The Ring Goes South - Eric's Thoughts

“For many sunless days an icy blast came from the Mountains of the east, and no garment seemed able to keep out its searching fingers.”

Jacob and Ben both touched upon the prevalent themes of this chapter, choice and nature.

Choice. The first thing that struck me as noticeable was the scene where Elrond bestows a sacred "charge" upon the Company to stay with Frodo -- but only if they feel like it. “On the [Ringbearer] alone is any charge laid: neither to cast away the Ring, nor to deliver it to any servant of the Enemy nor indeed to let any handle it, save members of the Company and the Council, and only then in gravest need. The others go with him as free companions. You may tarry, or come back, or turn aside into other paths, as chance allows. .[. . .] No oath or bond is laid on you to go further than you will.”

Gimli notes that “Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart.” Elrond counters, “Or break it. Look not too far ahead.” (Quick side step: In stating "Look not too far ahead," Elrond points out that focusing on the task at hand is crucial to finishing a long project. I wonder if Tolkien, who hated writing Lord of the Rings, also shared this sentiment about the text that he was writing, and that we are now reading.)

So, in that quick interaction, Elrond was stating that the Company has no obligation except for Frodo. Yet, as Frodo expresses in the previous chapter, “I do not know the way.” I suspect that wise old Elrond knew that the power of the Ring was such that only those who went willingly would be of any assistance to Frodo. For such is the Ring’s power – one by one the Company begins to be corrupt, which is why Frodo leaves. Jacob uses a great metaphor of the Stalinist method of compulsion to win a war. However, I think that there is a difference between Stalin and a hypothetical Elrond that made the Company take an oath: the oath would be taken willingly, upon which a bond would be placed. So, oath or no, the choice to take the oath exists, and that is the difference between taking and oath and Stalin’s troops, who assuredly were drafted without any choice, and then shot for desertion. Here, the Company is willingly entering into a Quest to save the world. Personally, at this stage of the book, I think an Oath would have made a lot of sense. But again, Elrond might have known about the corruption of the Ring, and how Frodo might have to leave anyway. Even Frodo in the end was corrupted, and the story is won by the good guys because of mere chance. What seems strange though, if avoiding corruption is the goal of not having the Company taken an oath, is that only Frodo is given an oath. If oaths "break" quaking hearts, Frodo especially should not have been given an oath. 

 Hmm, after analyzing this out loud, I'm not sure if the oath bit makes any sense. It sure does sound poetic though, and it appeals to us freedom lovers, so maybe that's the point.

Nature. Ben and Jacob are using fancy words like pastoralism and naturalism and romanticism. I vaguely remember those terms when studying literature as an undergrad. I don't really remember what they mean, or how you want to label what occurred in this chapter, or what Tolkien is espousing, except to point out a few observations. As Jacob notes, nature is an obstacle in this text. This occurs in this chapter (the freezing mountain) as well as later chapters. For example, in later chapters, from the marshy bogs where Frodo passes through the dead , to the mountains into Mordor, to the giant spider that Frodo encounters in Return of the King, nature is simply nature. Cold (see the opening quote above), unforgiving, and deadly. In the end, that’s exactly what nature is. Only through mathematics, fire, and engineering have we learned to act some level of predictability to it, and comfort.

As for our roles in nature, pastoralism and naturalism and these other movements make arguments that relate to our role in nature, but I forget specifically what they argue. Also let’s not forget about the transcendentalists. (Interesting fact: when Thoreau was writing Walden and “living in the woods,” he actually would go home every weekend and get a home cooked meal from his mom. Most people don’t know that, and it undercuts his arguments in the text, but I digress.)

As for my own two cents, I enjoy hiking but I also enjoy modern medicine. I would not want to raise my own cattle and hoe in my garden (except for maybe a small garden later on in life). But some psychology studies suggest that our primitive brains have not evolved out of caveman years, and that our mental evolution has not caught up with our industrialized, urban world. So whatever the transcendentalists argued for, I would not give up running water to go live in a hut -- or freeze on Cadharas. Sorry, Thoreau, but you were wrong. Tolkien's descriptions of Cadharas I think has the right of it.