On assumptions

And now we're all caught up!

This week (Nov 11) we have a double-portion, reading "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony" and "Strider."  Having escaped the Old Forest and arrived in Bree, a town where hobbits and humans live in harmony, the hobbits find lodging at the Prancing Pony, an inn Tom Bombadil recommended.  There, they meet Aragorn, who is at first introduced to them as strider.  He knows much more about Frodo's quest than they expect anybody to know.  He is also as keen on helping keep it a secret.  While speaking to Frodo, they notice Pippin is loudly telling the inn patrons stories about Shire, specifically Bilbo's last birthday when he disappeared.

Frodo was annoyed.  It was a harmless enough tale for most of the local hobbits, no doubt;
just a funny story about those funny people away beyond the river; but some
(old Butterbur [the inn-keeper], for instance) knew a thing or two, and had probably heard
rumours long ago about Bilbo's vanishing.  It would bring the name of Baggins to
their minds, especially if therehad been inquiries in Bree after that time.

Frodo fidgeted, wondering what to do.  Pippin was evidently much enjoying the attention he
was getting, and had become quite forgetful of their danger.  Frodo had a sudden fear that in his
present mood he might even mention the Ring; and that might well be disastrous.

'You had better do something quick!' whispered Strider in his ear.

Frodo then joins Pippin in front of the crowd, quickly changing the topic by thanking everybody for their hospitality.  One of the Bree hobbits calls for a song and Frodo obliges.  It goes quite well.  The text even tells us: "It was now Frodo's turn to feel pleased with himself."  He feels so pleased, in fact, that when the song mentions jumping Frodo leaps off the table he'd been standing on and crashes into a tray.  Somehow in the tumult, the Ring ends up on Frodo's finger, and he disappears.  So much for keeping secrets!

"Who is at fault for this disaster?"
"The Ring, of course.  It wants to be found."
"Does not Frodo deserve some blame, for he is the one who got swept up in the song and leaps from the table."
"Surely Frodo deserves some blame - he tries to help but makes things worse."
"But Strider is the one who urged him on."
"Is Strider to blame?  Maybe the inn patrons?  Why not blame Gandalf, for entrusting such a heavy burden to Frodo?  Frodo must be liable for his own actions."
"The inn patrons had no idea the One Ring was in that very room with them.  We can't hold them responsible except in the vaugest of terms, in that everyone should always strive to avoid harm.  But what is harm?  Frodo is evidently uninjured.  How are they to know the very one they spoke to had the One Ring in his possession?  While they played a part we can't hold them responsible for harms not just unintended but unimagined."
"Gandalf is also not to blame.  What other choice did he have?  It could not remain in the Shire, Bilbo isn't mature enough, and Gandalf himself dares not bear it.  Even if we say Frodo was not a good choice, can we come up with a better choice?  Indeed we should instead commend Gandalf for makinghe difficult discision to do anything, rather than do nothing and pretend that was noble."
"There's still Strider."
"How can Strider be to blame?  He only just met Frodo."
"Exactly!  So why does he encourage him to do something?  Unlike the inn patrons he knows the burden Frodo carries.  What he does not know is Frodo's capacities.  Strider, having a fearful reputation in those parts, could have strode over to the group and slammed his fist on the table, demanding quiet.  It would have interrupted the story and focused all attention on him.  Because of his rugged appearance Pippin may have remembered the dangers of their quest and so if anyone tried to get the rest of the story out he could have made something else up."
"So why doesn't he do this?  To test Frodo?"
"No, he understands the stakes are too high.  Bill Ferny is among the patrons, whom Strider already believes is working for the Enemy."
"So he holds some responsibility, too."
"He does.  Let's take this from another angle.  How could he have better advised Frodo?"
"He could have been more specific.  He could have said 'Get your friend to stop talking.'  Instead he merely encourages him to do something, and quick.  Ultimately the problem is Frodo forgets why he made himself the center of attention."
"Oh, you're right."
"Well of course!"
"No, no.  I mean, yes.  But Strider says he should do something quick.  We haven't touched on that yet."
"The danger is near, a quick response is necessary."
"Frodo's quick response causes much more harm.  He interrupts Pippin awkwardly, then gets pressed into singing a song, and then decides to enact part of the song.  We can see the threads of a panicked mind.  If only I keep doing something!  Only a good response is necessary."
"So Strider's error is telling him to be quick?"
"Well, what if being quick that is also Strider's error.  He is too quick to trust Frodo's instincts.  As we saw last week Frodo is just beginning to understand how to respond to dangerous threats.  Strider has spent a longer time with such responsibility, and he has spent a lot of time with Gandalf, who also is thus practiced.  Strider may have assumed Gandalf chose Frodo because he was particularly responsible, not because he was the best choice available."
"Strider's error was trusting Gandalf too much?"
"Yes - another error attributable to quickness.  He didn't ask Gandalf about Frodo, but made an assumption based on Gandalf's past decisions.  But had he asked, surely Gandalf would have told him Frodo was, while the best choice available and perhaps would have argued he was a good choice, that he still needed much guidance and help.  When we make assumptions..."
"I know, I know - you make an ass out of you and me."
"But you also tell stories about others before they have a chance to tell them themselves.  And by drawing your attention to what you assume, you are more likely to notice it."
"How can one overcome their assumptions?"
"By asking questions, and being curious."
"We must be open to being wrong."
"That's a negative framing - most people don't like to be wrong.  We're more likely to say "I have found the exception!" than "My assumption was wrong."  We should be curious instead.  The world is wide and complex, and how awesome is it we can learn about it?  If you make a wrong assumption, you could miss out on a friend or a business opportunity or something else.  If you're going to tell stories about others before you meet them, why are you meeting them?  Instead of deciding you know the answers already, ask questions and find connections to yourself.  No one is impressed by a know-it-all, but they may be impressed by your wide range of experience.  At the least you're less likely to stumble, as our heroes did here."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 10% to this post's final version.

