Catholic Thought discussion

Summary

Chapter 2: The Shadow of the Past

Years have gone by since Bilbo vanished from the Shire. In these years, Frodo kept up a tradition of celebrating Bilbo’s birthday. He has not married but has kept close to a number of friends, most especially Sam Gamgee, Peregrin Took (called Pippin), and Meriadoc Brandybuck (called Merry). For seventeen years Frodo lived at Bag End and was quite settled there. It was as Frodo approached his fiftieth year that the strange itinerants increased through the Shire. It was in this year that Gandalf after a long absence—he had come a few times for a short while before—showed up finally at Bag End.

Gandalf explained to Frodo what he had learned about the ring. It was way more powerful than he imagined. Many rings were made by the elves long ago, some with little power and some with much, and these with much are the Great Rings. A mortal who keeps one of the Great Rings does not die but continues on withering away until he becomes invisible. Gandalf asks to look at the ring and Frodo reluctantly hands it over. Gandalf throws it into the fire and when he pulls it out words in the Elvin language appear inscribed of this ring being the one that rules the other rings.

Gandalf tells the history of the ring. He tells about Sauron, the Dark Lord, who has returned to Mordor and is aware that the ring is in the Shire. He tells of the other rings in the poem from the novel’s epigram and how “The Enemy” is out to get the one ring that controls them all, the ring that Frodo possesses. He tells of how the ring was originally lost and how a hobbit named Déagol found it and his friend Sméagol killed him over it and took it. Sméagol kept the ring hidden in the Misty Mountains and in time became Gollum. Later Bilbo came into possession of it as we know. Gandalf got most of his story from Gollum himself.

Gandalf tells Frodo how he and his friend Aragorn tracked Gollum down and found out how after Gollum losing the ring he went in search of Bilbo. He also told them how Gollum had made his way to Mordor and told the Enemy of how he lost the ring to Bilbo. That is why the dark forces have been coming to the Shire and now threaten the Shire. This is why Frodo must leave the Shire, to protect the Shire, and not have the ring taken by the enemy.

Frodo agrees he has to leave, and just after Gandalf suggests he take a companion with him, Sam Gangee is caught eavesdropping and has heard most of the conversation. He quickly volunteers to be Frodo’s companion, mostly because he wants to see elves.

###

Chapter 3: Three is Company

Frodo, pushed by Gandalf to depart, becomes hesitant. He has grown comfortable living in the Shire. Plus he does not have an excuse to just take off without any reason. He comes up with the idea to leave on Bilbo’s birthday and by then he will have sold Bag End and his unnecessary possessions and bought a house way east in Buckleberry. So with the excuse of leaving the Shire and heading to Buckleberry, he will secretly go on from there to hide the ring in Rivendell, the land of the elves.

Bag End is sold to the Sackville-Bagginses, who finally obtain the place they always wanted and glory in the purchase. Merry and a few of the other hobbit friends go ahead to move the furniture and Frodo’s possessions while Frodo, Sam, and Pippin stay behind to settle the matters and prepare for the longer journey. They have a final meal at Bag End, a wonderful feast with some of Frodo’s prize wines, and at dusk they head out under cover of the night.

Along the way they distantly see some dark riders who they sense are searching for them, so they decide to hide in the woods. They decide to progress not on the road but parallel to the road through brush and woods. At some point they hear elven singing and come across a group of elves. The leader is named Gildor Inglorion. Surprisingly Gildor happens to know Frodo’s name. They have a wonderful meal together, prepared with the food the elves brought along. They speak of the Black Riders, of the Enemy and of the increasing sightings of servants of the Enemy. Gildor advises Frodo to make haste and flee the Shire. It is extremely dangerous. With that they all go to sleep.

It must take you forever to write these summaries!

Michelle wrote: "It must take you forever to write these summaries!"

LOL, it took me about an hour for each chapter. Actually, maybe two hours for chapter 2 since it was so complicated and had a lot of important information. But it's hard to do it all in one night. I need a break in there.

Tolkien builds a world of security by putting the reader at ease. Yet there's always something lurking in the shadows. Gildor brings in the mystical on his journey West.

What struck me is the gap between Bilbo's departure and Frodo's. In the movies, it doesn't imply much time at all. In the books, it's measured in years. Frodo waited a long time for Gandalf to return.

These chapters construct the start of journey outwards.

When I did the summary of the first section (Prologue and Chapter 1), I didn’t realize that the ring would be so fully explained immediately after in Chapter 2. So between the two sections, I think we know a lot about the ring. There is not much further to say at this point.

