Do you think Bilbo Baggins is a hero or an anti-hero?

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

Maybe I missed something.

Click to expand...

Bilbo did not really let the ring go 'entirely' of his own accord at the end. At least, not without severe coercion from Gandalf.
In fact, he even went as far as to claim it to be his own, 'my ring', at least 3 times, and acknowledge 'he doesn't like parting with it at all.'

"‘If I am it is your fault,’ said Bilbo. ‘It is mine, I tell you. My own. My Precious. Yes, my Precious.’
"‘Why not?’ he cried. ‘And what business is it of yours, anyway, to know what I do with my own things? It is my own. I found it. It came to me.’"
"‘Well, if you want my ring yourself, say so!’ cried Bilbo. ‘But you won’t get it. I won’t give my Precious away, I tell you.’ His hand strayed to the hilt of his small sword."

Fortunately, he wasn't actually wearing the Ring at this time, or things would have been very, very different as we see with Frodo's failure.

He didn't even really put the thing on the mantle of his own accord; in a final (forced and involuntary) jerk, the envelope fell out of his hand to the ground. Probably another action of the Ring itself, trying to separate from him in its move to return to its true Master.

Even after Gandalf grabbed it and seated it there, Bilbo had a final little struggle letting it go. He was able to part with it 'of his own accord' then, mostly I personally feel, because the ring had left him, not because he had left the ring.

Secondarily, a hero becomes one through great trial and strain. Bilbo's years of possession of the ring entailed no strain at all...its hold over him grew only slowly for many reasons, and its strain on him was nowhere near the strain Frodo bore. Frodo knew what it was from the beginning of his possessing and knowing about it.

Bilbo is certainly to be lauded for unknowingly carrying The Ring for many years, through lucky chance and happenstance, (i'd rather call it providence), making sure it didn't become known to others, or fall into more destructive hands (like even Lobelia given her predilections at the time).

And certainly Bilbo is to be honored for playing his part in Eru's plan. For that matter, so is Gollum.

But as for Bilbo, I'm not sure I'd even call him a 'hero'... even less a quintessential one. Certainly not at the level of a Frodo by any means. Even when he was finally 'separated from it" (though he was never fully separated) Bilbo had no idea what The Ring really was, other than a special ring. Had he known, its hold would have been far greater, and I doubt he would have done so at all without serious force...and everything following would have been very, very different than we read.

Bilbo's uses of the ring, though infrequent while he kept it secret, were mostly for purely selfish reasons, the same as Gollum's were, though stemming from far less viscious impulses and resulting in no viscious results. They were simply and mostly to avoid encounters he really didn't want to be bothered with. Gollums uses, both before he was thrown out of the village, and while in the depths of the Mountains, were always for selfish purposes, and from malicious and murderous impulses.

Several things prevented Bilbo from becoming Gollum. But mostly his fundamental moral character, a much less selfish nature, and ignorance.

"Ignorance is bliss", and in the case of Bilbo's possession of it, ignorance helped prevent the ring from gaining a greater hold, his slight selfish bent giving the ring what hold it ultimately had.

Frodo had no such 'luck' on the 'ignorance' front, walking into possession of it with his eyes wide open. And if we look closely for selfishness on Frodo's part, I personally believe we find it a bit harder to locate in his words, actions, and deeds.

These are my own personal opinions on the matter, and I'm sure all don't agree. But since you asked, I don't mind putting them out there, controversial though they may be.

There are many parallels between the Ring's moving on in Gollum's, Bilbo's, Frodo's, and Sam's cases.

BEARING THE RING:

USING THE RING:
PARTING WITH THE RING:

FREEDOM FROM THE RING:

Furthermore, the hold of the Ring is strong even in smaller-scale attempts to destroy it. In FOTR, "The Shadow of the Past", we see Frodo attempt to throw the ring into the fireplace, and he finds it like heavy weight in his hand. With all his will he reminds himself of the evils of the Ring Gandalf has just shared, and Frodo ends up putting the Ring in his pocket, not fully knowing how it got there: "He weighed the Ring in his hand, hesitating and forcing himself to remember all that Gandalf had told him; and then with an effort of will he made a movement, as if to cast it away -- but he found that he had put it back in his pocket."

