Scouring of the Shire

It could have really been made in an interesting way as well. Wormtongue had apparently become even more gross, crawling around and such. I think Tolkein even compares him to Gollum at that point. And Saruman's death could have been very cool visually because he turns into a giant cloud and is blown away.

So yes, it is a very minor conflict compared to the previous epic battles. But it could have been something which would have served as a very interesting closing. They didn't just come back and sit at the local pub and feel like outsiders. They actually came back and became heroes.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It worked for me, changed my expectations. If I had gone into the theater either expecting that the Scouring would be depicted or at least believing the Scouring might be in the movie, then I probably would have been disappointed. Same goes for the Bombadil scenes in FotR.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

ending on Aragorn also makes it a movie about Aragorn. That's not what/who the story is about.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it.'

This brings to mind a little essay I wrote once in answer to this question:
What kind of comment is Tolkien making in having evil characters (Gollum, Saruman) put effectively in prisons from which they escape because of the "soft-heartedness" of their jailers?

My answer:
Oh, I would never presume to say what comment Tolkien is making. That smacks too much of "there's one right answer and here it is" but...
Here's what gets conjured up in my mind.

Fate and pre-determination play heavily in the LOTR. Gandalf says that Bilbo was 'meant' to find the ring so as to pass it on to Frodo and thus Frodo was also 'meant to have it'. Gildor tells Frodo in the woods that "In this meeting there may be more than chance; but the purpose is not clear to me." Elrond says, "(Deciding what to do with the ring) is the purpose for which you are called hither. Called, I say, though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are here met, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we who sit here, and none others must now find counsel for the perils of the world." All of these passages hint at a belief of a 'guiding hand' or a 'providential order'.

But along with this 'guiding hand' we also see constant belief in free will. Bilbo was meant to find the ring but faced the decision of whether to kill Gollum or not. Frodo was meant to inherit the ring but must decide whether to attempt the task of its destruction. Elrond tells Frodo, "If I understand aright all that I have hear...I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will...But it is a heavy burden...I do not lay it on you. But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right."

Many examples can be found of the free people's belief that there is a guiding force but that each always has a choice. In fact, that is a major difference between the behavior of the free people and that of Sauron and Saruman. Sauron and Saruman seek domination and control whereas when Frodo says that Gollum deserves death, Gandalf replies "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it." Gollum must be given the chance to choose good or evil. To kill him would deny him that chance.

I think the free people could act against evil when needed. But I think it is never treated as a glorious act in the LOTR. And when faced with long term incarceration of Gollum (by the elves) and Saruman (by the Ents) that niggling "free will" thing was always in the back of their minds. They wanted the evil/danger contained. But action against evil is easiest when it is accomplished quickly. To maintain a prolonged imprisonment of an individual, in effect controlling him and robbing him of free will, requires great conviction. I wonder if this was just a little hard for the elves and the Ents to maintain over time. Perhaps their conviction relaxed enough to show some kindness (in the case of the elves) or be 'convinced' of mercy (in the case of the Ents). Legolas said, "We guarded this creature day and night, at Gandalf's bidding, much though we wearied of the task. But Gandalf bade us hope still for his cure, and we had not the heart to keep him ever in dungeons under the earth, where he would fall back into his old black thoughts." Treebeard said, "Now do not tell me, Gandalf, that I promised to keep him safe for I know it. But things have changed since then. And I kept him until he was safe, safe from doing any more harm. You should know that above all I hate the caging of live things, and I will not keep even such creatures as these caged beyond great need."

-------------
because I am an Ent, I'll make another point in a separate reply.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The second thing I thought of while reading your reply is this concept of 'leader' making all the decisions. There are times where people in the book step up to lead. But in most cases, it really seems more of an administrative role (someone has to decide what to do next, we agree it will be X) rather than some sort of ego-boost, oligarchical position.

I was so moved by the end of LOTR I set out trying to figure out why. Starting from when Frodo woke up in Ithilien, I started documenting everything I could observe about him and how Tolkien *wrote* about him.

One by one, bit by bit, the people in Frodo's life who had been supportive of him, say goodbye. Until finally, it's time for Gandalf and Aragorn to bid the Hobbits farewell.

The hobbits, and I think especially Frodo, looked at both Gandalf and Aragorn as protective father figures. When they say good-bye to Aragorn, Tolkien writes, “The hobbits were grieved at this parting; for Aragorn had never failed them and he had been their guide through many perils.” Frodo says, “There is no real going back. Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same; for I shall not be the same. I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth, and a long burden. Where shall I find rest?” and “Gandalf did not answer.” Both of the figures that had been providing support, guidance, and advice were now removed from Frodo’s life. I think it showed the hobbits’ growth. If they were child-like in the beginning, they have matured into adulthood now. They must make their own way in the world, but facing all the adult cares and worries can be a daunting thing.

I had been observing, in this entire section, how Tolkien writes of Frodo as an increasingly passive character.

We are given little insight as to how Frodo is feeling or what he is thinking. Sam wakes up aware of the soft bed, swaying tree boughs, glimmering sunlight, and sweet smells. But Tolkien does not let us into Frodo’s head. He does laugh occasionally, but Tolkien doesn’t write from Frodo’s viewpoint. We don’t hear of his taking delight in sounds, smells, sites. Throughout the rest of the chapters Sam, Merry and Pippin are responsible for most of the conversation and activity . It seems a subtle removal of Frodo’s personality. The concrete is that he’s not as visible to us because the other hobbits are carrying the story. The inferred, I believe, is that Frodo is withdrawing... from his friends, his previous life, and the world.