So let me use my commentary to highlight a couple of other observations that struck me in these two chapters.

I found this fascinating. From Gandalf’s discussion with Frodo when Gandalf tells him about the ring, Gandalf mentions Saruman the White:

‘Who is he?’ asked Frodo. ‘I have never heard of him before.’

‘Maybe not,’ answered Gandalf. ‘Hobbits are, or were, no concern of his. Yet he is great among the Wise. He is the chief of my order and the head of the Council. His knowledge is deep, but his pride has grown with it, and he takes ill any meddling. The lore of the Elven-rings, great and small, is his province. He has long studied it, seeking the lost secrets of their making; but when the Rings were debated in the Council, all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told against my fears. So my doubt slept – but uneasily. Still I watched and I waited.

“He is the chief of my order.” What order? Do they have orders in the novel? Is that analogous to a religious order? It makes me think of the Dominicans or the Jesuits. So what is the charism of the order of “the Wise”?

###

Another interesting passage is when Gandalf fills Frodo in on the history of the ring.

‘Ah!’ said Gandalf. ‘That is a very long story. The beginnings lie back in the Black Years, which only the lore-masters now remember. If I were to tell you all that tale, we should still be sitting here when Spring had passed into Winter.

‘But last night I told you of Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord. The rumours that you have heard are true: he has indeed arisen again and left his hold in Mirkwood and returned to his ancient fastness in the Dark Tower of Mordor. That name even you hobbits have heard of, like a shadow on the borders of old stories. Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.’

‘I wish it need not have happened in my time,’ said Frodo.

‘So do I,’ said Gandalf, ‘and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. And already, Frodo, our time is beginning to look black.

The Enemy is fast becoming very strong. His plans are far from ripe, I think, but they are ripening. We shall be hard put to it. We should be very hard put to it, even if it were not for this dreadful chance. ‘The Enemy still lacks one thing to give him strength and knowledge to beat down all resistance, break the last defences, and cover all the lands in a second darkness. He lacks the One Ring.

So here we are introduced to Sauron the Great, otherwise known as the Dark Lord. Is he analogous to Satan, otherwise known as Lucifer? If it is, it’s an interesting play on light and dark. Lucifer actually means “light-bearer.” John Milton refers him as the “Prince of Darkness.” The name Sauron could be a linguistic twist to Satan. There are a couple of interesting statements in the Wikipedia entry for “Sauron.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauron

First: “Tolkien stated in his Letters that although he did not think "Absolute Evil" could exist as it would be "Zero", "in my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible." He explained that, like "all tyrants", Sauron had started out with good intentions but was corrupted by power, and that he "went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination", being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.”

Second: “The classicist J. K. Newman comments that "Sauron's Greek name" makes him "the Lizard", from Ancient Greek σαῦρος (sauros) 'lizard or reptile'.”

I think we can conclude that Sauron is analogous to Satan. Also the reference to “the Enemy” caught my attention. Isn’t that our reference to Satan or the forces of Satan? I don’t know if the term is universal for all Christians, but I have heard referring to Satan in Catholic lingo. There are a couple Bible verses that refer to Satan as “the enemy,” (Lk 10:19, and 1 Tm 5:14) but hard to tell when you consider it’s a translation. Have you heard the reference to Satan as “the enemy”?

Also there is a lot of light and dark imagery throughout these early chapters. I’m not going to cite them here, but I’m sure you’ve seen them. Perhaps at some point we can elaborate on it.

###

Did the passage where Gandalf describes Sméagol’s murder of Déagol strike people as an allusion to Cain and Able?

But Sméagol had been watching him from behind a tree, and as Déagol gloated over the ring, Sméagol came softly up behind.

‘“Give us that, Déagol, my love,” said Sméagol, over his friend’s shoulder.

‘“Why?” said Déagol.

‘“Because it’s my birthday, my love, and I wants it,” said Sméagol.

‘“I don’t care,” said Déagol. “I have given you a present already, more than I could afford. I found this, and I’m going to keep it.”

‘“Oh, are you indeed, my love,” said Sméagol; and he caught Déagol by the throat and strangled him, because the gold looked so bright and beautiful. Then he put the ring on his finger.

And later Gandalf elaborates further.

‘The murder of Déagol haunted Gollum, and he had made up a defence, repeating it to his “Precious” over and over again, as he gnawed bones in the dark, until he almost believed it. It was his birthday. Déagol ought to have given the ring to him. It had obviously turned up just so as to be a present. It was his birthday-present, and so on, and on.