On limits

Still catching up from wedding/honeymoon, but this time only 1 week behind!

For November 4th we read "Fog on the Barrow-downs."  In it, Frodo and friends leave Tom Bombadil's house, but soon get trapped by a Barrow-wight.  Tom has to come and save them.  But before he can, Frodo - the only one who has remained conscious - despairs:

He thought he had come to the end of his adenture, and

a terrible end, but the thought hardened him.  He

found himself stiffening, as if for a final spring.

The text goes on to tell us the wight's skeletal hand is crawling toward a sword near the bodies of Sam, Merry, and Pippin.  Then:

[Frodo] wondered if he put on the Ring, whether the Barrow-wight would miss him,

and he might find a way out.  He thought of himself running free over the grass,
grieving for Merry and Sam and Pippin, but free and alive himself.
Gandalf would admit that there had been nothing else he could do.

But the courage that had been awakened in him was now too strong.
He could not leave his friends so easily.

"Is Frodo a coward?"
"No!  He considers leaving his friends, but he does not."
"Why would it be cowardly to leave his friends?"
"Because his friends need him!"
"His friends are important, yes, but if he fails the Quest all will fall to darkness, anyway.  Had he fled in order to complete the Quest, he would not have been a coward.  Maybe cold-hearted ("There was nothing to else he could do"), but not a coward."
"Indeed, there is something he could do, and he did it."
"It's curious to me Frodo's imagination attributes the line to Gandalf.  Even in his own mind he could not absolve himself - he needed someone else to do it."
"That is cowardice - to think he was forced to do it.  Agency is a burden. It is easier to pretend you don't have a choice."
"So Frodo is a coward after all?"
"He would have been, had he abandoned his friends and pretended he had no choice.  But he did not do that.  He resisted."
"But even his resistance is not from him: "The thought hardened him", "he found himself stiffening," "the courage that had been awakened", "He could not leave his friends".  Frodo is the subject of forces beyond his control.  Indeed, he appears to still have no choice.  Why does the Creative Wizard use such passive language to describe our hero?"
"We know Frodo grows into a hero.  But he does not begin as one.  He has been guided so far by others - Bilbo, Gandalf, Gildor, Merry, Tom.  To have him suddenly take up responsibility on his own would be unbelievable.  He needs more time for growth."
"And this is where it begins for him.  Gandalf had said something deep in Hobbits makes them courageous and dependable.  This desperate situation makes Frodo find that hobbit courage - or allows that courage to find him.  Just two chapters ago Frodo lost his wits because of a troublesome willow-tree.  Now he is facing a malevolent spirit.  Somehow this worse danger brings out the best in him."
"As it can be for all of us.  You can't find your limits unless you are pushed beyond them, and you can't expand them unless you challenge them."
"How can we push our limits?"
"Come on - That's an easy question."
"Then answer it!"
"Find the limit of what you've done and surpass it.  But how something can be done is actually less important than why."
"But we need to know how."
"Surely, but I bet you know how to do many things you don't do."
"Well, of course."
"Why don't you do them?"
"Why do I need to do something just because I know how?"
