Tolkien's REAL Fellowship of the Ring

[Black Breathalizer]

Growing up, I used to think the books were about Frodo's quest to destroy the ring. As a result, I tended to have mixed feelings about the actual destruction of the ring because it seemed the ringbearer completed his quest more by accident than by his own heroic efforts.

Most authors place their focus on the motivations and actions their lead character so it was quite natural for me to view it this way. However, if you view LOTR as Frodo's story, I now believe you miss a great deal of what Tolkien was trying to communicate about life. I've also heard it said that LOTR is actually Sam's Story. I think Tolkien would have disagreed with that assertion too.

I've come to feel that Tolkien wanted us to understand that the story was really about his Mini-Fellowship of the Ring: Frodo, Samwise, and Gollum. He let the reader know that all three of them were essential to the destruction of the ring. Remove any one of the three and the quest doesn't end successfully. Reading the books with this in mind or watching PJ's...oops, I almost used this forum's forbidden f-word ...you get a new appreciation for Tolkien's homage to the power of teamwork.

What do you think?

[Kirinki54]

No, I do not think Gollum was part of any fellowship. He was instrumental in destroying the Ring though. But that is another matter. Tolkien strongly advocates the theme of how mercy rather than revenge will change the world in the right direction.

[Black Breathalizer]

I disagree.

Gollum is as much a part of the "mini-fellowship" as the two hobbits. The issue isn't Gollum's evil intentions, it's that Frodo accepted him into this inner circle over Sam's objections. The ring was destroyed because of the combined efforts of all three of them.

Even though Gollum didn't consider himself part of Frodo's team and didn't seek the same goal, nevertheless, his relationship to Frodo and the powerful lure of the ring kept Gollum a part of Frodo's mini-fellowship from their first meeting until the very end.

[IronParrot]

I think Breathalizer does have a point here.

Why - for any reason - is Frodo even considered a hero when he succumbs to the Ring?

Because the heroic part that he plays is taking on the burden and carrying it all the way there in the first place.

At the same time, Sam plays a heroic role for reasons that you all know from having read the book.

And I wouldn't call Gollum a "hero", but in the destruction of the Ring, he is certainly a contributor.

BB's point - and a valid one - appears to be that the Ring would not have been destroyed without the very direct participation of all three during the journey on the east side of the Anduin. Whether or not this constitutes "fellowship" between the three participants is debatable (I would say that Tolkien meant far more by "fellowship" than just participation) - but all three are instrumental in a distinctly complementary way.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I've come to feel that Tolkien wanted us to understand that the story was really about his Mini-Fellowship of the Ring: Frodo, Samwise, and Gollum. He let the reader know that all three of them were essential to the destruction of the ring. Remove any one of the three and the quest doesn't end successfully. Reading the books with this in mind or watching PJ's...oops, I almost used this forum's forbidden f-word ...you get a new appreciation for Tolkien's homage to the power of teamwork.

Personally I don't think the story is about a mini-fellowship consisting of Frodo, Sam and Gollum. To me it's more about the real fellowship with the nine members. Even after the breaking of the fellowship, the story always centers around at least one of the nine. (Well, eight actually after Boromir was pincushioned.)

Most of the time we learn about things from the point of view of a fellowship member, mostly the hobbits. But never once (at least as far as I remember) from Gollum's point of view. Even though Gollum is crucial to the quest's furfilment, he's never really part of the fellowship sent to achieve it. He doesn't help voluntarily, he is either forced or complies only because of his need of his preciouss, which puts him rather apart from the rest IMO.

But team work is indeed a very important aspect of it. Even while Aragorn and the others were freeing Rohan, they were still very much doing the task of the Fellowship: aiding Frodo. Even if they could not protect him on his journey anymore, they certainly could give him a hand by keeping Sauron's eye fixed on Rohan and Gondor.

[Artanis]

Heh heh - pincushioned!

Originally posted by Eärniel
Personally I don't think the story is about a mini-fellowship consisting of Frodo, Sam and Gollum. To me it's more about the real fellowship with the nine members. Even after the breaking of the fellowship, the story always centers around at least one of the nine. (Well, eight actually after Boromir was pincushioned.)

