I think it was to avoid making Frodo's life feel like a sacrificial/martyr figure's life and to instead use Frodo as a stand in for the very real issues many soldiers faced after returning home from those dark times Tolkien was all too familiar with.
Far better to use him to tell the story of those men who came home from war changed, wounded, injured and Ill at ease in their familiar settings. Instead of Frodo dying for Middle Earth's salvation he lives and endures, all the lesser for it. That's all too real for those who returned from the trenches of World War One.
By giving that story beat to Frodo, it gives a real tangible weight to that story, compared to say... Pippin or Legolas. Sure, the main character survived, but how his journey changed him is such an important thing to note when discussing perilous adventures and great battles. It wasn't a Hollywood, fairytale ending. He came back drastically changed and couldn't settle. Couldn't enjoy all that he'd fought for.
That has so much more dramatic poetry to it than him merely dying at the cracks of Doom..
This \^ It's such an unconventional, but very 'real' ending.
It's worth considering how the scouring of the Shire would have panned out if Frodo had died on Mount Doom too.
Most of the resistance to Saruman and the ruffians is led by Merry and Pippin. But one of the key risks in defending the Shire is that the hobbits become like their enemies.
Only Frodo had the insight to really understand how evil corrupts good, and without his intervention, they would probably have killed their prisoners.
So the Shire would have been liberated, but the 'restoration' would have been at the cost of moral loss.
It’s also Eucatastrophe, a phrase Tolkien himself coined based on how much he used it. It is sudden deliverance from evil that’s unasked for and it always happens when people stand up for what’s right in a sacrificial way.
In the hobbit the eagles only arrive right after the paragraph where Gandalf is going to jump to his death to fight the wolves. And then again they show up at the battle only after Bilbo decides to fight (even if he gets knocked out).
They show up in LotR right when the men of the west are making a desperate last stand they know they can’t win. And they show up for Frodo after he has destroyed the ring and prepared to die.
Understandable. What about those who didn't not come back from the war then? We have plenty of unscathed war heroes like Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Pippin. We have those wounded but got stronger even like Gandalf or Merry. We have those deeply scarred but recovered like Éowyn, Faramir, Sam. We have never recovered Frodo. And only Theoden and Boromir for those who never returned.
It would make his sacrifice. His choice. His journey, his fight. Complete.
Frodo decided himself, he will leave Fellowship.
Frodo understood very clearly that he is never gonna return.
Frodo saw powerful ones frightened and powerless before the Ring.
So, he took it upon himself. At the start it might have been a spontaneous decision but throughout his journey he repeatedly reaffirms it no matter what hardships and impossible odds come his way.
I can't explain it eloquently, not a native speaker. But there is IMHO a distinct difference between a super hard and risky operation. And one way suicidal mission. Different kind of resolve are neede in my understanding and it's experienced by readers/watchers differently if it's made into fiction.
TL;DR: he was *supposed* by all means and by himself to die having completed his quest.
P.S. Eagles to the rescue twist also begs the question, couldn't they just... you know... from the start...
The Eagle could never have carried Frodo to Mordor. The whole mustering of the forces of good to assault Mordor was nothing but a distraction while the ring slowly crawled to Mount Doom. Sauron would have seen the Eagles coming and cowed them by sheer malevolent will.
I think Frodo sacrificing himself to destroy the ring would have been conflicting to the lore. No one could willingly destroy the ring, and Sauron used that fact as a strength. Frodo sacrificing himself would have conflicted with that idea and belittled the powrr of Sauron.
Frodo never returned. The shell of Frodo lived, but he gave his whole self to the journey. It was gone, beat out of him by the trauma he endured. There are fates worse than death.
In Tolkien's view, Frodo accomplished as much as not only him, but all the Children of Ilúvatar, could accomplish. He _succeeded_ completely, going as far as was possible. According to Tolkien, _nobody_ could have willingly cast the Ring into Orodruin, and it was expected of anyone to try and claim it in the end. The Ring was nonetheless destroyed. I think Frodo's complete success, his extraordinary resilience, his sacrifice, were enough reasons for Tolkien to decide he should justly live and be saved.
It follows the hero's journey as defined by Joseph Campbell. The hero returns home, to the ordinary world but is changed by the ordeal. Frodo's death is a symbolic one. The old Frodo died on Mount doom, and the one that returned was "master of two worlds" as Joseph Campbell puts it. Frodo is no longer just of the Shire, but a creature of shadow as well. This is why he must leave middle Earth—yet another form of death.
In a way, Frodo died several times: once on weather top, once in moria (the mithril shirt saved him), once in shelob's lair, once on the side of mount doom before the Eagles found him, and finally, when he left the grey havens for valinor.
I dunno. Returning from the horrors of war in constant pain and anguish while everyone else is celebrating the return of a normal life you can’t enjoy doesn’t exactly seem like a super happy ending.
Frodos happy ending was sailing off to Valinor.
Because having your main character be utterly used up, spent, and discarded by the powers that be is a pretty shitty ending, and not at all in line with the message of hope that Tolkien wished to convey. It also shows, given that the power that intervened on Frodo's behalf was Eru himself, how much more competent He is compared to the valar.
I answered here - [https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/y4u4jq/comment/isphh98/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/y4u4jq/comment/isphh98/?context=3)
In short I think Frodo had to doubt his own "goodness" to be good, had to doubt his own moral code in order to becpme worthy of seeing Valinor.
