![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Happy Bilbo and Frodo's Birthday, 2023!
Happy Bilbo and Frodo’s birthday, all! In the crossover ‘verse in my head, I do believe Frodo is 94 today, though I’m holding onto following that timeline by a thread. (Basically, it’s my age + 46.)
I have some Tolkienesque thoughts and weird sense of déjà vu that I’ve already written this essay, but I don’t see it in my stuff, so it may have just been in my head. It’s on Tolkien and moral culpability, based on thinky thoughts raised by this interesting video (qv):
If you’re not watching the video right now, basically Tolkien held that people could not be held morally culpable for failure to do something beyond their capacity (a very understandable view for a WWI vet, by the way). He, therefore, held that while Frodo failed to destroy the Ring (spoilers!), he wasn’t morally culpable for that failure because he had been pushed well beyond his own capacity. (Have I really not already written this? Let me know you’ve seen this somewhere—by me.)
I totally respect this view, and it’s different from mine. Tolkien’s reasoning stood about to me because one could argue my views of moral culpability are actually more judgmental than his. And I’m not used to feeling more morally judgmental than a traditional Catholic. :-) But I think his Catholicism—and my Buddhism—are in play here.
Here’s my take, and while I’ve felt this way a long time, my views have been refined by Buddhist study, so I’ll frame them that way. My view is seated in karma. Karma, my sensei offers, is an intentional, volitional act that plants a seed, and, in the proper conditions, the seed may germinate into something good or bad. By this definition, Frodo’s claiming of the Ring generates karma. It is intentional: he’s consciously aware he’s doing it. It is volitional: he chooses to do it; he wishes to do it. And while I agree completely with Tolkien that he is pushed beyond his capacity, and I don’t personally think less of him for his stumble, I do believe that the seed is planted. If I can borrow from Cowboy Bebop, he’s going to carry that weight. (I don’t think Tolkien basically disagreed with some version of that either, given how he writes Frodo subsequently.)
Now, good can come of it. A lapse like that, for example, can teach greater empathy for others in their lapses. But bad (or at least sad) can come of it too: I don’t think Frodo will ever forget that very stark illustration of his own moral limits. It’s scary, and it’s scarring; it has to be. I can’t say he’s not culpable for that; it was his action, and he’s got to live with it. Part of that living can be a good sense of understanding that he was pushed beyond his capacity, but it still happened, and he’s still got to live with the psychological fallout of that. I can’t absolve him of that; it’s outside my power. It’s his karma, not mine.
But Tolkien came from a religion that believes in absolution (by God, I mean). He also believed in heaven and hell, which, I suspect, means he believed that God is justly sending some people to hell... for eternity. That’s tremendously more judgmental than I have ever been, and one reason I gravitated to Buddhism is that it’s not that judgmental; it sees all of us as on the same ultimate path toward awakening, even if it takes some of us immensely longer than others. And I think this is the crux of the difference in our views.
Tolkien has a strong theological reason to [edit: not find Frodo at fault; delete: "absolve Frodo" (wrong word)] because his basic sense of human compassion tells him that Frodo doesn’t deserve to be punished for his failure. But if he were morally culpable—if his failure counted as a sin—logically he would have to punished (if not formally absolved by God in some pre-Catholic way), not with hell, I’m sure, but maybe purgatory? And that just feels far too cruel; I think he and I would agree on that.
But for me, karma’s gonna karma. That’s just how it is. It’s not about punishing people; it’s not about what we deserve. It’s just the weight we carry. Even the Buddha, after awakening, is said to have still carried the last vestiges of his karmic load in the form of old age and decrepitude up to his death. Karma just follows you a long time, and I think that his failure at Mount Doom is going to follow Frodo for a long time. I just can’t see how it couldn’t.
Happy birthday, Frodo! The Frodo in my head, at 94, is actually very healed from all that, so much so it surprises me sometimes. But it’s still there if you scratch deep enough.