Agreed. It si true that Frodo, Sam and Gollum are all essential, but they would most probably not have made it without the aid of the others of the 'real' Fellowship, also after the breaking. All the manoevers that were done to divert Sauron's attention from his real danger. Aragorn looking into the palantir, him going to Minas Tirith, the army of the West marching towards the black gate.

Also, even though Frodo, Sam and Gollum are all rightly contributors in the task of destroying the Ring, it is much more interesting to watch how the three of them develop during their journey together. Frodo and Gollum as Ringbearers understand each other. How Gollum gradually changes and nearly repents.

[Elfhelm]

hmm... Gollum joined the Fellowship by imposing himself on it. He was a tacit member before the sundering. Gandalf was complicit. I agree. "All that is gold does not glitter" may refer to more than Aragorn.

[IronParrot]

I think, then, it's best if we regard the whole concept of the Fellowship as a dynamic entity. For pretty much all of Book One it's only Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin - and I'd say Merry's arrangements in Buckland were just as critical to the quest as any other part that, ultimately, got the Ring to its destination. If anything, the Fellowship grows and shrinks by one spherical layer after another, and the hobbits are fundamentally at the core of it all.

[Rosie Gamgee]

I believe that the 'Fellowship of the Ring' is essentially Frodo and Sam. Gandalf appoints Sam to accompany Frodo, and so sets up the first 'fellowship'. Merry and Pippin join later because they do not wish to let Frodo go off into danger alone. Strider joins and gives the fellowship strength. When they get to Rivendell, the fellowship acquires representatives from the Free Peoples: Elves, Men, Dwarves. At the end of the first book, when the fellowship breaks, that leaves it stripped of its outer skins of camradrie (spl?) (Merry and Pippin), its strength (Aragorn), and its representation (Legolas, Boromir, and Gimli). It is left with only its core, which is somewhat weak and hopeless, but very resislient.

About LOTR being about Sam, I do not think that the books are written from any one person's point of view. The books are about the Ring. Any persons or events and their own individual stories are only relevant when they have a role to play in the main story: the story of the Ring itself. I don't think there is one particular 'hero'. Everyone included in the story plays a relevant part in the Ring's creation, misplacement, finding, sojourning, and destruction- no more.

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by Rosie Gamgee
I believe that the 'Fellowship of the Ring' is essentially Frodo and Sam..... At the end of the first book, when the fellowship breaks, that leaves it stripped of its outer skins of camradrie (spl?) (Merry and Pippin), its strength (Aragorn), and its representation (Legolas, Boromir, and Gimli). It is left with only its core, which is somewhat weak and hopeless, but very resislient.

Rosie, I think that what you write is very interesting, and I do think the 'bringing together' and 'sundering' of the fellowship is an extremely important part of Tolkien's plot line, but I can't agree that the essential fellowship is only made up of Frodo and Sam, or that they are the only parts left once the fellowship was 'broken'.

If Pippin and Merry had not got to Fangorn, Saruman would not have been defeated, so the destruction of the Ring and the Dark Lord would not have been the end of the misery in Middle Earth.

If Pippin had not looked in the Palantir of Orthanc the Dark Lord would not have turned his attention to the West (allowing Frodo and Sam to enter Mordor). Ditto Aragorn's actions in challenging Sauron in the Palantir.

Merry's contribution to the death of the Lord of the Nazgul, and Gandalf's council to the Lords of the West all played their part in the downfall of the Lord of the Rings.

In other words, the fact that the fellowship was broken, did not mean that it ended. All of the remaining members of the fellowship (including Boromir in his defence of Pippin and Merry) played their part all the way along - so Frodo and Sam cannot be seen to be the begining and end of the Fellowship.

[IronParrot]

Frodo and Sam are still very much at the core of the story.

Regarding the (somewhat tangential) issue of "whose perspective is it" - I've read articles on both sides of the "is it Sam's story?" question and my conclusion is to defer to Tolkien's fictional Red Book of Westmarch.

It parallels the focal journey of the Ring. Bilbo writes There and Back Again, but it's ultimately unfinished, and Frodo continues it with his chronicle of The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings. But when he leaves for the Grey Havens, he tells Sam to finish the story for him, which is why the last chapter ends with Sam's return home.

