Quips & Quotes

Over the past 10 years, three times I have read Lord of the Rings and written lessons we can learn, chapter by chapter.  By now I have a good grasp of the lessons that repeat in the story and how one could apply those lessons to life.  Now I want to take a moment to highlight particular quotes that a community might often reference, if they took LotR as a religious/ethical guide.  I'll add some thoughts below each one.

"You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Gloin, for you are dangerous yourself." - Gandalf

• The crossout is there to show the original, but in practice this would be replaced by the person you are speaking to.  This would be used as encouragement when somebody feels overwhelmed.  I would also add that one is threatened only when one is threatening - we ignore ants but not wasps.  If someone is taking you seriously, it is only proof you are someone worth taking seriously.

"Even Gollum may have something yet to do." - Frodo

• A reminder that all things have their place - a spin on "God works in mysterious ways."

‘I shan’t call it the end, till we’ve cleared up the mess, And that’ll take a lot of time and work." - Sam

• A reminder that defeating evil isn't all there is too it - we need to re-establish good.  This quote prepares us for the dull toil of the good life.

"If we all got angry together..." - Robin, one of the Shirriffs

• Again, the crossout is there to show the original, but in practice this would be replaced by some other emotion or action, though anger would be appropriate in a lot of places.  This quote happens during the Scouring of the Shire, and would be used when one feels some change that people are slowly accepting but that nobody likes.  It reminds the power of collective action.  It would also reinforce the importance of community.

"You won’t rescue Lotho, or the Shire, just by being shocked and sad." - Merry

• The reverse of the previous two quotes.  Feelings may drive us to action, but they are not enough.  Also see how this quote is about you, rather than we.  Collective action is the source of power.

"It would not stop with that!" - Galadriel

• I saved the best for last.  I've written pages on this quote and I believe I could write a whole book on it.  Galadriel says this after she is offered the Ring, and Sam tells her she would use its power to punish the bad people.  It's a reminder that power, once unleashed, is not easily bottled back up.  Whenever a sweeping proposal is made, this quote would be referred to in order to dampen the enthusiasm.  Power, whether revenge or justice or retribution or mercy or coercion or love must be kept on a tight leash to be used responsibly.

Well it's not like writing the Red Book!

• A little quip when something seems hard.  Perhaps something to break the ice at a tense moment in a meeting.

There are many more, maybe I'll add more and periodically repost this, but these are the ones that stuck out to me.

Well, until next time!

On Friends

We have reached the end, of our text.  The final chapter is "The Grey Havens" and I am again embarrassed to be reminded the Grey Havens are not across the Sea - it's just the port in Middle Earth that one takes there.  Ah well.

We follow Frodo as he goes to Grey Havens.  In usual Frodo fashion he tries to slip away.  He tells Sam to join him on a journey not mentioning Sam will have to return without him.  When they arrive, however, they are met by Merry and Pippin, who tell them Gandalf gave away Frodo's secret.

‘Yes,’ said Gandalf; ‘for it will be better to ride back three together than one alone."

When Frodo and Gandalf (as well as Bilbo and many Elves) have sailed away:

At last the three companions turned away, and never again looking back they rode slowly
homewards; and they spoke no word to one another until they came back to the
Shire, but each had great comfort in his friends on the long grey road.

Everything in life is better with friends.  When I was growing up a friend whom I emailed a lot with had this as his signature: "Shared with friends joy is doubled and sorrows are halved."  

Friends are a critical support system for making the harder choice.  Any sorrow resulting from your choice can be shared with others and not carried alone and any joy of course will be also multiplied.  But also, have you ever met a good person with no friends?  You may have - they exist.  But the amount of good they can do is limited.  Sometimes we can make the world better by acting.  But sometimes we make the world better through our words - persuading people of one thing or another to change their actions.  You are less likely to listen to someone who isn't your friend, and even less so if they have no friends.  

But friends also provide support by rejuvenating us.  Generally I think the text teaches that ethics is "doing the harder thing."  By definition the harder thing takes more energy.  But the harder choice isn't always the ethical one.  That's why it's important to discuss with friends - so when we are faced with a hard choice we can determine if it is the kind of hard choice worth making.  Friends can help us determine the right thing to do and give us the motivation to make that harder choice.  And if we err our friends can point this out to us and support us in righting our past wrongs.