It’s almost as if Gollum is fated to wander the earth like Cain as a result of the murder. It’s also rather ironic how Sméagol twice refers to Déagol as “his love” just before he kills him.

###

And speaking of murder, Tolkien brings up the use of the death penalty for this act. When Frodo hears that Gollum is out trying to find the ring, he expresses fear.

‘But this is terrible!’ cried Frodo. ‘Far worse than the worst that I imagined from your hints and warnings. O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!’

‘Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.’

‘I am sorry,’ said Frodo. ‘But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.’

‘You have not seen him,’ Gandalf broke in.

‘No, and I don’t want to,’ said Frodo. ‘I can’t understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.’

‘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. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least. In any case we did not kill him: he is very old and very wretched. The Wood-elves have him in prison, but they treat him with such kindness as they can find in their wise hearts.’

There seems to be a tension here between advocacy of the death penalty and prohibition. Overall it seems to me that Gandalf is speaking for the author here. Do people agree with that? I don’t know at what point the Catholic Church began to criticize the use of the death penalty (Pope Paul VI in the 1970s?) but if Gandalf is articulating Tolkien’s position then Tolkien was ahead of his time on this issue writing in the 1940s. But this is a fascinating moment which I will look for further development as a theme as we read on.

There is a lot there to consider. I have more before I move on to the next section. Perhaps by tomorrow.

I have frequently heard Satan referred to as the Enemy. I wonder if that is something we as Catholics do. Kerstin, did you hear that term outside of Catholicism?

The Cain & Able theory fits, doesn't it?

Michelle wrote: "I have frequently heard Satan referred to as the Enemy. I wonder if that is something we as Catholics do. Kerstin, did you hear that term outside of Catholicism?

The Cain & Able theory fits, doesn..."

What are your thoughts on the death penalty passage, Michelle? Do you think Gandalf is speaking for Tolkien or do you think this is just meant as a distinction between Gandalf and Frodo?

I didn't read this passage that way. I thought it was a good way to show Gandalf's personality as a wise and just judge when he corrected Frodo. But maybe it is Tolkein shining through since Gandalf, (and his words), are his creation.

Nicely put, Michelle.

This material has so many levels of meaning. Several years ago I read an article in the WSJ discussing books about geopolitics. Lord of the Rings was on the list! The author of the piece explained his thinking this way: ‘’LOTR is a thinly disguised Roman a clef of WWII. Put Hitler in the role of evil Sauron, let Mussolini be the wizard Saruman and create a heroic alliance to oppose them. The Hobbits, a peaceful people, carry much of the story. But the rest of the cast are the geopolitical masters of the tale. And what a tale it is — an immense force of evil seeking control of a devastating technology; a shopworn and fractious alliance formed in resistance; a harrowing series of battles across plains, mountains and rivers; and lessons in diplomacy, economic strangulation, courtly betrayal and mind control. . . ‘’ (I will finish this in another post.)

Conclusion: ‘’The Lord of the Rings is also a cautionary tale about the dangers of the world, as we hear from ancient elven lord Elrond: ‘Let him vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.’ The hobbits try their best to remain naive and innocent. At one point Frodo says, ‘It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal nothing.’ Maybe so. But the geopolitical lesson of The Lord of the Rings is to fight with all your heart and soul against evil — and build what alliances you can along the way.”

I wish I could name the author of this article, but it was quite an extensive piece of which mention of LOTR was a small part at the end. When clipping it out to save, I lost the author’s name.

I don't read Gandalf's speech about having pity on Smeagol as being about the death penalty. It has always struck me more as being patterned after, 'Judge not lest ye be judged,' or 'which one of you will cast the first stone?' A lesson about how fallen humanity can't really know another's heart.

Kelly wrote: "I don't read Gandalf's speech about having pity on Smeagol as being about the death penalty. It has always struck me more as being patterned after, 'Judge not lest ye be judged,' or 'which one of y..."

Yeah, Kelly, Gandalf is not speaking from pity. He does say Gollum deserves it: "Deserves it! I daresay he does." It's Bilbo who had pity for him. Gandalf does explain why Gollum should not receive the death penalty, and it's right in line with Catholic teaching: "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." The Catholic Church teaches that we should not take life out of God's hands because (1) we don't know God's ends and what purpose every life will have ("even the very wise cannot see all ends") and (2) every person should be allowed to have God's time to repent ("there is a chance that Gollum can be cured before he dies.").

