum mercy as well! For me, the heartbreak of LOTR was Boromir, as a figure who redeems himself...
Wow. This is good. Inspired me as a beginning writer. It’s been a while since college and I haven’t done any literary analysis in a while. I love tropes and digging into the writers life to unlock lessons, outlook and philosophy that the author tried to get across.
Holy cow, this was a good essay. It has been decades since I last read "LotR", and I have over time forgotten much of the elements that made it a masterpiece. This video reminded me of such profundity.
i died laughing at the "jesus christ!!!" but lmfaooo X'D
also, a quick question: how does it feel to have a video sponsored by something you made yourself? xx
Amazing! Feels like I'm really taking making strides in this job I love.
~ Tim
@@HelloFutureMe
You definitely earned it. Good work and keep it up!
@@HelloFutureMe I hope you know how proud we all are of you
@@HelloFutureMe... the word you are looking for is Esotericist.
J R R R Tolkien knew all the Christic esotericist myths and lore. Words and places like Aragon, Minas Morgul Galadriel etc
"A battle is noble because it's impossible." This is a really inspiring quote.
Very useful tbh, because it gives you strength despite having no chance at success.
I was always sad that Frodo was so affected by the Ring that he had to leave Middle-Earth nor could he have a family of his own like Sam.
He went to heaven to heal. It's beautiful
I was looking for someone (channel wise) to listen to while I prepare for the day, the energy from your videos is perfect.
Honestly, this is a fantastic video. I am thoroughly impressed in your literary analysis and I think you are spot on with what exactly Tolkien was trying to communicate through his work
The more interesting question and view is how Eru impacted the story for the outcome to be as it was. You can see the Eru's influence in a few events that happen. Did Frodo really take the ring to Mt. Doom on his own, or was the sacred flame involved? If so when and how? It would seem Gollum was used by Eru to make sure WHEN frodo failed the ring would be destroyed. Which brings up free will. The talk that Gandalf had with Frodo about not killing Gollum points to very interesting questions that were never really asked or answered. It would seem it was the fate of Frodo to fail, he never had a chance...no free will...just playing his role. No one talks about this point.
Poor Frodo. He had no real choice at all as you say.
He's an odd hero, a passive enactor of the plans of Gandalf and Elrond.
Great, Catholicism was so deeply important and vital to Tolkien and it is so often overlooked.
Or not even mentioned in his biopic!!!
It's not allowed. To mention it in Hollywood would be like an advertisement for the Church, but the Church is not of this world. We can talk about it with the people we meet, and invite them to become brothers and sisters.
Because Fordo had mercy on Gollum - he then received the mercy of Gollum biting off the ring and delivering him.
Wow thanks bro
- Frodo to Gollum
Congrats. As a sci-fi fan writer who is already very confident on worldbuilding, I just bought your book. Good chat on good vs evil.
Can't believe I'm just finding your channel. You accentuate everything I adore about Tolkien. Love your videos
"Nothing gets to me more than the end of Return of the King"
Me: Which one? Which ending?
And in the book there is a lot and I mean A LOT of stuff happening after destruction of The Ring.
Come on. There's only one real ending and that's Frodo leaving Sam and Middle Earth.
Honestly any other ending would be underwhelming, it's a shame we don't see this resolution more often
Frodo had that ring around his neck almost a year. They walked and rode horses 1200 miles, nearly completely across Middle Earth, to get that ring from Bag End to the Crack of Doom. Frodo was so pure and good he held up until the end when the Rings pull was at its strongest. Gandalf couldn’t handle it for even a short time that’s why he forced Frodo to take it. Remember Gandalf freaking out by the fire? He hadn’t even left Bag End with it. Yet, Frodo tossed it in a chest where it’s pull didn’t influence him for TEN YEARS. Then Gandalf came back and said go destroy it. Boramir was ready to kill Frodo for it. The group had t even split up yet and he already couldn’t control himself to the point Frodo left them. Even Aragorn felt it and said keep it away from him. Smeagal murdered his best friend for that Ring and lived 2000 years underground with it until he turned into Gollum. Galadriel totally flipped out over the possible power. SO Sam held the ring less than half a day verses the YEAR Frodo held it. It hadn’t been slowly killing Sam physically and mentally so of course he could carry Frodo at the end. I hate when people say Sam was the true hero. There are so many heroes and the Ring couldn’t have been destroyed without them. In the end, Gollum destroyed it dancing around like an idiot and misstepping into the Crack.
Watching this videos is both a torture and a blessing, a blessing because it helps me make my novels better, a torture because I know that my stories will hardly ever be as good as Tolkien’s miraculous lore.
I don't believe I have ever viewed a more fair-minded, knowledgeable, and above all understanding commentary on the Prof's most beloved work. I can't re-subcribe-however much I wish I could-but I'd like to say that your channel name is a guarantee of some of the best commentary on fictional works of writing, and I both hope for and dread the day I'll have watched or listened to every last one of your videos.
that jumpscare got me SO BAD😂😂😂
"I found that it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay, small acts of kindness and love." Gandalf
- Peter Jackson
Bilbo was the only one to willing give away the Ring. But of course, he was not in the heart of evil in mount doom.
Sam gave it back to Frodo.
@@ejetzer
And Frodo freely offered The Ring to Galadriel.
This video was way better than I expected. Good job! Thanks for posting.