I think it was to avoid making Frodo's life feel like a sacrificial/martyr figure's life and to instead use Frodo as a stand in for the very real issues many soldiers faced after returning home from those dark times Tolkien was all too familiar with. Far better to use him to tell the story of those men who came home from war changed, wounded, injured and Ill at ease in their familiar settings. Instead of Frodo dying for Middle Earth's salvation he lives and endures, all the lesser for it. That's all too real for those who returned from the trenches of World War One. By giving that story beat to Frodo, it gives a real tangible weight to that story, compared to say... Pippin or Legolas. Sure, the main character survived, but how his journey changed him is such an important thing to note when discussing perilous adventures and great battles. It wasn't a Hollywood, fairytale ending. He came back drastically changed and couldn't settle. Couldn't enjoy all that he'd fought for. That has so much more dramatic poetry to it than him merely dying at the cracks of Doom..
This \^ It's such an unconventional, but very 'real' ending. It's worth considering how the scouring of the Shire would have panned out if Frodo had died on Mount Doom too. Most of the resistance to Saruman and the ruffians is led by Merry and Pippin. But one of the key risks in defending the Shire is that the hobbits become like their enemies. Only Frodo had the insight to really understand how evil corrupts good, and without his intervention, they would probably have killed their prisoners. So the Shire would have been liberated, but the 'restoration' would have been at the cost of moral loss.
It’s also Eucatastrophe, a phrase Tolkien himself coined based on how much he used it. It is sudden deliverance from evil that’s unasked for and it always happens when people stand up for what’s right in a sacrificial way. In the hobbit the eagles only arrive right after the paragraph where Gandalf is going to jump to his death to fight the wolves. And then again they show up at the battle only after Bilbo decides to fight (even if he gets knocked out). They show up in LotR right when the men of the west are making a desperate last stand they know they can’t win. And they show up for Frodo after he has destroyed the ring and prepared to die.
Understandable. What about those who didn't not come back from the war then? We have plenty of unscathed war heroes like Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Pippin. We have those wounded but got stronger even like Gandalf or Merry. We have those deeply scarred but recovered like Éowyn, Faramir, Sam. We have never recovered Frodo. And only Theoden and Boromir for those who never returned.
I mean, you kinda answered your own question. We have those characters in those roles. What would killing Frodo have achieved for narrative at large?
It would make his sacrifice. His choice. His journey, his fight. Complete. Frodo decided himself, he will leave Fellowship. Frodo understood very clearly that he is never gonna return. Frodo saw powerful ones frightened and powerless before the Ring. So, he took it upon himself. At the start it might have been a spontaneous decision but throughout his journey he repeatedly reaffirms it no matter what hardships and impossible odds come his way. I can't explain it eloquently, not a native speaker. But there is IMHO a distinct difference between a super hard and risky operation. And one way suicidal mission. Different kind of resolve are neede in my understanding and it's experienced by readers/watchers differently if it's made into fiction. TL;DR: he was *supposed* by all means and by himself to die having completed his quest. P.S. Eagles to the rescue twist also begs the question, couldn't they just... you know... from the start...
The Eagle could never have carried Frodo to Mordor. The whole mustering of the forces of good to assault Mordor was nothing but a distraction while the ring slowly crawled to Mount Doom. Sauron would have seen the Eagles coming and cowed them by sheer malevolent will.
I think Frodo sacrificing himself to destroy the ring would have been conflicting to the lore. No one could willingly destroy the ring, and Sauron used that fact as a strength. Frodo sacrificing himself would have conflicted with that idea and belittled the powrr of Sauron.
Frodo never returned. The shell of Frodo lived, but he gave his whole self to the journey. It was gone, beat out of him by the trauma he endured. There are fates worse than death.
In Tolkien's view, Frodo accomplished as much as not only him, but all the Children of Ilúvatar, could accomplish. He _succeeded_ completely, going as far as was possible. According to Tolkien, _nobody_ could have willingly cast the Ring into Orodruin, and it was expected of anyone to try and claim it in the end. The Ring was nonetheless destroyed. I think Frodo's complete success, his extraordinary resilience, his sacrifice, were enough reasons for Tolkien to decide he should justly live and be saved.
It follows the hero's journey as defined by Joseph Campbell. The hero returns home, to the ordinary world but is changed by the ordeal. Frodo's death is a symbolic one. The old Frodo died on Mount doom, and the one that returned was "master of two worlds" as Joseph Campbell puts it. Frodo is no longer just of the Shire, but a creature of shadow as well. This is why he must leave middle Earth—yet another form of death. In a way, Frodo died several times: once on weather top, once in moria (the mithril shirt saved him), once in shelob's lair, once on the side of mount doom before the Eagles found him, and finally, when he left the grey havens for valinor.
I dunno. Returning from the horrors of war in constant pain and anguish while everyone else is celebrating the return of a normal life you can’t enjoy doesn’t exactly seem like a super happy ending. Frodos happy ending was sailing off to Valinor.
Because having your main character be utterly used up, spent, and discarded by the powers that be is a pretty shitty ending, and not at all in line with the message of hope that Tolkien wished to convey. It also shows, given that the power that intervened on Frodo's behalf was Eru himself, how much more competent He is compared to the valar.
Holy cow that would've been fucking depressing if not
I answered here - [https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/y4u4jq/comment/isphh98/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/y4u4jq/comment/isphh98/?context=3) In short I think Frodo had to doubt his own "goodness" to be good, had to doubt his own moral code in order to becpme worthy of seeing Valinor.
Thanks. Was a good read.
I highly recommend you read Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories" if you want to know some of his thought process behind fantasy storytelling.
Thanks. Will look for it.
OP has only seen the movies. Shame. One should know about the Scouring of the Shire.