"So then knowing how is not enough.  Why you need to do something is more important.  And if you have a good why, you can easily find the how - or at least a good starting place of a how.  Frodo wants to protect his friends."
"Frodo has experiences courage.  He thought he was at the end and refused to face it quietly.  He may not yet know how best to employ it (Remember Tom ultimately still has to save them), and while here it siezes him, eventually he will be able to feel that courage rising and sieze it himself, using it to his own ends."
"The text calls it courage, but perhaps it should be revulsion."
"What do you mean?"
"Frodo doesn't act particularly brave.  The way he attacks the wight is a bit manic - and ineffectual.  Frodo doesn't get courage, he gets fed up.  Similarly, some we may find we have an unexpected viceral reaction to injustice in the world.  A wrong we cannot stomach, cannot ignore: A peer bullied for being different; Management exploiting workers; Workers cutting corners; A friend in an abusive relationship; Recognizing we are in an abusive relationship;  An animal being mistreated."
"Aah yes - like Frodo at first we are siezed by righteousness, that something must be done.  But what?"
"We may not know, and like Frodo we may fail the test, and call upon others.  Or do nothing, too shocked at the depravity.  Perhaps shocked at our own reaction.  Some limits, when pushed, push back."
"Is this failure?"
"It is - but it is not cowardice.  The experience will harden us and clarify things about ourselves we did not yet know.  Next time we will do better, and the next time, and the next time.  We may make mistakes, but we will improve."
"But Frodo fails, in the end.  He gives up the Quest inside Mount Doom.  Cowardly or not, he could not do it."
"But that is not Frodo's test here.  It is: Can I surrender my friends?  The answer is: not if I can help it. Frodo is in the end overwhelmed by the Ring, but he never directly forsakes his friends.  Here, he stumbles on how to do it - but he knows that he must, and that drives him to do better next time."
"Frodo Baggins: Not as useless as he once was."
"A fitting subtitle for all of our birthdays as long as we are on this Earth."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 0% to this post's final version.  Mostly because, being behind, I'm in a rush.

On roots

Now on honeymoon so that comes first, but making posts as I'm able.  I won't be back on track until at least 11/25.

I will edit this post to add links as I usually have later - right now I just want to get this out there.

This week's portion is actually from last week (10.28) but I'm behind because I just got married and am now on my honemoon.  Life comes first.  That's not just for me - that's an ethical lesson for you, too, why not?  Put your life first when possible, especially when the competition is a blog.

This time we're discussing  "In the House of Tom Bombadil."  Tom's a strange character we met before and have discussed in the past.  This time we're going to look at the meaning behind some of his word choices:

"Tom's words laid bare the hearts of trees and their thoughts, which were often dark and strange,

and filled with a hatred of things that go free upon the earth, gnawing, biting, breaking,  hacking,

burning: destroyers and usurpers.  It was  not called the Old Forst without reason, for it was indeed

ancient, a survivor of vast forgotten woods, and in it there lived yet, ageing no quicker than the

hills, the fathers of the fathers of trees, remembering times whern they were lords.  The countless

years had filled them with pride and rooted wisdom, and with malice.

