1. Becky says:

    Wonderful article.

  2. Travis Perry says:

    Hey, bro. I have a habit of not commenting if I agree and saying quite a lot if I don’t. Trying to break that trend here–I really enjoyed that analysis. It gave me a new way to look at LOTR that I’d never thought of before. Thanks!

  3. Jonathan Lovelace says:

    The books I’ve read about “the hero’s journey,” plot skeletons, and the like have said (to oversimplify significantly) that the essentials are in what leads up to the climax, and what happens at the climax is what determines what kind of story it is: if the Hero succeeds, it’s what was once called a comedy, while if the Hero fails it’s a tragedy, for example. What’s unique about *Lord of the Rings* is that Tolkien managed a story where the Hero failed at the eleventh hour, and yet the Quest succeeded, without resorting to *deus ex machina*.
    I’ve also heard (over and over, since my parents have been in a Mythopoeic Society discussion group that spends every other meeting on a work by one of the Inklings since before I was born) that this ending was drawn naturally from Tolkien’s theological convictions as a Roman Catholic, so the Ring was so powerful in temptation that even Frodo *could not* have succeeded in resisting it. That idea doesn’t “ring true to Scripture” for me, though the idea that he *didn’t* succeed in resisting in the end of course does.

    • Esther Wallace says:

      I’ve read that when someone asked Tolkien why Frodo “failed” in the end, Tolkien said, “because God gives us enough strength, but not more than enough, to do what He needs us to do.” That’s a paraphrase, since it’s been so long that I read it, but that always stuck with me.

  4. Thought provoking post, Zach. Thanks. I think this illustrates Tolkien’s creativity and challenges us today to be writers who don’t settle for what everyone else says ought to be the way our story works. We can actually take the conventional and do something more that makes the story memorable and deeper, all at the same time.

    Becky

  5. Khai says:

    I don’t agree that this is the most accurate lens on Frodo’s “triumph” because Frodo’s has no Savior. The Ring devoured his identity until he could not destroy it when push came to shove, because enough of himself had been hollowed out. The Ring both knawed his insides and occupied the wound.

    There is no Gollum ex Machina.

    I see in Frodo’s “victory” the lesson that Triumph is a state of strength that must have an interior depth to one’s external victory. Think of Aragorn. He fought valiantly and united Men under the Crown of Gondor. But he became a better man on the journey, a man worthy to be king and fulfill the hopes of all in Middle Earth for a new Golden Age. Would he have “won” if he’d become a worse man because of all the pressure? If he’d become violent and angry and a “Mad King” due to war PTSD, who burned Arwen alive during an insane psychotic episode?

    Frodo’s didn’t win. Even though he won for everyone else. It shows me how not with it chasing that image of Hero, really is. You can be everyone else’s champion, but if you’re not your own – that can’t be replaced.

  6. Khai says:

    Keep writing Zachary. I like when you find life lessons outa this stuff. Especially when I punch holes in it – “worthy opponent” critique, etc….This Beats typical Bible study Workbooks. I always figured if one day someone invited me to a “Christian cell group” studying the “Parables” of Spec. Adventure or comic book movies – I might actually say yes.

  7. Eileen says:

    Really makes me think it might be cool to create a character with a similar dilemma who by themselves could not perform the task, but had to be pushed into it. In a way, Smeagol ended up being the hero when he forcibly took the ring from Frodo and fell with it into the fires of Mt. Doom.

  8. Pam Halter says:

    I read everyone’s comments before I left mine, and I find Khai’s comment interesting, but I can’t agree with it. He said, “You can be everyone else’s champion, but if you’re not your own – that can’t be replaced.”

    If I’m my own champion, that negates what Christ did for me. It is precisely because I could never be my own champion that I needed a Savior. The same with Frodo. Who was the REAL champion in LOTR, anyway? Could it be the same Champion as in the Book of Esther – unnamed, but still God?

What do you think?