Why Eru Didn’t Trip Gollum: Providence, Free Will, and Con-creation in The Lord of the Rings—Part 1 of 5
| PART 1 (this post) | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 |
Author’s Note: The following essay was written between Nov. of 2020 and June of 2021 and was itself an expansion on a short social media post that was that written in 2018. The version presented here has undergone further editing for length, but represents work from an earlier stage in my research and writing journey—I hope I have grown since then. Some ideas which first appear in this essay including the notions of “Con-creation,” “Story as Emergent Property of Eä,” and “The Infinite Variety of God” are all things I would like to develop into papers one day, but after so many years of this sitting in Google Drive, I simply want to get it out there. I’ll deal with the papers later. I am cross-posting this from my long-form blog (DM if you'd like the link) in 5 parts because it is very long. Works Cited will be included only in this post, part 1, so I don't have to repeat it.
Part 1: Introduction
Here’s a question: in the climactic moment of The Lord of the Rings, who was responsible for the Ring’s destruction? Was it Frodo? Gollum? Maybe Sam? Alternatively, was it Eru? Is there a sense in which we could say it was Sauron, or even the Ring, itself?
There’s a reading of the climax of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings that takes a strong stance on the answer to the above questions. It’s a reading that has floated around fan spaces since at least the mid 2000s. Put simply it states that Gollum’s Ring-destroying fall into the Cracks of Doom as he “danced too close to the edge” was not directly caused by his careless dancing, but rather was the result of him being “pushed” or “tripped” by Eru, Tolkien’s Creator-God. The argument for this reading appears to be centered on the contents of a letter Tolkien addressed to Amy Ronald in July of 1956 (hereafter referred to per its designation in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien as Letter 192). In it Tolkien explains that the climax at the Cracks of Doom represents a time in the story where “the Other Power took over,” completing the task that Frodo was incapable of completing on his own (Tolkien, Letters 252). The “tripped” interpretation of this moment appears to assign to Tolkien’s statement in Letter 192 the meaning that Gollum was made to fall by a singular, direct, unilateral act of Eru—that is: divine intervention—a literal deus ex machina as the “finger of God” intruded into history. This reading of Letter 192 is prominent enough in fan consciousness that as of this writing, even the entry for “Eru Ilúvatar” on One Wiki to Rule Them All lists it alongside The Drowning of Numenor as one of four moments in the history of Middle-earth when Eru actively and miraculously intervened (“Involvement”), an association that is significant for reasons which will soon become clear.
This reading of the scene, and of the Letter used to argue for it, is highly selective and disregards both the context of said letter and numerous pieces of evidence that suggest contrary readings, both within the text of The Lord of the Rings and outside of it. It also requires mischaracterizing the very present and widely-recognized functioning of Providence in Eä by recasting it instead as miracle. Additionally, if true, it would work to undermine some of the most prominent themes in The Lord of the Rings, including those themes Tolkien, himself, identifies within his letters, damaging the work’s dramatic unity and rendering The Lord of the Rings unsatisfactory from a narrative perspective. Most important for my purposes, I believe that this very unsatisfactory-ness is evidence that this reading cannot be true without running afoul of one of the most important underlying aspects of the metaphysics of Tolkien’s Legendarium—the “story-nature” of Eä.
I will “unweave” this interpretation and then “reweave” the loosened threads of story into a different pattern, one I am calling “con-creation.” In my usage “con-creation” is the total continuous creative activity (by which I also mean choice-making about mundane things) of all creatures capable of choice, across all time—rather than the creative activity of a set number of said individuals greater than one (“co-creation”)—as a means of creating in concert with a Prime Creator who supports the total product of con-creation by supplying it with primary being. It could be likened metaphorically to the production of an improv-heavy play. This idea is so central to The Lord of the Rings in particular and to Tolkien’s Legendarium in total that it—like eucatastrophe—”rends the web of story” (Tolkien, Tolkien On Fairy-stories 76) and enters into the real world, encompassing the reader as well.
[Continue to PART 2: Catching the Snag]
———————
Works Cited
“Involvement.” Eru Ilúvatar, One Wiki to Rule Them All, lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Eru_Ilúvatar. Accessed 16 Nov. 2023.
Blount, Douglas K. “Uberhobbits: Tolkien, Nietzsche, And The Will To Power.” The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All, edited by Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson. Carus Publishing Company, 2003.
Caldecott, Stratford. “Over the Chasm of Fire: Christian Heroism in the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings.” Tolkien: A Celebration, edited by Joseph Pearce. London: Harper Collins, 1999.
Dubs, Kathleen, “Providence, Fate, and Chance: Boethian Philosophy in The Lord of the Rings.” Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 27, no. 1, 1981, pp. 34-42.
Hibbs, Thomas. “Providence and Dramatic Unity in The Lord of the Rings.” The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All, edited by Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson. Carus Publishing Company, 2003.
Ivey, Christin. “The Presence of Divine Providence in the Absence of ‘God’: The role of Providence, Fate, and Free Will in Tolkien’s Mythology.” The Corinthian, vol. 9, no. 1, 2008, pp. 189-99.
Kocher, Paul. Master of Middle-earth. New York: Ballantine Books, 1978.
McIntosh, Jonathan. The Flame Imperishable: Tolkien, St. Thomas, and the Metaphysics of Faerie. Kindle ed., Angelico Press, 2018.
Meyer Sparks, Patricia. “Power and Meaning in The Lord of the Rings.” Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best of Tolkien Criticism, edited by Rose A. Zimbardo and Neil D. Isaacs. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
Purtill, Richard. J.R.R. Tolkien: Myth, Morality, and Religion. Ignatius Press, 2003.
Sandwell, Ian. “Lord of the Rings almost had a much darker ending.” Digital Spy, 4 Mar. 2021, http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a31925985/lord-of-the-rings-ending-frodo-gollum/. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021.
Tolkien, J. R. R.. “The Hunt for the Ring.” Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-earth, edited by Christopher Tolkien, Annotated ed., Kindle ed., Mariner Books, 2012.
—. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. Edited by Humphrey Carpenter, 1st ed., Kindle ed., Mariner Books, 2014.
—. The Lord of the Rings: One Volume. 50th Anniversary ed., Kindle ed., Mariner Books, 2012.
—. Morgoth’s Ring. Vol. 10 of The History of Middle-earth, edited by Christopher Tolkien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993.
—. “Osanwe-kenta.” The Nature of Middle-earth, edited by Carl F. Hostetter. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2021.
—. The Peoples of Middle-earth. Vol. 12 of The History of Middle-earth, edited by Christopher Tolkien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996.
—. Sauron Defeated. Vol. 9 of The History of Middle-earth, edited by Christopher Tolkien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.
—. The Silmarillion. Edited by Christopher Tolkien, Reissue ed., Kindle ed., Mariner Books, 2012.
—. Tolkien on Fairy-Stories. Edited by Verlyn Flieger and Douglas A. Anderson. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2014.
Wood, Ralph C.. “Conflict and Convergence on Fundamental Matters in C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.” Renascence, vol. 55, no. 4, 2003, pp. 315-38.
30 notes
·
View notes