It is noteworthy on their way home the hobbits don't speak to each other but are comforted nonetheless; Their sorrows are reduced.  We may think we need to do things with our friends, but this may miss the point.  It's great to do that, and certainly doing things is better if you're with friends, but there's also something about just seeing and being with a friend.

We are so used to content being thrown in our face we think we need to compete with it - we hope our friend has a good enough time with us they'll want to come back.  But this presents a "Like and Subscribe" aspect to friendship.  Friends are not check-boxes to mark off, nor are they teachers giving us grades, nor clicks or views to accrue.  They are other people we co-exist on this planet with.  We're social creatures and we should make time for them for its own sake.  We don't need to do something else so we can invite them.

So maybe it is the case friends are like check-boxes to mark off.  You then should expect that mark to fade and need to be renewed.  That analogy doesn't quite click for me, but I can't think of a great one, so let's get weird with it:  Spending time with your friend is like drying off your hands with a towel.  The towel will eventually airdry.  When it's reached that point, reach out to them again.

We often want any time together to be an event.  But that takes time and planning and energy - which is a harder thing.  But that's not necessary to see friends.  Just invite them over, or text them, or video call them, or hang out with them on Fortnight or some other virtual space.  Be with them however works.

We assume others are busy and happy and if they aren't reaching out then that's on purpose, rather than an error of omission.  "If my friends wanted to see me they'd ask to see me more often."  But perhaps they are thinking this of you?  And so this mutual deference leads to a drifting a part.  An overbearing friend is unpleasant, but it's easier to negotiate because you're already talking.   Silence, I have found, is the real killer.  It's one thing I appreciate about Facebook - liking someone's post keeps us in touch in a simple, but tangible, way.

Find time for your friends.  Being in the presence of others, even just sharing silence on the phone, connects us to them and the world at large.  And while I do think it's important to make ethical choices for its own sake - I worry significantly about the personal and societal moral rot of reduced standards - ultimately the only reason to do the right thing is for the sake of the world and its most important inhabitants:  Other people.

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 the necessity of losing innocence

This week we read "The Scouring of the Shire," a chapter that describes the ultimate reversal of Middle Earth.  Sauron is destroyed.  Middle Earth is at peace, united by the King.  Everything is good everywhere - except in the Shire.  The Shire is on the edge of ruin.

Throughout this cycle we have talked repeatedly about power.  It is bad to want it, bad to have it, and bad to use it, because it is inherently corrupting.  The Ring's power isn't corrupting - the Ring is corrupting because it motivates one to seek power.  The only right application of power is specific and finite.  Raise an army to confront an evil in the world, destroy it, and then dissolve the army.  Be Cincinnatus.  No mission creep is allowed.

But while power is inherently bad, the text does not forbid it.

As I've said before (though I can't seem to find where) in Middle Earth evil self-destructs and good becomes corrupted.  Everything fades.  It would not be surprising to discover, generations later, Aragorn's line fails its promise.  But that doesn't undo the good he did.  What is better?  To take power and risk corruption or to live forever under a boot, hoping for its self-destruction, and maintaining your innocence throughout?

The hobbits return to the Shire and learn it has been taken over by ruffians - Big Folk from outside.  Rules have been installed to control the hobbits.  The harvests are stolen (euphemistically called "gathered").  Some Hobbits are promoted to be Shirrif's, to legitimize the operation and do the work the men don't want to do.  The Shire's gates are locked and guarded throughout the night.  This is not the Shire our hobbits left.

The Hobbits still in the Shire do not stir against their new lords, though as we'll see they very clearly detest them.  They don't want to risk losing, obviously.  But I think it is because they are so used to being innocent and ignorantly cared for.  The Creative Wizard's countryside ideal is too good, too removed from the responsibilities of power, and thus risks its own destruction.

