This is a 'faith' thing. They cannot see the road. They do not know the entire plan. But they know it to be the only solution. They are making their decision based on hope, and faith, that things will unfold well. Yes, they may "hope"
Frodo is able to throw
the ring in the fire - but that is not specifically stated.
Elrond speaks from 'that which he can see' and he cannot see it all.
Keep in mind
Tolkien said his work was 'intentionally a Catholic and Religious work'. Unless we grasp that, and apply it to what's happening, we CANNOT understand Tolkien's methods and meanings as he 'labored over every word.'
This is, of course, a reasonable assumption. But all involved also know no one ultimately can resist the power of the Ring. They operate in 'hope' and 'faith' somehow it will be done. Both Elrond and
Gandalf's words display this.
And I submit they all knew this was a possibility.
But they all 'trusted' somehow Providence would provide for the Rings destruction on behalf of the Free
Peoples in the end.
Did they at times doubt? Yes.
Note Gandalf's critical comment "The Ring now has passed beyond my heop, or the help of any of the Company that set out from
Rivendell."
He does not say "Frodo has taken the Ring beyond my help." His syntax puts the Ring as the subject of the action. The Ring was at work in the whole set of circumstances. (Of course, 'or the help of any of the Company that set ouf from Rivendell' was a mistake on Gandalf's part. One of many. He was discounting
Sam Gamgee and his value.)
Tolkien, struggling over every word to 'include moral and religious elements intentionally, but not overtly' would not be so careless with his syntax to position this in this way without purpose.
This kind of thing occurs throughout his works, and can especially be seen in
places in
The Hobbit as well.
And this is why our interpretations diverge so much.
As Tolkien said his work WAS a fundamentally Catholic and Religious work, and intentionally so, and that moral and religious elements MUST be conained in all myth and fantasy - just not overtly so - I do not feel I can can see what he intended at all, without seeking out the panoply of morality and religion he infused throughout.
Please understand - I'm not trying to 'get you to agree with me' here - I fully understand as people interpret his work outside a 'moral and religious context' they must come to different conclusions about most things. (This is also why we differ on why
Bombadil has a larger value to the story.)
I just have no ability to do other than see how he, a master wordsmith, "incorporated them into his work - but not overtly. Not in the 'normal way of the world' or however exactly he said that point.
Letter 211: "Since I deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain 'religious' ideas, but is
not an allegory of them (or anything else) and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that mode..." is another place he mentions his deliberate inclusion of religous ideas.
What religion is there not having a 'godhead' of some kind? (Even
The Religion of Opinion has a
god. It is 'self.')
He does not ever 'say' anything about it directly. He simply demonstrates its existence through his words.
Just like he never says "Sam is steadfast and true". He simply demonstrates Sam is steadfast and true, through how he uses his words to show what Sam does.
Sam's 'steadfastness' and 'faithfulness to his master' are never explicitly stated, but rather demonstrated - and they are certain of the moral elements' Tolkien deliberately included. Yet being a more normal element, is much easier to see, than many others.
Lobelia
Sackville-baggins is a demonstration of significant self-centeredness, yet also of repentance through circumstances, with a complete turn of character and devotion to helping others. More of his incorporated 'moral and religious
principles.' In her case, repentance came about by circumstances and sudden realizations, rather than an actual 'call to repent' as was provided to
Melkor,
Sauron, and
Saruman.
(And note in Saruman's case, Gandalf says 'But listen, Saruman,
for the last time! Will you not come down?" There is a tremendous 'religious principle' in view here Tolkien delivers to the observant reader. To others, Gandalf is 'just talking.'
And of course, Gandalf's use of the term "You
cannot pass" with the
Balrog in
Moria is a massive 'religious element', rather than PJ's abberant "You
shall not pass," demonstrating a 'clear miss' of Tolkien's point.
SO...
As you and I begin from a different foundation altogether, there is no surprise our conclusions about what's going on end at a different place either.
We're simply walking the same roadways (Tolkien's work) viewing them through a very different pair of glasses.
I do feel my glasses match Tolkien's own statements more closely, though they are as yet still imperfect and incomplete. But I cannot discount things like Providence, Faith, offers of Repentance accepted or rejected, and other religious elements he's incorporated into his work.
(The list of them for my book currently stands at 35 repetitive moral and religious elements, but it is incomplete.)
I don't either. They are an entirely different light.
They just contain some of his explanation of what he's doing with his works. What his intentions and objectives were. As such, they have great weight on how we should APPROACH his work and try to interpret it from his perspective, to understand what he was doing - what he was trying to get across.
My book will demonstrate using his own words from the published texts how he incorporated his principles, through many examples.
At the end of the day, I believe you and i can 'agree to disagree' on very many things given the foundations from which we view Tolkien's work, and the magnifying glasses we use to extract information from them.
And that's OK