You can see that this correlates to the passing of the burden of the Ring - Bilbo to Frodo to Sam. And when it goes from one to the other, the story's focal perspective changes. In Book Six, there's no way you can tell me that Frodo is any longer the main character. He's simply drifted too far away from our world, as if he was really withering away and disappearing.

Maybe Tolkien saw the whole idea of "Fellowship" as a more abstract, binding concept than any specific group of people. You can talk all you want about how this person or that person was absolutely critical to the Ring's destruction, in a causal sense, but who - or what - is the hero of the story?

Fellowship, that's what.

[Black Breathalizer]

I agree with IronParrot that the focus of the story is on the way all of Frodo's companions played a role in the destruction of the ring.

I would argue that Tolkien's "fellowship" included Gollum. Gollum was clearly the author's favorite character and he viewed him as an essential companion to Frodo -- in fact, as essential as Sam was. His conflicting emotions and ultimately evil intentions don't alter that fact. As Tolkien foreshadowed and planned all along, Gollum had a major part to play as a member of the mini-fellowship.

[Elfhelm]

While I do think Gollum joins the Fellowship, he remains an antagonist throughout. There's never really any time that he isn't the antagonist. Sometimes Smeagol visits, but that poor wretch is neither protagonist nor antagonist. The fact the he is essential to the destruction of the One Ring is the same as saying that Melchor's deviations were essential to the Music of the Ainur. One could argue that Sauron was essential to the destruction, too, because he had to be kept distracted, etc.

So I agree about the mini-Fellowship idea but it doesn't follow, for me, that that is what the books are about.

Side point:

Concerning point-of-view, the fact of the matter can be easily determined from the books. Who is the point-of-view character at any given time is for all practical puproses an objective, not a subjective, fact. It is accomplished by action and reaction, and we only hear the thoughts of this character. If, for instance, they are climbing the stairs and one of the characters looks at the other and feels something then thinks a thought, we ARE inside that character. It's not open to speculation. The words are black ink on white paper. If we see the pain and weight of the world carried by one of the characters from the eyes of the other character, which one is the POV is not debatable.

[IronParrot]

Concerning point-of-view, the fact of the matter can be easily determined from the books. Who is the point-of-view character at any given time is for all practical puproses an objective, not a subjective, fact. It is accomplished by action and reaction, and we only hear the thoughts of this character. If, for instance, they are climbing the stairs and one of the characters looks at the other and feels something then thinks a thought, we ARE inside that character. It's not open to speculation. The words are black ink on white paper. If we see the pain and weight of the world carried by one of the characters from the eyes of the other character, which one is the POV is not debatable.

I wasn't referring to POV in the strict literary definitional sense (Tolkien's prose is written largely in the omniscient), but rather as an answer to the question, "Whose story is it?" In other words, who is the central character? By POV earlier, I was referring to centrality.

[Black Breathalizer]

Another way to look at this topic: Frodo, Samwise, & Gollum represent the collective personality traits Tolkien deemed necessary to complete the quest.

Frodo was the unquestioned leader. He was the innocent with wisdom, a trusting heart, and a strong will, yet unsure and afraid at times. As a result of his Nazgul-inflicted wound and the power of the Ring, he grew physically weak and mentally confused during the journey.

Sam offered the group his strength, dogged determination, and loyalty, yet he needed Frodo's wisdom and guidance. Despite what some fans may think, Tolkien makes it clear Sam would not have been able to complete the quest without Frodo.

Gollum was the key. He represents the corrupt, addictive, and unpleasant side in all of us. But I suspect Tolkien may have also been trying to tell us that there is a flip side to our weaknesses, addictions, and vices. Like Gollum, they have a part of play "for good or ill" in the way our own lives play out. Take away the things about our personalities that we dislike and constantly struggle against and our own personal 'quest' may not be achieved.

[Percy Weasley]

Black Breathalizer,

I believe you have brought up a very interesting hypothesis, one that I think fits very well into the rest of Tolkien's legendarium.