The returning Hobbits have a different relationship with power.  They have seen it used for ill, and they have seen it used for good and then (better yet!) put aside when the task is done.  They know what can be done.  Moreover, I think they cannot live without it being done.  It would be impossible for these four to live under the oppression the other hobbits have accepted.  They know what can be and so they set about fighting back.  These four quotes, which happen at a distance from each other but I'll still presented chronologically, neatly demonstrate the trajectory of events following the return of Frodo and company:

[Merry] sprang from his pony, and seeing the notice [of rules] in the light of the lanterns, he tore it down
and threw it over the gate. The hobbits backed away and made no move to open it.
Come on, Pippin!’ said Merry. ‘Two is enough.’ Merry and Pippin climbed the gate, and the hobbits fled.

‘If I hear not allowed much oftener,’ said Sam, ‘I’m going to get angry.’
‘Can’t say as I’d be sorry to see it,’ said Robin [a shirriff] lowering his voice.
If we all got angry together something might be done.

Said Merry "Now!  Wake all our people! They hate all this, you can see: all of them
except perhaps one or two rascals, and a few fools that want to be important,
but don’t at all understand what is really going on."

‘Seems almost too easy after all, don’t it?’ said Cotton [after a victorious confrontation against some men].

After a few more victories, the hobbits discover Saruman is behind it all.  He confronts them in the Shire and laughs at the destruction he has caused, calling it vengeance for the destruction they wrought on his home.  The hobbits want to kill him, but Frodo demands they let him go in peace so he might one day realize his error and repent.  They reluctantly agree.

Grima is with Saruman, and Frodo offers him a place to stay if he'll abandon Saruman.  He appears about to take it but then Saruman kicks him.  Finally pushed too far he lunges at Saruman and slits his throat.  In response some hobbits fire arrows at Grima, killing him.  The Shire is free again.

Saruman's evil caused his own destruction.  But the hobbits' innocence is corrupted by the needless killing of Grima.  But ultimately, I think this is a small price to pay.

I heard a quote this week that really fits into this chapter.  'Power means you have forfeited your innocence'.  It's from a great talk by Yossi Klein Halevi, an Israeli, about the tradeoffs of being a Jew in 1945 and of being a Jew in 1948.  I recommend you listen to the whole thing, but the essence is: Being an innocent victim is easy, taking action is hard and fraught with risks.

Frodo's offer of amnesty seems magnanimous, but I think it is out of place.  Indeed, Treebeard already released him from Orthanc believing he was "safe from doing any more harm.  Saruman showed no sign of guilt then or now.  Frodo is only giving Saruman an opportunity to recover his strength and return.  He is hoping for a similar eucatastrophe - but that is not an ethical approach to life.

I've long wondered why Frodo has to leave the Shire.  He doesn't seem excited go to the Grey Havens - it's not presented as a reward for a job well done.  But now I think I have an answer:  He's been so close to power that he now wants nothing to do with it.  He wants the Shire to remain as it was, powerless and innocent, but it will not.  It must take responsibility for its own existence - even if that means it will sometimes act wrongly.

Being innocent and suffering under evil is easy.  One can get used to anything, including suffering.  Suffering can give us meaning!  But willingly suffering when you could overthrow your oppressors is just abdicating your power.  Suffering doesn't make you better.  Power should be used responsibly.  Powerlessness has no merit.

Frodo - and the Elves he is leaving with - are too focused on purity.  The Elves want Middle Earth to be purely good and Frodo wants it to be purely just.  These are great goals to strive for, but the purity is going to cause problems.  For one thing, purity contradicts any compromise.  In a world full of different nations of men (as well as dwarves, hobbits, and the other races) disagreements will come up.  Accomodation, not purity, must guide the coming years.  And that's going to require tolerance of mistakes.

Innocence is a crutch, and a necessary one for a time.  We are all born innocent.  But eventually, we must gather the power available to us and use it to the best of our ability.  When we encounter others with power we will cooperate or conflict with them.  But, if we are wise, this dialectical approach will push us all to greater moral heights than we could have reached on our own.  Sometimes we will be right, and sometimes we will be wrong.  Mistakes are not a failing, but a necessary step towards improvement.  To demand purity is to refuse to participate in the world as it is.