"Why does the Creative Wizard not just say "destroyers and usurpers"?  Why specify how?"
"We may also ask, why do they specify destroyers and usurpers?  Are not the descriptions of actions enough to garner sympathy?"
"I am not sympathetic!  You and I gnaw and bite and break and hack and burn, and though we may call these things progress, the earth must surely resent it."
"I, too, will admit to the above.  I reject I am a destroyer and usurper.  It is not the correct conclusion to draw.  It is as one who calls a toddler a terror.  Surely children act reckless and out of control, but a to call one a terror says more about the speaker than the child."
"Words should be used to reveal the speaker, even if unintentionally.  The trees cannot see the benefit of progress, and perhaps that is because they do not experience it."
"To them, the free peoples have destroyed what was working and have usurped their domain."
"Usurped is a particularly strong word.  Gnawing, biting, etc are all actions one can regret or wish to avoid.  But usurp necessarily breeds grievance.  The dethroned wishes to retake their crown"
"The trees not only lament their loss of power, but desire to reclaim it."
"Oppose this with the Elves, who see their time as ending and, more-or-less, embrace it.  The time for Men has come."
"Not only will Sauron resist that age.  So will the trees of an age past."
"Which brings us to the final sentence, of rooted wisdom."
"This wisdom has been twisted.  See, it appears between pride and malice."
"Rooted in it, perhaps.  But roots are good, and wisdom is good.  How can these two things, together, make something bad?"
"Roots are good because they make one sturdy, and create a path back to the solid ground.  Without roots, one is unsteady - perhaps seen as unreliable.  Not disloyal, but without loyalty at all.  Roots are dependability. "
"Wisdom is good because, err, well how to describe?"
"Wisdom is to knowledge what a blog is to words."
"What??"
"Knowledge is an accumulation.  A library."
"Another metaphor??"
"And wisdom is the catalogue.  No, not quite."
"Getting lost in the stacks?  A catalogue is just another accumulation."
"But organized."
"But this imaginary library isn't organized?  Just books randomly placed?  Words, too, are organized letters.  Neihd isn't a word."
"It could be."
"But it isn't.  Wisdom isn't a catalogue.  Let's move along."
"Knowledge is knowing things - wisdom is knowing how to use those things."
"You could have said that to start."
"What happened to 'Let's move along'?  This is obviously good because if you know lots of things you need to know how and when to apply that knowledge.  That's why info-dumping can be offputting to some people, because it isn't useful right then."
"So roots give you something to depend on and wisdom helps you use what you know."
"So far so good - but rooted wisdom inhibits wisdom.  You begin to depend on what you know, and you - one may say - catalog what you've done.  And soon your wisdom becomes second-nature and soon that becomes routine.  Y happens, you do X.  That's no longer wisdom then, that's knowledge."
"What is an example of wisdom becoming knowledge?"
"Calendars used to be monumentally complicated and had to be reoriented often to remain correct.  The Gregorian calendar fixed a lot of those issues - now we reorient once every 4 years with an extra day.  It isn't a perfect system, which we know, but for the most part figuring out the date is exceedingly simple, such that it can be hard to explain that people used to live not with merely a different calendar but essentially with none whatsoever.  Like comparing roman numerals to a calculator.  Both use numbers, but aren't compatible with each other."
"So rooted wisdom takes wisdom that has become knowledge and refuses to update it."
"Yes - it continues to claim its insights are still insights, rather than using the evolution of wisdom to knowledge as an opportunity to gather new wisdom."
"However, the world continues to move onward.  Progress is inevitable.  If you hold on like that, pride in your old ways and malice toward the new is inevitable.  You will feel usurped, but really you will be left behind."
"What should be done with those who feel left behind?"
"They must be brought with us - or better: invited.  Even if it means changing the arc of progress to include them.  Otherwise, they will use their agency to undermine progress.  We must help them see not that the new world is destroyers: merely gnawing, biting, breaking,  hacking, burning.  We are gnawing away at old problems, rather than seeing them as unbeatable.  We are biting into new challenges, pushing human limits.  We are breaking traditions that stifle to include more people.  We are hacking away at old restrictions.  We are burning the old ways not for spite, but to forge something new.  Some will resist till the end, but most people want a community and aren't as picky as we think about where it comes from.  If we reach out to them, if we invite them in, we'll have less old forests in our world to worry about, and less need to hope for eucatastrophe to overcome them."

 This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 0% to this post's final version.

On eucatastrophe

I got married last weekend, so I've missed posting the past two weeks.  Totally worth it, but time to play some catch-up!

This week we read The Old Forest, following Frodo and his friends finally leave the Shire.  But the Old Forest is dangerous.  The trees have had a history of attacking the Shire, and the hobbits have needed to defend themselves with fire.  There's bad blood between them.

Once very deep into the first the hobbits suddenly feel very tired.  Sam suspects something and is able to resist, but the other three fall asleep.  While asleep, Merry and Pippin get sucked into a large willow tree's trunk, which closes again around them.  Frodo collapses into a brook, and Sam has to save him from drowning.  Afterwards, Sam points to Merry and Pippin's feet sticking out of the willow tree.  Frodo responds:

"What a foul thing to happen!  cried Frodo wildly.
Why did we ever come into this dreadful Forest?
I wish we were all back at Crickhollow!"

And after some futile efforts to free them...

But Frodo, without any clear idea of why he did so,
or what he hoped for, ran along the path crying help! help! help!

As it happens, Tom Bombadil is in the area, and responds to their cries for help.