'Thou Melko shalt see that no theme can be played save it come in the end of Ilúvatar's self, nor can any alter the music in Ilúvatar's despite. He that attempts this finds himself in the end but aiding me in devising a thing of still greater wonder grandeur and more complex wonder: - for lo! through Melko have terror as fire, and sorrow like dark waters, wrath like thunder, and evil as far from my light as the depths of the uttermost of the dark places, come into the design that I laid before you. Through him has pain and misery been made in the clash of overwhelming musics; and with confusion of sound have cruelty, and ravening, and darkness, loathly mire and all putrescence of thought or thing, foul mists and violent flame, cold without mercy, been born, and death without hope. Yet this is through him, and not by him; and he shall see, and ye all likewise, and even shall those beings, who must now dwell among his evil and endure through Melko misery and sorrow, terror and wickedness, declare in the end that it resoundeth only to my great glory, and doth but make the theme more worth the hearing, Life more worth the living, and the World so much the more wonderful and marvellous, that of all the deeds of Ilúvatar it shall be called his mightiest and his loveliest.' - The Book of Lost Tales, Part 1, The Music of the Ainur

I think this quote, along with the statements Gandalf makes about Gollum possibly doing good before the end back up Black Breathalizer's hypothesis.

Gollum represents the evil in all of us, and by destroying the ring, he supports the idea that even evil comes from good and has its purpose in the world...

Brilliant thought, Black Breathalizzer, I shall have to think on this more.

[IronParrot]

BB, it's interesting how you talk about those three in terms of how they define collective personality traits, especially because of how characterization-wise, each of those three begins to cross over to the turf of another at some point in the story.

In any case, this is a pretty solid interpretation.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally posted by LutraMage
Rosie, I think that what you write is very interesting, and I do think the 'bringing together' and 'sundering' of the fellowship is an extremely important part of Tolkien's plot line, but I can't agree that the essential fellowship is only made up of Frodo and Sam, or that they are the only parts left once the fellowship was 'broken'.

If Pippin and Merry had not got to Fangorn, Saruman would not have been defeated, so the destruction of the Ring and the Dark Lord would not have been the end of the misery in Middle Earth.

If Pippin had not looked in the Palantir of Orthanc the Dark Lord would not have turned his attention to the West (allowing Frodo and Sam to enter Mordor). Ditto Aragorn's actions in challenging Sauron in the Palantir.

Merry's contribution to the death of the Lord of the Nazgul, and Gandalf's council to the Lords of the West all played their part in the downfall of the Lord of the Rings.

In other words, the fact that the fellowship was broken, did not mean that it ended. All of the remaining members of the fellowship (including Boromir in his defence of Pippin and Merry) played their part all the way along - so Frodo and Sam cannot be seen to be the begining and end of the Fellowship.

I was not saying that the members of the Fellowship who did not continue to Mordor with the Ring ceased to become relevant. Certainly they all played very important parts in the War of the Ring- but the Fellowship was formed for the express purpose of taking the Ring into Mordor and destroying it. All in the Fellowship except Frodo and Sam went separate ways (due to circumstances quite beyond them, of course). So Frodo and Sam are really the only two doing what it was they set out to do, and so I reason that they are the only parts who can really call themselves a fellowship of the Ring. (I am not explaining this right at all, but I hope you get my meaning)

[Spock]

The lesson IMO is that everything and everyone is entertwined in ways one person cannot imagine. It's almost Buddhist in it's correctness.
I've looked at life differently since my first readings of these wonderful books back in '66.

[Bacchus]

Letter 246 discusses, among other things, Sam's mistrustful outburst on the Stairs. T speculates that, had Sam only been a bit more trusting, the entire focus of the endgame would have shifted to Gollum and his struggle, ultimately ending in Gollum's voluntary swan dive into the Fire, sacrificing himself to save Frodo and complete the Quest.

However, Sam was not more trusting, and the encounter with Shelob was made inevitable. Under the scenario that actually occurred, Gollum becomes an instrument of Fate. Under these circumstances, I have to reject the hypothesis that Gollum achieved any redemption or status owing to his involuntary 'part to play for good or ill' foreseen by Gandalf