I don't want to make too much of this but it is odd that such a theme be placed here. Is this Tolkien drawing a theme or is he just opining on an issue or both? As to every life having a purpose, I do seem to vaguely remember that Gollum in the end is critical to the destruction of the ring. I think his life does wind up having purpose.

Frances wrote: "...When clipping it out to save, I lost the author’s name."

Oh, don't you hate that, Francis? But it's amazing the impact this story had. How many fantasy books does the WSJ refer to? In my science fiction and fantasy book club this series is universally loved. Narnia not so much. Even athiests seem to enjoy LOTR. Perhaps it's because Tolkein was so subtle, unlike the 2x4 effect of Narnia, as someone in this group mentioned. I can't recall which member brought up the 2x4 subtlety, but he was right!

Kelly wrote: "I don't read Gandalf's speech about having pity on Smeagol as being about the death penalty. It has always struck me more as being patterned after, 'Judge not lest ye be judged,' or 'which one of y..."

It does seem that way, too!

Another detail of note in these two chapters is that we first encounter elves. What are we to make of them? How does Gildor know Frodo’s name, that he possesses the ring and is on a quest? It’s rather strange and I expect it to be answered at some point.

In this first encounter the hobbits hear the elves singing. So we know the elves are the forgers of the rings, their own language, and they have a love of song and beautiful voices. In fact, though the hobbits don’t know the elven language, through song somehow the meaning of the lyrics is passed across. Here is the song they sing.

Snow-white! Snow-white! O Lady clear!
O Queen beyond the Western Seas!
O Light to us that wander here
Amid the world of woven trees!

Gilthoniel! O Elbereth!
Clear are thy eyes and bright thy breath!
Snow-white! Snow-white! We sing to thee
In a far land beyond the Sea.

O stars that in the Sunless Year
With shining hand by her were sown,
In windy fields now bright and clear
We see your silver blossom blown!

O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!
We still remember, we who dwell
In this far land beneath the trees,
Thy starlight on the Western Seas.

When I mentioned in the introduction that I was fascinated by Tolkien’s ability to create folklore, here is a prime example. Folk songs are a component of folklore, and not only does Tolkien create a folklore for the hobbits, he creates one for the elves, and I imagine for other types of humanoids. I haven’t compared them closely, but elven song seems different than the hobbit songs, and terms of rhythm and diction. Perhaps I will compare them closely at some point, but just from experiencing them it seems the hobbit songs are much earthier while the elves seem to be more of a high culture. Who is this Queen they are addressing? She sounds analogous to the Blessed Virgin Queen, does it not? And how could the Queen's breath be "bright"? (See the second line of the second stanza.) Can breath be luminous? Hopefully this will be clarified at some point.

Michelle wrote: "I have frequently heard Satan referred to as the Enemy. I wonder if that is something we as Catholics do. Kerstin, did you hear that term outside of Catholicism?"

I don't remember.

Manny wrote: "There seems to be a tension here between advocacy of the death penalty and prohibition."

In the passage there is also an implication of the sacredness of life. Once life is taken it cannot be brought back. Gandalf also hints to the fact that each life has purpose. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. [...] And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end

Gollum is bound up with the fate of the Ring. Here we have the binding again, a forever binding that cannot be undone. And with this binding the Ring has turned Sméagol into wretched Gollum. In contrast to a wedding ring, where the wearer does so freely and with consent, here the evil instrument ensnares without consent. The lure and trickery of the object is the precious metal that once desired takes possession.

There is one more detail I want to discuss from this section before I move on to the next. Let’s look at this passage, when Gandalf and Frodo are discussing taking the ring away from the Shire.

‘As for where I am going,’ said Frodo, ‘it would be difficult to give that away, for I have no clear idea myself, yet.’

‘Don’t be absurd!’ said Gandalf. ‘I am not warning you against leaving an address at the post-office! But you are leaving the Shire – and that should not be known, until you are far away. And you must go, or at least set out, either North, South, West or East – and the direction should certainly not be known.’

‘I have been so taken up with the thoughts of leaving Bag End, and of saying farewell, that I have never even considered the direction,’ said Frodo. ‘For where am I to go? And by what shall I steer? What is to be my quest? Bilbo went to find a treasure, there and back again; but I go to lose one, and not return, as far as I can see.’

‘But you cannot see very far,’ said Gandalf. ‘Neither can I. It may be your task to find the Cracks of Doom; but that quest may be for others: I do not know. At any rate you are not ready for that long road yet.’

‘No indeed!’ said Frodo. ‘But in the meantime what course am I to take?’