In “The Field of Cormallen”, Frodo is led by people, dressed by people and made to stand back to back with Merry and Pippin. Others are directing his activities.

In the “Scouring of the Shire” twice, comments are directed at Frodo but Frodo is not the one that answers. When Sam begins to see the destruction of the Shire he “was beside himself. ‘I’m going right on, Mr. Frodo!’ he cried. ‘I’m going to see what’s up. I want to find my gaffer.’” This is not the voice Sam would have used with Frodo at the beginning. Regardless of the ‘Mr.’, Sam is no longer looking to Frodo for guidance or permission. (He means no disrespect, I’m sure) But more interestingly, Frodo is not the one who answers. Merry is. He is taking charge about what must be done with the ‘gang of ruffians’. Later, when the hobbits are told that some of the men have ‘shot one or two of our folk’, Merry cries ‘There you are, Frodo. I knew we should have to fight. Well, they started the killing.’ Farmer Cotton is the one who replies, however. I think this was another way of ‘removing’ Frodo, bit by bit from those around him. Circumstances have forced and fostered growth in everyone. They are feeling confident. I don’t think they’re ignoring Frodo. But I think that these interchanges were deliberate on Tolkien’s part in making us feel the Frodo’s separation.

Sometimes war heroes come home and they become great, glorious leaders. but... "Following the end of the American Revolution, Washington addressed Congress on December 23 in Annapolis and resigned his commission. Through this action, Washington gave the power back to the people and was declared a hero around the world."

He gave the power back to the people. I just recently heard a historical figure described as a 'cincinnati' which sent me right to the internet to investigate. Cincinnati (the city) derives its name from the Society of the Cincinnati (a society founded in 1783 arising from the Rev. War). The Society derives its name from the Roman, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

Cincinnatus, who had held some office prior, was a small farmer when he was called to lead Rome against its foes. "Cincinnatus maintained his authority only long enough to bring Rome through the emergency. He then resigned and returned to his farm." "Further, he refused the honors that came with his military victories."

The point has been made about Frodo's increasing fragile health and state of mind. But I also think there is this sense of handing power back over to the people. Merry, Pippin, and Sam are ready to step into playing a larger role now. And the people of the Shire are able to defend themselves under the guidance of these three. (and Rosie... she was pretty ready to step into an important role in this, too!)

The point is, if one person is leading in a more dictatorial way, then others aren't given a chance to grow and learn what they are capable of. I would argue that a good leader is a facilitator and knows when to step back and let all individuals find their voice and build a community.

I'm not so sure Frodo was making these intellectual choices... he was, I think, responding more from mental and emotional fatigue. But Tolkien writes the story in such a way that, as Frodo steps back, other step up. I don't think it's an accident or coincidence or PLOT HOLE (whatever that means these days!). (in fact, after reading about Cincinnatus, I have to wonder if this was any inspiration at all for Tolkien when creating the character of Frodo)

The more I read the books, the more I understand the complex relationships between people, their choices, their actions, and the influences and outcomes of those things. I never fault a movie-only fan for not divining depth like this from the movies. But I kind of shake my head at someone who's read the book and so completely missed these sorts of things.

/Ent out.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I don't think the meeting on the road would have allowed anyone to prevent the degradation of the Shire, which was already well under way. Lotho was the figurehead Boss before Saruman arrived. You could argue that the ruffians and such could have been driven out more easily if Sharkey were not there, but that is speculative at best.

That's inaccurate. The hobbits suffered under Lotho's reign, but once "Sharkey" arrived, things got hundred times worse:

It was about last harvest, end o' September maybe, that we first heard of him [Sharkey]. We've never seen him, but he's up at Bag End; and he's the real Chief now, I guess. All the ruffians do what he says; and what he says is mostly hack, burn, and ruin; and now it's come to killing. There's no longer even any bad sense in it. They cut down trees and let 'em lie, they burn houses and build no more.

Whether the ruffians could have been driven out more easily - that's not the point: the point is that a lot of the damage and suffering could have prevented if the companions returned immediately to the Shire. It's like putting out fire, which has already destroyed several houses, before it spread to destroy a whole town.

Frodo doesn't want the death of such a higher order being, the likes of which not to be seen again in Middle-earth, to come at the hands of a hobbit.

So, just because Saruman "was great once, of a noble kind" - does that gives him immunity of being tried and punished for his deeds? I don't think so.

What are criminal law and prisons for? Just for fun, or a whim? They exist to prevent criminals from harming others.

In addition to his wish that Saruman have at least opportunity to find redemption

Let's see:

During the meeting on the road or at any time, did Saruman ever express any remorse or regret for his crimes, even the slightest? No. On the contrary, he blamed the companions for his misfortune.

Did he ever show mercy to any of his victims? No.

Did he give up his sinful ways? No. That's what the chapter "Scouring of the Shire" is all about.

So about what "redemption" are you talking? Is that the way to make up for the countlss innocent lives he destroyed - by destroying more?!

Mercy and compassion are good traits, but even they have limits. Whoever is responsible to massacre of innocent people, let alone whole communities, and never showed any mercy to others, nor any regret - does not deserve mercy. He deserves justice.

I believe that villains deserve a second chance, but for that, the sinner must take responsibility for his crimes; feel regret; amend the wrongs he did - Saruman never did any of those. Still, he was given a second chance (which IMO did not deserve at all) and chose of his free will to continue doing ill to others.

reply share

add reply

formatting help