It reminds me that at the beginning of our text we were shown how Bilbo is not the right hero for this Quest.  He was too immature.  Well, Frodo is too innocent for the coming age of Middle Earth.  Even his one transgression, to put on the Ring, was met with such ferocity from Gollum we are compelled to feel he was overwhelmed by evil, rather than a willing agent.  Frodo was right for the Quest, which took 183 days.  But regular life requires a different approach.  To achieve right in the world we must sometimes be willing to admit we, personally, are falling short, and need to change.  Evil self-destructs and good becomes corrupted.  But what if instead, when the good falls short, we are able to admit the flaw and begin anew.  We are not perfect and will not be perfect.  But we can become better.

"To achieve morality we must, at least sometimes, diminish ourselves?"  Perhaps that's what Frodo is doing - leaving so Middle Earth can make the mistakes he knows he will find intolerable.

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 protection

This week we read "Many Partings" and "Homeward Bound," our final double chapter.  The ending of our text reverses the outward trip.  Many Partings mirrors the title "Many Meetings", which tells of the Hobbits arriving in Rivendell, where the Fellowship is formed.  In this chapter, the Fellowship is officially dissolved, and the Hobbits head to Rivendell to spend time with Bilbo, before eventually leaving him, too.  In Homeward Bound they return to Bree village and have a talk with Butterbur, the innkeeper, at whose tavern they met Strider and accidentally revealed the Ring.  He tells them things have changed for the worse since they left.  There have been fights and fires, and a few people have died.  Robbers and wolves assail the village.

You see, we’re not used to such troubles; and the Rangers have all gone away,
folk tell me. I don’t think we’ve rightly understood till now what they did for us.

We know what happened to the Rangers, they answered Aragorn's call to come to Minas Tirith to assist against Mordor.  A valiant purpose, but they left those they'd secretly protected suddenly vulnerable.

On the one hand, Bree (and the Shire) has developed what I think the Creative Wizard considers the ideal culture: Farming, drinking, laughing, celebrating.  They ignore the outside problems of the world, and those outside problems ignore them.

That's what we're made to think at the start of the book, anyway.  But now we see those outside problems were always trying to get in and it was the vigilance of the Rangers who kept them out - Rangers whom the people have never felt warmly toward!  This is how Barliman introduces Aragorn to Frodo in the beginning of the text: "He is one of the wandering folk – Rangers we call them. He seldom talks: not but what he can tell a rare tale when he has the mind. He disappears for a month, or a year, and then he pops up again. He was in and out pretty often last spring; but I haven’t seen him about lately. What his right name is I’ve never heard: but he’s known round here as Strider."

He was popping in and out keeping the peace!

We tend to think of a peaceful world as a world without conflict.  If there is conflict or injustice anywhere we are not in a peaceful world.  But that deprives us from appreciating goodness when we do have it.  Perfection is not the only thing worth celebrating.  But imperfection necessitiates maintance, and we should appreciate those who maintain our world wh.

If the Rangers are guilty of anything it was keeping their vigilance a secret.  They could have spent some of that time sharing their efforts with the locals and offering to train those who wished to join.  Instead they are so secretive no one even knows that they leave, except that their lives get worse once they're gone.

We're all guilty of secretly protecting people, in one way or another.  But that can make them dependent on us.  If we really want to protect whoever or whatever it is, we should empower it to be involved in its own safety.  Perhaps the Rangers believed destroying Mordor outweighed protecting Bree, since they were taking the fight to the source.  In that case this chapter reminds us that although The Ring has been destroyed, there is still violence and greed and other bads in the world.  They still should have included the locals in their watches.

We've said, over and over again, that all power is bad.  This includes powers we would use to protect others.  Protecting someone is a form of exercising power over them - you're preventing them from harm.  This is OK for children; All kindergartens should be protected, but all kindergarteners, eventually, grow up.  They need to learn how to protect themselves, and to take the risks of life upon themselves.

It is a false safety to be so protective of someone they become dependent on you.  They are actually more vulnerable.  If you die or leave to deal "with the source," they are ill-equipped to protect themselves.  True protection comes with empowerment.  In my line of work it's called faded supports - supporting someone less and less so they can practice more and more independence until finally you aren't needed at all.

It is natural to want to protect those we love from the dangers of the world.  But, if we love them, we also will want them to grow into autonomous and independent selves, which means facing those risks on their own.  So while we protect them we must also empower them.  This is the best protection we can provide - protection they can take with them when we are gone.