"Frodo sure has lost his resolve quickly."
"How silly his pronouncements of 'what must be done' seem now.  How foolish he must feel - his will thwarted not by Black Riders but by trees."
"Sam does not regret coming though.  In fact, his purpose may have been proven by this bad turn of events.  When Frodo and the others are in danger he does not flee, as Frodo does."
"It is easier to protect friends nearby than complete a Task that is out there."
"This is not the only time in our text that friendship and a Task collide."
"Do go on."
"This parallels the incident at Mount Doom quite nicely.  There, Frodo gives up the Quest.  There, Sam's friendship endures.  There, all hope is lost.   And there an unlikely source saves the day."
"Getting one's finger bitten off is hardly a cause for celebration."
"When the alternative is certain capture by Nazgûl?  Small price to pay."
"So the Ring overpowers Frodo in the end.  Are the trees as powerful as the Ring?"
"Frodo is not nearly as hardened as he becomes - they do not need to be so powerful."
"And yet here the Creative Wizard sets up the structure for his climax.  Frodo gives up his senses.   Even hope fails.  But good prevails.
"It is eucatastrophic."
"And those are not the only two eucatastrophes of our text.  Helm's Deep is rescued from defeat by Erkenbrand's last-minute return*.  Gandalf's defeat at the hand's of the Witch King is interrupted by the ride of the Rohirrim.  The battle of Pellenor Fields is turned by the arrival of the army of the dead.  And then there's Saruman's death."
"But eucatastrophes are difficult to predict, and dangerous to depend on.  What ethics can be borne of "sometimes things just work out"?""
"To keep holding on."
"Hope is not a strategy."
"But perserverance is.  Nothing happens in a vacuum.  While one toils at a Task the world continues to turn.  That turning may make things easier or may make them harder."
"So then perseverance may not be a good strategy at all, if delay will only increase the Task's difficulty."
"This is true.  If you can finish a task, you ought to.  Delaying your own victory is gratuitous, revealing you don't want the prize but merely to relish in its taking - or to be seen taking it.  But if failure seems imminent, hold on.  If defeat is coming at you, delay.  Eucatastrophes are not a strategy, but they are possible.  Instead of running around shouting Frodo could have buried his face in the grass.  Instead he makes a ruckus, and eventually this got Tom's attention.  Helm's Deep held off the Uruk-Hai for 3 days.  Gandalf stands his ground.  The Rohirrim at Pellenor Fields fought fiercely as long as they were able.  Surrender is the surest defeat."
"As a counter-example, the Witch-King is gratuitous in victory.  He enters Gondor and faces off with Gandalf.  He says "Do you not know Death when you see it?"  His sword ignites in flames.  But suddenly, the Rohirrim announce their arrival with their warhorns.  The Witch-King leaves to deal with the new threat.  But he appears to have Gandalf at his mercy - or at least he thinks he does.  Why not dispatch with Gandalf first, before he can recover?  He simply gloats, confident victory is his whenever he wishes it.  It doesn't occur to him someone else may rob him of it."
"Is holding on ethical?  Isn't that the imperative of all life?  If ethics is doing the harder thing, how can our recommendation be to just do what the body does anyway?"
"The body wants to endure simply to endure.  What we are recommending is to endure and remain loyal to the Task.  It is not to survive and remember the Task.  It is to survive, to speak and rally others to the Task - or to give other elements of the Task time to catch up.  The Task may be appointed to you, but you need not do it alone.  In fact, it is probably akin to the gloating we were speaking of earlier to believe you, alone, can do it."
"So: Hope is not a strategy, but perseverance is.  Don't just hope things go your way.  But as you hang on, look for new opportunities.  As the world turns, seek out new options.  When the world gets hard hold on and keep your eyes open.  Eucatasrophes come in many forms, and we should not depend on them, but they will not happen without our attention.  Helm's Deep, the Rohirrim at Pellenor field, and Gandalf are saved by reinforcements.  They came later than expected - but they came."
"Well, hold on.  This doesn't align with THE eucatasrophe of the text.  Gollum, was thought to be dead, and he certainly is not their reinforcements.  And when he was noticed nobody let him bite the Ring off Frodo's fingers.  Nor did anybody expect Grima to turn."
"This is a good point."
"How can you reconcile?"
"An inherent property of good is cooperation.  The free peoples are brought together by common cause, but only as much as they wish.  Sauron's side is compelled by his will, but he shares rule with no one.  The Ring gives people the hope they may overthrow him, necessarily leading to conflict.  Therefore, when facing evil, if you are able to delay, even with no clear plan, you allow for their petty squabbles to surface."
"Yes!  That is what happened in both cases.  Saruman taunts Grima one too many times, and he kills him.  Gollum and Sauron both seek the Ring, but separately.  The Nazgûl would have turned it over to him, but not Gollum.  But it still doesn't explain Gollum's fall.  I can't justify anyone waiting around for a foe to simply misstep."
"Me neither."
*Silence*
"Pipeweed?"
"Please."