I have some Tolkienesque thoughts and weird sense of déjà vu that I’ve already written this essay, but I don’t see it in my stuff, so it may have just been in my head. It’s on Tolkien and moral culpability, based on thinky thoughts raised by this interesting video (qv):
If you’re not watching the video right now, basically Tolkien held that people could not be held morally culpable for failure to do something beyond their capacity (a very understandable view for a WWI vet, by the way). He, therefore, held that while Frodo failed to destroy the Ring (spoilers!), he wasn’t morally culpable for that failure because he had been pushed well beyond his own capacity. (Have I really not already written this? Let me know you’ve seen this somewhere—by me.)
I totally respect this view, and it’s different from mine. Tolkien’s reasoning stood about to me because one could argue my views of moral culpability are actually more judgmental than his. And I’m not used to feeling more morally judgmental than a traditional Catholic. :-) But I think his Catholicism—and my Buddhism—are in play here.
Here’s my take, and while I’ve felt this way a long time, my views have been refined by Buddhist study, so I’ll frame them that way. My view is seated in karma. Karma, my sensei offers, is an intentional, volitional act that plants a seed, and, in the proper conditions, the seed may germinate into something good or bad. By this definition, Frodo’s claiming of the Ring generates karma. It is intentional: he’s consciously aware he’s doing it. It is volitional: he chooses to do it; he wishes to do it. And while I agree completely with Tolkien that he is pushed beyond his capacity, and I don’t personally think less of him for his stumble, I do believe that the seed is planted. If I can borrow from Cowboy Bebop, he’s going to carry that weight. (I don’t think Tolkien basically disagreed with some version of that either, given how he writes Frodo subsequently.)
Now, good can come of it. A lapse like that, for example, can teach greater empathy for others in their lapses. But bad (or at least sad) can come of it too: I don’t think Frodo will ever forget that very stark illustration of his own moral limits. It’s scary, and it’s scarring; it has to be. I can’t say he’s not culpable for that; it was his action, and he’s got to live with it. Part of that living can be a good sense of understanding that he was pushed beyond his capacity, but it still happened, and he’s still got to live with the psychological fallout of that. I can’t absolve him of that; it’s outside my power. It’s his karma, not mine.
But Tolkien came from a religion that believes in absolution (by God, I mean). He also believed in heaven and hell, which, I suspect, means he believed that God is justly sending some people to hell... for eternity. That’s tremendously more judgmental than I have ever been, and one reason I gravitated to Buddhism is that it’s not that judgmental; it sees all of us as on the same ultimate path toward awakening, even if it takes some of us immensely longer than others. And I think this is the crux of the difference in our views.
Tolkien has a strong theological reason to [edit: not find Frodo at fault; delete: "absolve Frodo" (wrong word)] because his basic sense of human compassion tells him that Frodo doesn’t deserve to be punished for his failure. But if he were morally culpable—if his failure counted as a sin—logically he would have to punished (if not formally absolved by God in some pre-Catholic way), not with hell, I’m sure, but maybe purgatory? And that just feels far too cruel; I think he and I would agree on that.
But for me, karma’s gonna karma. That’s just how it is. It’s not about punishing people; it’s not about what we deserve. It’s just the weight we carry. Even the Buddha, after awakening, is said to have still carried the last vestiges of his karmic load in the form of old age and decrepitude up to his death. Karma just follows you a long time, and I think that his failure at Mount Doom is going to follow Frodo for a long time. I just can’t see how it couldn’t.
Happy birthday, Frodo! The Frodo in my head, at 94, is actually very healed from all that, so much so it surprises me sometimes. But it’s still there if you scratch deep enough.
no subject
Without claiming any expertise beyond being raised a Catholic, I think the fact that Frodo a) repents and b) actively does something about it fulfills the theological requirement for absolution. No, he can't go to confession to a priest and receive absolution in Middle Earth, but as Tolkien the WWI veteran would know, there are extreme circumstances in in "our" world as well where no clergyman is available, and Frodo's sincere repentance, confession and good works would end up in his salvation.
Again, I could be wrong here, and of course I'm post Vatican 2 raised, as opposed to Tolkien.
no subject
Still interesting that Tolkien apparently didn't think absolution was needed--if I followed the info in the video correctly... and now I'm realizing I used the word "absolve" sloppily in the passage you quote. I meant "not find him at fault in the first place."