This indicates from the get-go casting the Ring into the one place it can truly be destroyed is pretty much an impossible feat if it's this hard for a simple Bag End fireplace. Only by an intervention of mercy-- and there are many leading up to the end-- could the Ring be tossed in.

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

Where, exactly? Certainly not in The Hobbit. And not in LOTR, though he came close.

I'd be interested in more on your idea. Maybe I missed something. 🤔

Click to expand...

Perhaps Ent's statement "he failed in the end" was simply an observation that Bilbo didn't destroy the Ring himself, which could be counted as "failure" as far as the quintessential hero is concerned. Hercules didn't hand off responsibilities to another, but Bilbo did.

finarvyn said:

Perhaps Ent's statement "he failed in the end" was simply an observation that Bilbo didn't destroy the Ring himself,

Click to expand...

No, I don't feel this was in any way a failure, or even a possibility for the events at large. Bilbo's only role was 'he was meant to find the ring' and to keep it while Gandalf fulfilled his role of figuring out what it really was, etc.

Bilbo was a catalyst for many things, with an otherwise almost insignificant role to play, as was Deagol. The initial roles of both Deagol and Smeagol were combined in Bilbo. To 'find' it and to 'keep it hidden' as events unfolded. Smeagol obviously went on to play a finalizing role in the end, being destroyed by his enslavement to the Ring just as Sauron was.

When the Ring left Gollum under the mountains, there is no doubt it did not 'know' Bilbo would be the one to stumble on it. Pure providence was involved in Bilbo's role, again thwarting Melkor's themes and his and Sauron's plans.

Bilbo shows great understanding and strength of character, when he offers to take the ring again at the Council of Elrond. Now, he's fully aware of what it is, what it can do, and what it has already done to himself. Yet he offers. A heroic thought...even deed... but it would have subverted and destroyed him as others wisely knew...and that far sooner than it did Frodo.

Yes, Frodo fully possessed it...in a sense was fully enslaved, and his final destruction begun by it...yet was saved from the worst of the destruction by his nearly instant separation from its final corruptions by one far more enslaved and corrupted already.

Why did Frodo NEED eventually to go west? Because the corruptions and evil of Melkor were a very part of Ea, and the corruptions of both he and Sauron remained. Frodo being 'sullied', had to be separated from this remnant to be given a full chance to heal.

(I would suppose there's much more I've not thought about yet... the ring lore goes very deep, and there are many more parallels to draw in all relationships to it... but I deleted a bunch of my 'early musings' here until I get them researched and developed further.)

Interesting discussion. As to Bilbo being a hero, his journey follows many folktales or "fairytales" in that a "common person" finds an artifact (whether a sword or a magic lantern) and uses it to perform deeds that he would not otherwise be able to do. I don't know if Bilbo's use of the Ring in The Hobbit" was entirely selfish. Yes, he used it to get out of "jams", but he also used it many times to try to save the dwarves like when they were imprisoned by the elves or fighting the spiders in Mirkwood.

Ent said:
"PARTING WITH THE RING:
- Gollum does not part with the ring. The ring parts from Gollum.
- Bilbo parts with the ring through coercion by external force, then by choice either of the Ring, or Providence (Gandalf's intervention when the envelope drops. (You choose which.)
- Frodo parts with the ring through coercion by external force, then by choice of the Ring/Gollum, or Providence. (You choose which.)
- Sam parts with the ring when requested, slightly reluctantly, but willingly."

One of the things I often thought about was although Frodo had difficulty casting the Ring in the Hearth at Bag End, he did offer the Ring willingly to Gandalf. Yes, this was for a selfish reason, he was scared to death. But what if Gandalf agreed and held out his hand for it? At this very point, I think Frodo might have handed it over. He most likely will feel reluctant at the last second, but he would have handed it off.

Frodo was hoping that someone would take up the Quest at the Council of Elrond. He was hoping that another "keeper" would be found. Would Frodo have handed the Ring to someone else, like Glorfindel if he had offered to take the Quest before Frodo did? At this point it would be much harder for him to do, but reluctantly he may have done it.