*Edited 3/10.  I'd wrongly said Eomer returned to Helm's deep, not Erkenbrand.

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 0% to this post's final version.  Mostly because I was rushing.

On dangers

 I got married this past weekend, so I've missed posting the past two weeks.  Totally worth it, but time to play some catch-up!

In this week's chapter, A Conspiracy Unmasked, Frodo is about to reveal his true purpose, to leave the Shire, to his friends (except Sam, who already knows).  As he does this, though, his friends reveal they already know, and they will not allow him to leave them.  Our text tells us...

"But I must go," said Frodo.  It cannot be helped, dear friends.
It is wretched for us all, but it is no use your trying to keep me.
Since you have guessed so much, please help me and do not hinder me!"
"You do not understand! said Pippin.  "You must go - and therefore we must, too."

"Why must Frodo go?"
"Because destroying the One Ring is very important.  It must be done.  Whether Frodo survives is not as important."
"The Ring must be destroyed.  But must Frodo go, given the dangers?"
"Who else could do it?"
"If the world is such only Frodo can save it, is Frodo obligated to carry the burden?"
"If Frodo can save it, he must possess the sense of responsibility required, too.  If he does not have that sense of responsibility, he could not save the world."
"Why be responsible, then, if your only reward is more work?"
"Joy is fleeting.  All delight and pleasure washes away in the night, blown away by the dawn.  What remains is what is built, which requires work."
"Are you saying all joy is meaningless?"
"No!  But joy is fleeting.  If joy so easily escapes we must find a constant source to replenish us.  Your responsibilities must bring you joy, or at least the fruits of your work.  Tragedy is inevitable.  Lives will end, loves will leave, bottles will empty.  When that happens, what use is joy?  If you aren't building, then when tragedy strikes you will have nothing to lean on."
"What does Frodo build by going?"
"A chance at a better world."
"Why must the others go?"
"Because their friend should not go alone."
"He is not going alone - Sam is already joining him."
"And should Merry and Pippin be denied?"
"Is Frodo not allowed to deny them, in order to protect them from danger?"
"Who compels them to join?"
"No one else - only themselves.  They possess the sense of responsibility over their friend."
"But destroying the One Ring is very important.  It must be done.  Whether Frodo survives is not as important."
"It is to them.  If Frodo goes and saves the world but dies their joy will be lessended.  Not only will they have not built something with their work, they will feel his absence - instead of nothing they will have worse: a hole.  Pippin and Merry, to this point, have embodied frivolity, all singing and joking.  But they realize without their friends - both Sam and Frodo - they will have lost something important to their lives, something they had not realized they had had.  To drink to the health with different strangers every night might seem wordly but the connections you make with them can only be so strong.  Better to drink and dance with a small few, over and over again.  To pile joys upon joys, so when tragedy strikes it is easier to recall, because you have so many to recall.  You can see what is built: this corner reminds me of the time... I recall making this piece... I forgot about that until I saw...  It is a source of depth and dependability - it becomes the constant source.  Those who seek joy without it will fail.
"Is Frodo right to want to keep his friends home and safe, or are his friends right to want to remain with him?"
"They are right, for danger is inevitable.  Better to face it with friends."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 10% to this post's final version.

On carrying

Switching back to the old format because I'm already a day late and the idea of this post has been bouncing around in my head in my voice for the past few days and I don't want to translate it into dialogue form.

This week is our first double portion and we read two chapters, "Three's Company" and "A Shortcut to Mushrooms."  In it we follow Frodo and Sam - now joined by Pippin - as they begin the journey to Frodo's new home in Crickhollow, in the east of the Shire.  We, as well as Frodo and Sam, know this is just a cover story.

The journey is a few days, and the three hobbits make it with packs on their back.  As they begin, Frodo complains about the weight.  He says,

"I pity snails, and all that carry their homes on their back."

Usually when discussing ethics it's best to focus on treatment of other people.  There's an argument that we, as autonomous human beings, can treat ourselves however we like.  No one should force me to go on a 5 mile run, but if someone else wants to push themselves to do that then who are we to judge?  Everyone should do what works for them.