But that requires us to, first, tell them of the dangers.  We may not want to.  If we can protect them, why even burden them with the knowledge of their existence?  Well, at some point they will find out - don't you want to be involved in that?  We hoard power over them when we avoid these hard conversations.  And at some point we won't be there, and their dependence on us will become a great liability.  We should prepare them for that inevitability.

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 0% to this post's final version.

On boredom

I hate being bored.  More than that, I am afraid of boredom, and am excessive when it comes to avoiding it.  Whenever I go on a trip I bring no less than 2 books and 3 board games - and usually also my Switch or 3DS.  And of course I always have my phone.  And not just trips out of town, but trips to Revere Beach in the afternoon.  Maiar forbid I just enjoy the ocean!

This project, too, is an effort to ward off boredom.  I don't like the idea of coming home from work and having nothing to do.  I don't just like goals, it's that even temporary goallessness makes me feel unmoored.

This week we read "The Steward and the King," which first follows the beginning of Eowyn and Faramir's love story, and then finishes with the culmination of the love story between Aragorn and Arwen.  When Eowyn and Faramir are introduced, it is because she has requested to see him so she can ask if she can leave the House of Healing.

‘What do you wish?’ he said again. ‘If it lies in my power, I will do it.’ ‘I would have you
command this Warden, and bid him let me go,’ she said; but though her words were still
proud, her heart faltered, and for the first time she doubted herself. She guessed that
this tall man, both stern and gentle, might think her merely wayward, like a child that
has not the firmness of mind to go on with a dull task to the end.
‘I myself am in the Warden’s keeping,’ answered Faramir. ‘Nor have I yet taken up my authority
in the City. But had I done so, I should still listen to his counsel, and should
not cross his will in matters of his craft, unless in some great need.’

Ethics is doing the harder thing - and there's little in this world I find harder than being bored.  I do not have the firmness of mind to go on with a dull task.  I often interleave at least two tasks at once, so when one becomes dull I can switch.  At work a lot of my tasks are administrative, like data entry.  It gets dull.  So I'll do tasks two at once - making the weekly schedule and writing daily progress notes - and switch back and forth as necessary to keep my attention sharp (or, if you like, undulled).

Another way to keep your attention sharp is to interrupt the dullness.  My practice of turning away from dullness is close to that, but many inject excitement into dull activities.  But most of what is dull is inherently so.  If you change that you change what you are doing.  As the above references, protest movements which allow demonstrations that are exciting and eye-catching will be less effective.  Specific goals, closed-door meetings, and difficult compromises are less interesting and require a firmness of mind.  A belief you will get where you want to go, that whatever you're getting now is a good step, and an expectation people at least some people will be unhappy with you, but you're acting for the cause, not for approval.

Every march I've attended has a moment when things start to drag - you can only chant so much before it gets repetetive.  It is these moments when things break down - as if the point of the protest is to engage those protesting, and not agitate those in power.  

As with my work - I'm doing the task to get the data in.  There's not a good way to 'spice it up' without degrading the quality.  Microsoft Excel doesn't appreciate flair.

Another way to combat dullness is by becoming very interested in the activity.  We can't always control what interests us, but we all know there's some topic we can excitedly talk about in great detail even as the life drain's from our audience's eyes.  The difference between something being fascinating or complicated is your level of interest.  If something is dull, you're probably not interested in it.

Eowyn does not lack firmness of mind entirely.  She becomes bored of healing because she doesn't want the healing.  But she's shown firmness recently:  She rode in secret from Rohan to Gondor - keeping Merry hidden, too!  Hiding can be exciting when you're being hunted, but nobody even thinks she's there.  She doesn't even tell Merry, who'd have no reason to tell anyone!

Eowyn wants to ride out and fight - and die!  She has a deathwish - which is necessarily unethical: Dying is easy!  She could use this time to develop some other skill, or speak to others in the House, or even just rest.  She has no interest in living a life - this is why she finds healing dull.  It's pushing her backward from her goal.  She wants to fight, she wants glory - and specifically a glorious death.