‘Towards danger; but not too rashly, nor too straight,’ answered the wizard. ‘If you want my advice, make for Rivendell. That journey should not prove too perilous, though the Road is less easy than it was, and it will grow worse as the year fails.’

‘Rivendell!’ said Frodo. ‘Very good: I will go east, and I will make for Rivendell. I will take Sam to visit the Elves; he will be delighted.’ He spoke lightly; but his heart was moved suddenly with a desire to see the house of Elrond Halfelven, and breathe the air of that deep valley where many of the Fair Folk still dwelt in peace.

“What is to be my quest?” Frodo asks. And while at the moment the quest is modest—to take the ring away from the Shire—it will grow as we will see later on. The theme of quest is central to the novel for several reasons. First it provides the narrative structure to the novel; the novel is about the working out of the quest. Second it alludes to literature built around quests, such as the Knights of the Round Table on a quest to find the Holy Grail. Third it provides for the psychological development and growth of the questing hero; the obstacles and struggles along the way shape the hero. And four, the reader and the reader’s life is joined in some way with the questing hero. There is a sense that we all in our lives are on a quest to find ourselves, to find God, and to serve a greater cause for the benefit of our family and neighbors. We begin to see ourselves in Frodo.

This is the nature of quest literature, and I’m sure Tolkien is keenly aware of this. What is interesting is that right around the time Tolkien is writing LotR, Joseph Campbell is writing his study on the very subject, published in The Hero with a Thousand Faces. I don’t know if people are aware of Joseph Campbell, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_... he spent his academic career as a theorist on mythology and literature, and toward the end of his life entered the popular culture with a series of discussions of his theories on Public Broadcasting System (PBS). I remember finding it fascinating, and it sparked my interest in mythology and folklore. Campbell claimed that ultimately all stories derive from a single myth he calls the monomyth, and that is of a questing hero. I believe the early movies of the series of Star Wars—Luke the questing hero out to find his father—was based on the theories of Joseph Campbell.

You can find on the internet analyses of LotR based on Campbell’s theories—here is a very good one, “The Lord of the Rings and Joseph Campbell’s Functions of Mythology” by Seth Tomko https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-... —but what is interesting to me is how I can’t find either of the two commenting on the other. Perhaps they did and I couldn’t find it, but I did give it a good search on the internet. I would think they knew of each other. I would think that Tolkien being an academic himself would have come across the academic work of a mythologist, and Campbell must have certainly heard of the Lord of the Rings, a novel that fits his monomyth theories perfectly.

Now to be sure, there is much Tolkien would not have liked about Campbell’s theories. Campbell derives much from Freudian and Jungian psychoanalytic theories, which in my opinion, and perhaps would be in Tolkien’s as well, is a bunch of academic twaddle, that is, sounds good from a PhD perspective but ultimately fails to meet reality in some way. Perhaps I’m being harsh here, but I don’t put much stock in psychoanalytic theories. Also Tolkien might object to Campbell in that he seems to imply all religions are essentially alike, a religious relativism. Now one could argue that all myths point to the one true myth, that is Christianity, an idea that I know C.S. Lewis has articulated. But Campbell seems to leave it open ended as to what is truth, pointing to something universal and leaving it at that. Campbell was born Catholic but gravitated toward some vague (at least to me) sense of spirituality.

I do wonder why each have not commented on the other, even if a rejection of the other. Still, flipping through the various sections of The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Campbell breaks down the elements of the quest in various parts: “The Call to Adventure,” “The Crossing of the First Threshold,” “The Belly of the Whale,” “The Road of Trials,” “Atonement with the Father,” “Apotheosis,” “The Return,” “The Transformation of the Hero,” and so on. I tried to pick titles that might be more relevant to LotR. But you can see how many of these elements fit the novel.

So when Frodo asks to where should he go, Gandalf replies, “Towards danger.” This is the same as Dante as he enters hell in the Divine Comedy. This is the same as Galahad as he overcomes temptations and evil in combat toward finding the Holy Grail. This is the same of our very lives as we quest toward our ultimate end.

Manny wrote: "...Perhaps I’m being harsh here, but I don’t put much stock in psychoanalytic theories..."

Me, neither.