On the other hand, just because someone does something doesn't mean it works for them; addiction is the most obvious example.  When can we intervene, even to the detriment of their autonomy?  When should we say "It is a greater good to stop you than it is to let you be free?"  After all, for ourselves, we'd say the bar is extremely high.  We wouldn't want to be stopped.

So while genereally these write-ups are meant as ethics for how we treat others, this one wll be about ourselves.  I think it will branch out to how we treat others, but I'm not certain.  Well, let's go!

I've been very busy the past few months.  I've been wedding planning (along with my fiancee and our parents) and we've bought a condo.  I've also been promoted to management at my job, a position which requires a lot more energy than my previous position.  A lot of people depend on me and I don't want to let them down.  As always, I worry I've Peter Principled myself, though that's not the point here.

All of the above involves a lot of work.  At work I've been so busy that most of the condo/wedding stuff gets pushed out of my mind.  At first that worried me - I wanted to be thinking about these things all the time.  But my job is so busy that it was unavoidable and I accepted it.  Eventually I began to see it as a good thing.  At work I focus on work.  Nothing about the condo or wedding is on fire - It can all wait until at least the afternoon.  After work, I can work on those other things.  I am fortunate in this regard that my job is quite strict about not working after hours.  Wedding/condo doesn't creep into my work and work doesn't creep into wedding/condo time.

In this way I am not like a snail, carrying everything around with me all at once.  I mean, I am, but I compartmentalize.  Compartmentalizing allows me to focus on certain things at certain times, and that seems to work pretty well for me.  It's certainly less overwhelming.

And when I am less overwhelmed I can both be more productive on each thing and will be more patient with others (and myself).  If I think of all I have to do at once it will be hard to prioritize and difficult to keep my cool when someone asks something of me that I'm not already thinking about - who are they to add to my stress?!  But if I keep work at work and these personal responsibilities at home - and even schedule separate time for wedding planning and condo stuff, to keep THOSE separate - then it's easier for people to know when to approach me about each thing.  And it means when I make time to relax I'm able to focus on that.

So I think compartmentalizing is an important stress-reducing (or at least stress management) strategy, which helps us be kinder to ourself and others.  Being kinder to others is obviously ethical, but being kinder to ourself should not be underestimated.  If being ethical were easy we wouldn't need to write guides for it.  There are few guides for breathing.  And if we need a guide, you need attention and focus to read and remember it - which are difficult to come by if we're stressed.  Kindness to ourselves is necessary if we are to be kind to others.

But also there are those who have a harder compartmentalizing.  Rather than telling them how they should do things, we should try not to take what we may see as overreactions personally, or as failings on their part.  Other people are always fighting a battle we know nothing about.  We can and should advise them about whether they are on the right side, or whether they are fighting the right way, or whether they should be involved at all.  But we don't need to tell them in that moment.  If they are carrying it all on their back at once they may believe all of their responsibilities are tied together.  They may not know how to separate them, or believe it impossible, or they may have forgotten they're carrying it at all and think whatever it is has become part of them, as if they themselves are snails, always destined to carry.  In that moment, kindness and patience is the best we can offer them.

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 5% to this post's final version, but only because I was too lazy to use a regular thesaurus.

On contempt

This week we read "The Shadow of the Past," in which Gandalf tells Frodo a lot about the Ring and it's history and how it came to him.  As part of this history Gandalf tells Frodo Gollum is "hobbit-kind" (in the Creative Wizard's style, this to say Gollum's race is related to hobbits, not that he is a kind of hobbit).  The text tells us Frodo's reaction, 

"Gollum!" cried Frodo.  "Gollum?  Do you mean that this is the very
Gollum-creature that Bilbo met?  How loathsome!"

"I think it is a sad story," said the wizard, "and it might
have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known."
"I can't believe that Gollum was connected with hobbits,
however distantly," said Frodo with some heat.  "What an abominable notion!"