But ultimately learning to embrace boredom - a hard thing indeed! - can make for a very ethical life.  Boredom implies you'd like to do something else. You probably can; We always have lots of choices in life.  But just because you can do something doesn't mean you'd do it well, or that it's the right (or even a useful) choice.  If you're injured you go to the hospital and listen to the doctors and nurses.  If you're on a plane you let the pilot fly it.  If you're hungry at a restaurant you don't barge into the kitchen.

It is now Monday evening and I absolutely must finish this post.  This is an unfinished thought, and I may return and amend it.  But I think becoming tolerant of boredom is important to living an ethical life.  Not because boredom isn't annoying, but because disrupting our boredom is not the highest good.  It may be the best thing for us to sit by and let others take action - or react to what we are doing.  We don't need to be in charge all the time, or pound people over the head with a message.  Let them sleep on it.  When we act, we necessarily are using our power.  Power is a dangerous tool.  But "...we cannot eliminate power. The best we can do is create a balance of it..." Sometimes that means empowering others, sometimes that means disempowering ourselves - or at least not using all that we have.  Sometimes the harder thing is boring.  That does not excuse us from doing it.

 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 forever

This week begins the winding down of our text.  The Ring has been destroyed, and now we only must see through our characters and where they all end up.  Frodo and Sam, rescued by Gandalf and the Eagles, are now in Gondor, and - having slept for some days - are told they will be honored for their success.

Frodo and Sam were led apart and brought to a tent, and there their old raiment was taken off, but folded
and set aside with honour; and clean linen was given to them. Then Gandalf came and in his arms, to the wonder
of Frodo, he bore the sword and the elven-cloak and the mithril-coat that had been taken from him in Mordor.
For Sam he brought a coat of gilded mail, and his elven-cloak all healed of the soils and hurts that it
had suffered; and then he laid before them two swords.
‘I do not wish for any sword,’ said Frodo.
‘Tonight at least you should wear one,’ said Gandalf.
Then Frodo took the small sword that had belonged to Sam, and had been laid at his side in Cirith Ungol.
‘Sting I gave to you Sam,’ he said.
‘No, master! Mr. Bilbo gave it to you, and it goes with his silver coat; he would not wish anyone else to wear it now.’
Frodo gave way.

We understand why Frodo doesn't want a sword.  He's been through a lot, he's missing a finger on his sword-hand, and at no point in the Quest was he a particularly eager or skilled fighter.  He also gave Sting to Sam and may feel some dishonor at taking it back, even just for a performance.

We'd expect Gandalf to be more sympathetic.  We've already learned Gandalf thought the Quest was a fool's hope.  Having gone through with it, succeeded, and survived(!), why is Gandalf pressuring him to wear a sword in a ceremony?  If anyone can be exempt of expectations, it should be Frodo!

But Frodo, the hero, still has a role to play.  Middle Earth will not endure any more because of Frodo's choices.  He has done the Quest and now must accept the gratitude of Gondor.  That means appearing as they expect him - ready to do battle.  Perhaps one day they will understand Frodo's Quest is not comparable to the defense of Gondor, but the people had just survived two terrible battles, and decades of aggression (not to mention the battles in their histories against Sauron).  It may be difficult for them to accept a hero who was also not a warrior.  Gandalf knows this.  If they see Frodo as he is, they may be resentful the solution was so simple - or resentful their savior didn't take it as seriously.  Resentment is a powerful poison.  They require the hero they imagine.  Frodo sticking to his self-image will only undermine the victory he worked so hard to gain.

Sam is much more surprising in his stance.  Sam would do anything for Frodo - what does he care that he not only has a sword, but Sting in particular?  Sam, again, realizes the importance of meeting the expectations of others, but Sam's focus is on who Frodo cares about, which is not the people of Gondor, but of Bilbo.

Bilbo will hear of this celebration - he will certainly ask Frodo to describe it to him even if he's heard it before.  He'll feel very good knowing he contributed to his nephew's prestige, and Frodo will enjoy seeing his uncle's pride.  Sam knows this, and so he pushes Frodo because he knows Frodo will, eventually, wish he had done it, if only for the sake of a good tale.

