 by -
mrPint
(Thu Feb 27 21:38:09)
|
|
 UPDATED Thu Feb 27 21:38:44 |
This is obviously a major theme in the films and the books. I remember there was a lot of crititism about the scene where Aragorn stops Theoden from killing Grima and then letting him go. This scene was in the book aswell, but I think it was actually Theoden that let him go. A lot of people thought it was stupid to let Grima go so he can return to Saruman and give him information about Helms Deep.
But we late realize that if it wasn't for the pity of Theoden, Saruman would not have been killed by Grima.
I don't know if this has been discussed before, and I apolgize if it has.
|
|
|
. . .But I don't think it was absolutley necessary that Grima kill Saruman. After all, Saruman had lost his powers and was basically harmless after the Scouring. They could have killed Wormtongue and Saruman would have had more trouble. . . And they'd have gotten him somehow.
"It can only be attributable to human error."
|
|
|
| by -
mrPint
(Thu Feb 27 21:50:28)
|
|
Frodo was letting them go. Another example of the pity theme. Remember it was pity that stayed Bilbos hand. If Frodo didn't let them go the hobbits would have killed Saruman. But it was because they let them go that Grima killed him. Therefore if Theoden didn't let Grima go at Edoras, he wouldn't have been there to kill Saruman. I think that's what happended in the book. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
. . .Frodo let them go. When they let Grima go, he killed Saruman. But was that necessary? Sure it was nice to see those nasty guys get what was coming to them, but was it necessary to Middle Earth's survival that Saruman be killed? You could ask the same question about Grima, of course, but certainly killing him would have made it easier for everyone, since Saruman wouldn't have got the information about Helm's Deep.
"It can only be attributable to human error."
|
|
|
| by -
mrPint
(Fri Feb 28 06:53:30)
|
|
Ok it wasn't very important in Middle Earth's survival, but it's all part of the theme of pity, and good and evil. What would have happened if they killed Grima? What would have that made them? As it is said in the bible it is important to forgive. Bilbo's pity was more important of course, but it was also important for all the good character to show pity.
|
|
|
I'm glad this got bumped!
I think we can tie together two themes here, Saruman and Grima being in Hobbiton because of Pity, and tie that in to the parallel between the destruction of the Ring.
In short, the Ring made Gollum, through evil, and through evil Gollum unmade the Ring. The same could be said for S. and G., Grima was a product of Saruman's evil, and Saruman was undone through the evil he created.
Says something about the...Nature of Evil, doesn't it?
I also am a steward.
|
|
|
It also showed the maturity of Frodo. He had learned the lessons Gandalf taught, and pity was one of them. He had grown, Saruman had been diminished.
I also think that Frodo was tired of killing and death.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
You also might remember if it wasn't for Grima, they wouldn't have gotten the Palantir.
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
|
|
|
Very long post follows. I think others have covered parts of this elsewhere, but I am at home sick and not feeling up to tracking all over the board right now.
It's interesting that people are tracing through how evil characters ultimately play roles in the story's resolution, and what wouldn't have happened if they'd been killed earlier. But Tolkien gets to write it any way he wants, so it's hard to draw conclusions from the specific outcomes in LOTR.
I have thoughts on three different aspects of what Tolkien might be getting at: on the finality of killing someone; on judgment; and on pity/compassion.
On Finality
We have no way of knowing what the future holds, and once you kill someone, you cut off all possibility of his playing any further part, for good or for evil. It's not that every evil character has some potential to cause good (perhaps inadvertently), but that we just don't know what possible outcomes we are forestalling by cutting off one person's effect on the future. So for Tolkien the finality of killing someone seems to be one reason to hesitate. (It is useful for me to comtemplate this view, because it hasn't really been part of my own philosophy in the past.)
On judgment
The Gandalf/Frodo Moria scene mentions pity, but then it moves on quickly to the dangers of sitting in judgment - that we cannot bring the deserving dead to life, and should not set out on the path of trying to kill all those we deem deserving of death. The underlying question here seems: who are we to set ourselves up as judges of life and death? Yet judgment is often necessary. In LOTR, our heroes do not hesitate to kill a great many beings, but these are usually in heat-of-battle encounters with military troops (there don't seem to be any orcs who aren't in the military). Decisions over Gollum, Saruman, and Grima are not heat-of-battle; they are about whether to kill someone because of what he has done or might do in the future; but in each case some decision must be reached.
On pity and compassion
They are important values that help us avoid some of the spirals of hate and revenge that so easily take over human societies. But the question of how they should drive decision-making is complicated. Two of Julius Caesar's assassins, Cassius and Brutus, were former enemies whom he had pardoned and given important positions. I tend to think that it is important that we feel pity and compassion, but that when important decisions are laid on us in a more official way, we should balance personal feelings of pity and compassion against the need to protect society. It is true that compassion is what stayed Bilbo's hand; but impulse or emotion is not the usual method by which people's fates are decided. It was one of those spur-of-the-moment decisions. In contrast, a judge or jury whose job it is to decide whether young men should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives (let's set aside the death penalty for the moment) should not make an impulsive, emotional decision, but one that is carefully thought out.
Faramir and the power over life and death
Faramir's decision not to kill Frodo and Sam is a good illustration of the process of judgment. I wonder if this is why Tolkien spends such a long time on it in the book. It gives him the chance to explore Faramir's character, but also to explore the whole process of making difficult decisions over the fate of others. Faramir is Tolkien's poster child for good judgment. (By the way, can anyone point me to some good essays on the different roles of Faramir and Aragorn, or something like that?)
Faramir has orders not to let strangers run around the war zone. He has no idea who the hobbits are at first - they might be among the foul who look fair. The easiest and most efficient course would be to kill them, or at least send them to his father. But he takes his decision-making authority seriously and is willing, even in a war zone, to take the time to gather more facts and weigh the situation carefully before making a life-or-death decision over the hobbits.
Here's a nice quote from the book that illustrates Faramir's mind. He is reprimanding Sam for jumping in and confronting him during his questioning of Frodo.
"Patience!" said Faramir, but without anger. "Do not speak before your master, whose wit is greater than yours. And I do not need any to teach me of our peril. Even so, I spare a brief time, in order to judge justly in a hard matter. Were I as hasty as you, I might have slain you long ago. For I am commanded to slay all whom I find in this land without the leave of the Lord of Gondor. But I do not slay man or beast needlessly, and not gladly even when it is needed. Neither do I talk in vain. So be comforted. Sit by your master, and be silent!"
Faramir does not slay anyone "gladly" - he possesses compassion. He is also speaking "without anger." Faramir is not making this decision based on any emotion, whether a good or a bad one. He recognizes that this is a "hard matter" and that his job is to "judge justly."
I like the echoing of the Ents' "hasty" here. Faramir embodies a good balance between the need for speed and the need for careful deliberation, whereas the Ents push it to one extreme.
A darker point in this passage is "Neither do I talk in vain." It suggests that Faramir is questioning them only for the purpose of making this decision. If they were clearly no threat and on the right side, he would cease his questioning and let them go. If they were clearly servants of the enemy, however, he would cease his questioning and kill them. So Sam should be comforted that he has not yet decided, but it's kind of limited comfort.
The road may pass, but they shall not! Not while Faramir is Captain.
|
|
|
| by -
mrPint
(Fri Feb 28 19:37:20)
|
|
Very good post adalheidis. Can't think of a reply yet. Will get back to you when I can think of something to say.
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
The road may pass, but they shall not! Not while Faramir is Captain.
|
|
|
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