"Why does Frodo exclaim Gollum's name and then ask it?"
"Because Frodo is familiar with Gollum, but not in this context.  Gollum has been some far-away evil of otherkind.  But now he has become something closer.  He shouts at the horror, and then he asks at the closeness."
"But he is not yet sure - his next sentence is to ask Gandalf to confirm he has understood."
"It is not a true question.  His next sentence conveys disgust.  He already knows the answer."
"Why is Frodo disgusted?"
"Frodo has always seen the Shire as something apart.  Bilbo went into the world and found evil, and he brought it back with him in the form of the Ring, but still it remained separate.  Bilbo and the Shire remained good.  To know Gollum, an important villain in Bilbo's story, is of the Shire - or at least related to it - demonstrates the Shire may not be as apart as he believed."
"But why should that matter?  Gandalf tells Frodo of Isildur and of Sauron and of the Rings of Power.  Why is Gollum what disgusts him?  What about that drives him to at last respond "with some heat"?"
"We expect the world to disappoint us, at least in some way.  But our world, whatever that means, is safe.  Isildur is a man, not a hobbit.  The Rings of Power are from ages ago.  Sauron is a distant enemy.  These are all others.  Of course they will fall."
"So Frodo is disgusted at Gollum because he shows the Shire may fall?"
"Exactly."
"Is Frodo right to have such a response?"
"Right and wrong are not the correct frame.  Rather, he cares more because Gollum is closer to him.  Men, powerful rings and Sauron are all the other.  Frodo can ignore them when he wants - as the rest of the Shire often does.  He has contempt for them because they are not like him.  He doesn't bother to understand - they are too different.  Consider the bar talk in the Shire.  No one is worried the outside world is going to crush them - they just complain when the outside ecroaches on their plans. They should be more worried, but they are not.  But an evil within?  That's not possible to ignore.  So Frodo responds more strongly."
"Frodo exclaims Gollum's name first, then asks it?  Why not ask, then exclaim?"
"Because Gollum is not the answer.  All consideration of Gollum leads only to more questions.  As should be the case.  When we find a selfkind which disgusts us it should elicit curiosity, not exclaimed dismissal.  It is disturbing to see someone like us has fallen short because it means we could fall short.  But it is an opportunity to learn.  It is also, perhaps, an opportunity to help.  Gollum, we know, will have moments of growth.  Even though his life ends with evil, he is given opportunities to be less evil in the text and he takes some of them.  Good is not a purity to be protected against all encroachment, but a road we strive to remain on, or return to when we stray."
"Gandalf says it is a sad story, but Frodo disagrees.  Who is right?"
"Gandalf, obviously.  His response is more empathetic, which we should assume is correct."
"But they know the same story.  Why does Gandalf have more empathy?"
"Gandalf has been around longer and has seen and knows more of good people falling short.  He knows it is not fair to pin the blame on Gollum for what was ultimately the Ring's corruption of him."
"So empathy is gained through age?"
"Not exclusively, but there are some perspectives we would not expect children to have."
"What perspective is that?"
"Frodo seems to believe the Shire is distinct from the rest of the world in its capacity to withstand evil.  To learn it is just as susceptible is a hard lesson, and requires to a radical new understanding of the world.  Frodo could, and initially does, hold Gollum in the same contempt as the rest of the world.  Actually in worse contempt, as Gollum's fall chips away at the Shire's separateness.  But Frodo later learns everyone is vulnerable to the Ring.  The Ring does not seek out only the weak, avoiding those it could not corrupt.  The Ring seeks out the weakness of everyone it encounters, and everyone has a weakness, so it can corrupt everyone (maybe not).  But at this moment Frodo seems to believe the Shire, and thus him by extension. has some innate ability to withstand the Ring.  The Shire would have to be defeated by evil - but everyone else can only fail to withstand it.  Notice the subtle shift in responsibility.  But that is wrong.  Similarly, it is childish to believe they would fall for evil but I and my community would never!
"We are all vulnerable."
"And because we are all vulnerable it's better to ask why they fell to evil, and take the opportunity to gird that weakness in oneself.  Gandalf's response is better because he does not blame those for falling to the power of the Ring, just as it would be silly to blame someone for falling to the power of fear.  Even if we believe someone is too easily scared the ultimate fault lies with the thing which scared them.  Even if we can say we would have withstood that fright, there is some level of fright which would overcome us, and it would be extremely arbitrary to say anything below our threshold is to be dismissed, anything above is to be cowered at."
"Gandalf knows we should judge people based on their own threshold."
"No - that leads us to say "Of course they failed, how could we expect them not to?" or "Of course they resisted - why would you worry they wouldn't?"'
"So then what?"
"Gandalf knows that everybody has a threshold, and we should not judge the differences.  Rather when someone falls to evil (or anything which they had tried to resist) we should respond not as if they have failed, but instead that they have been defeated.  Not to wonder how we could have done better but to step into their fray and help them rise back up.  It is never too late."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 5% to this post's final version.