Manny, I think your description of quest literature is the explanation for any similarities between Tolkien and Campbell’s works. In the book The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories, author Christopher Booker points out that ‘’listening to and reading stories helps make us whole.’’ Overcoming the Monster, Voyage and Return, the Quest are among timeless story lines Booker explores. Tolkien in his way was aware of them, Campbell, too. Other than the literary works that each produced, I don’t think there was any link between the two men. Each wrote independently, conscious of the great themes of timeless literature. I think of Leo Tolstoy’s famous comment, “All great literature is one of two stories: someone goes on a journey or a stranger comes to town.’’ Those words can be used to describe LOTR, too.

Frances, your knowledge is awesome!

Thank you, Michelle. I think everyone in this group is pretty special. You certainly are.

Frances wrote: "Thank you, Michelle. I think everyone in this group is pretty special. You certainly are."

What a kind thing to say- thank you :)

Frances wrote: "Tolkien in his way was aware of them, Campbell, too. Other than the literary works that each produced, I don’t think there was any link between the two men. Each wrote independently, conscious of the great themes of timeless literature."

Nothing I disagree with, Frances. I just find it odd they never commented on each other. Perhaps they have but I couldn't find it. They must have known of each other's work.

Well, I'm trying to get down the summary of the next section. Should be up in a day or so.

They may have known of each other; I don’t know how we can be certain. Certainly, with today’s technology, with the internet, they would know of each other. But we’re talking about 1949 (Hero With a Thousand Faces) and the nineteen forties and earlier up to 1954 when LOTR was published. Personally, I think they were coming at the hero’s journey from different perspectives. Campbell was examining the myth of the hero’s journey as it appeared throughout history, throughout literature, throughout religion to explain it as a great archetype.
Tolkien was writing to demonstrate that the truth of Christianity is “at the very root of reality,” and fairy stories and myths “reveal slivers of it, some more, some less.” (Joseph Pearce in quotes)
So, for example, let’s look at the figure of Odysseus, a key figure in Homer’s epic poems The Iliad and The Odyssey. Campbell would be studying him to illustrate and establish the characteristics of myth. Tolkien, however, would be studying him to reveal that the Christian story is the great reality that underlies all higher fairy-stories and myths. He speaks eloquently of this in his great essay “On Fairy Stories.”
I may be mistaken, though. If any one else in our group has a different viewpoint, please share it.

I just never understood when Pippin was invited to come along. Am I missing something?

Thank you all for these contributions!! I am falling a little bit behind, and most of these things literally just go over my head, so it's really nice to dig deeper into the themes and especially connect it with our and Tolkien's faith.

What I latched on the most in these chapters was the heavy talk about the One Ring; in my opinion, the Ring is the personification of sin — it's wielded by "the Enemy", it has immense power, but what struck me most was the fact that it makes one slowly disappear and vanish from view. From my experience, I think that's what sin does to what we truly are, our core characteristics. Sin makes us alienated from ourselves, but mainly from God. It's a distrust of God's grace and love and it feels like it has a mind of its own, just like the Ring does.

Nicole wrote: "I just never understood when Pippin was invited to come along. Am I missing something?"

There are a lot of details to keep track of :-)

‘You do not understand!’ said Pippin. ‘You must go – and therefore we must, too. Merry and I are coming with you. Sam is an excellent fellow, and would jump down a dragon’s throat to save you, if he did not trip over his own feet; but you will need more than one companion in your dangerous adventure.’

Merry and Pippin are two of Frodo's oldest friends and they are helping him move from Bag End to Buckland and into his new place in Crickhollow. Frodo is under the impression these two will remain in the Shire and he and Sam will go on. Now Merry and Pippin had long ago figured out all of this had to do with the ring. They knew him too well. So they decided on their own to accompany him on the adventure.

Ellie wrote: "Thank you all for these contributions!! I am falling a little bit behind, and most of these things literally just go over my head, so it's really nice to dig deeper into the themes and especially c..."

Not to worry! Schedules in this book club are only guidelines :-) We all follow at a pace we can manage.

Tolkien packs so many details in his tale it is hard to take it all in, especially when reading it the first time. I am astounded how much I have forgotten since the last time I read it.

Ellie, that's a great insight into the ring. I especially like how we get diminished by sin just like the ring makes people who wear it invisible.

Ellie wrote: "What I latched on the most in these chapters was the heavy talk about the One Ring; in my opinion, the Ring is the personification of sin — it's wielded by "the Enemy", it has immense power, but what struck me most was the fact that it makes one slowly disappear and vanish from view. From my experience, I think that's what sin does to what we truly are, our core characteristics. Sin makes us alienated from ourselves, but mainly from God. It's a distrust of God's grace and love and it feels like it has a mind of its own, just like the Ring does."

That is a very interesting observation Ellie.

It really is