Often we want what is easy for ourselves, but what is best for others.  We're all familiar with seeing a problem clearly when someone else is facing it but somehow be paralyzed by indecision when that problem is our own.  Sam knows what Frodo will want to have done, and that Frodo will have to endure the consequences of his actions for longer than the actual actions.  Sam also knows Frodo will oblige if he thinks his uncle will gain satisfaction from it.  Frodo will only do the harder thing if he believes it is for the benefit of another.  Indeed that's been Frodo's MO all along.

If Frodo had gotten his way he would have taken part in a celebration which would belittle him, and thus the Quest he endured so much to achieve.  He would have had to face Bilbo's pity that he did not enjoy the revelry, rather than bask in his joy at his own success.  Forever.

Forever is a long time.  The present pleasure or leisure will be fleeting, but we can carry the sense of accomplishment of a hard task for a long time.  We can carry the shame of shirking our duties for a long time, too.

The lesson, then, is not just to push ourselves toward accomplishment, but to understand we will all fail to do so if we are alone.  We must surround ourselves with people who want what's best for us, not best for their comfort (which would lead them to avoid arguments and to indulge us).  If someone is pushing you it is because they value not just the present-you but future-you who will have to deal with the consequences of your actions.  They want future-you to look at present-you and be proud.

I have occasionally heard people say an accomplishment wasn't worth the effort - I have rarely heard them then say they wish they'd never done it.  I've never heard someone say they were glad they gave into their impulses.  But give in we will, unless we have someone else with us who will remind us of our values and that our life's worth is not measured in pleasure or leisure, but in our accomplishments and what we did for other people.  The easy choice can give us a moment of pleasure followed by a lifetime of regret.

Update:  In the next chapter we hear someone from Gondor say, "One of [the hobbits] went with only his esquire into the Black Country and fought with the Dark Lord all by himself, and set fire to his Tower, if you can believe it." 

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 comparing

This past weekend I was busy hosting Boston Massacre, a Diplomacy Tournament, and though I hoped to use Sunday evening or Monday to post, I am frankly much too exhausted and now it is Tuesday.  So rather than share my thoughts about these comparisons I found, I'll just leave the comparisons, and leave the thinking to all of you :)

This week we read "Mount Doom," the final struggle of the Ring, and its lucky destruction.  During this chapter Sam rises to the occasion in two specific ways similar to Frodo earlier in our text.  First, Sam is reflecting on the people he left behind in the Shire, and how everything has gone wrong since Gandalf died in Moria.  Recalling this grief, we are told,

But even as hope died in Sam, or seemed to die, it was turned to a new strength. Sam’s plain
hobbit-face grew stern, almost grim, as the will hardened in him, and he felt through all his
limbs a thrill, as if he was turning into some creature of stone and steel that neither despair
nor weariness nor endless barren miles could subdue.

This parallels very nearly with Frodo's experience in the Barrows.

But though his fear was so great that it seemed to be part of the very darkness that was round him,
he found himself as he lay thinking about Bilbo Baggins and his stories, of their jogging along
together in the lanes of the Shire and talking about roads and adventures.There is a seed of courage
hidden (often deeply, it is true) in the heart of the fattest and most timid hobbit, waiting for some
final and desperate danger to make it grow. Frodo was neither very fat nor very timid; indeed, though he
did not know it, Bilbo (and Gandalf) had thought him the best hobbit in the Shire. He thought
he had come to the end of his adventure, and a terrible end, but the thought hardened him. He found
himself stiffening, as if for a final spring; he no longer felt limp like a helpless prey.

Shortly later Sam has picked Frodo up and walked with him on his back up the slope of the mountain.  There is no path, nor can he see any opening into the mountain.  After a while, he puts Frodo down, exhausted at the effort.

Frodo opened his eyes and drew a breath. It was easier to breathe up here above the reeks that
coiled and drifted down below. ‘Thank you, Sam,’ he said in a cracked whisper. ‘How far is
there to go?’ ‘I don’t know,’ said Sam, ‘because I don’t know where we’re going.’

And this is what Frodo says at the conclusion of the Council of Elrond,

‘I will take the Ring,’ he said, ‘though I do not know the way.’

Let me know your thoughts!

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 0% to this post's final version.