Finally, the one scene that I have often read and reread: The Mirror of Galadriel. Again, Frodo offers the Ring to someone else, this time Galadriel. She says that he is seeing with a keen eye and what she deeply desires and is exacting a gentle revenge for her probing him earlier. Here again, would Frodo have actually given the Ring to Galadriel if she accepted, or was he really just sensing she wanted it as she says and tempts her?

Ironically, Frodo does seem to try to get rid of the Ring a few times, for selfish reasons: he's scared and does not want the burden or possibly he is so humble that he feels he cannot complete the task.

Aramarien said:

But what if Gandalf agreed and held out his hand for it? At this very point, I think Frodo might have handed it over. He most likely will feel reluctant at the last second, but he would have handed it off.

Click to expand...

The 'what ifs' of life are difficult, are they not? And at the end of the day, without solution, resulting only in the "I thinks" inevitably following.

The study of war, for example, is a matter of 'what if such and such had been done instead...or so and so hadn't done that...would they then have won?" (or lost?) And of course, the opinions rage. True, perhaps things can be learned for the future, or so it is thought...but at the end of the day when a new event arrives, we're left with what actually results, rather than what 'might have been.'

I do tend to feel Frodo might have handed it over to Gandalf... he had barely possessed it then.. as was the case with Sam.
By the time of the Council however, Frodo only reluctantly revealed the ring to the group, feeling great loathing of the ring itself into the bargain and more. So it was working on him by then.

What do we read into or extract from all of this within the whole timeline of his possession of the ring? Perhaps it's best not to try to read anything in, but just to observe what was.

Bilbo is heralded by the 'free peoples' who know of his part as a hero, and certainly most so by those who knew him and the circumstances best. He's rewarded greatly for his part in the scheme of things. I doubt Sauron and his minions herald him as a hero however, and perhaps that should tell us something about the potential source of even asking such questions in the face of the results.

For this old Ent, who prefers to avoid complexity and controversy, I am happy to stand on 'what is, as it is' without trying to twist it around through alternate perspective and creative devices.

Good points, Aramarien.

Aramarien said:

would Frodo have actually given the Ring to Galadriel if she accepted, or was he really just sensing she wanted it as she says and tempts her?

Click to expand...

He would have given it to her; he wasn't deceitful or cunning in that way. The difference between the scenes in Bag End and Lothlorien lies in Frodo's growth in character and understanding, demonstrated by the wording used, which is similar, but not quite the same:

'You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?'

Click to expand...

Here he's begging Gandalf take it, though he later agrees to at least deliver it to Rivendell. Contrast this with his words to Galadriel:

'You are wise and fearless and fair, Lady Galadriel, ' said Frodo. I will give you the Ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.'

Click to expand...

"If you ask for it". Frodo has grown by this point, has begun to "see with a keen eye" as Galadriel puts it. I don't think any possible reluctance on his part is due to the Ring itself, but to the difference that in between these scenes, he has accepted the mission of taking up the burden of destroying it in Mordor, which he did at the Council. In a way, it's Frodo who "passes the test" in the Mirror scene -- with Galadriel's help.

Which brings us back to Bilbo. He doesn't "fail" -- at least not according to Gandalf:

'For he gave it up of his own accord: an important point.'

Click to expand...

Yes, Gandalf does frighten him, just as Strider frightens the hobbits at the Pony. There, he's trying to shake them out of their complacency; Gandalf is reacting to Bilbo's deluded accusation that he wants it for himself. He sees the kindly Bilbo acting entirely out of character, and must do something to shake him (and Gandalf's well-known asperity no doubt plays a part in his reaction).

There's no "coercion" here -- not to give up the Ring; that would be impossible. If this be doubted, let Gandalf attest:

'Why did you let me keep it? Why didn't you make me throw it away, or, or destroy it?'

Click to expand...

'Let you? Make you?' said the Wizard. 'Haven't you been listening to all that I have said? You are not thinking of what you are saying.'

Click to expand...

No one, and nothing, could "make" the possessor give up the Ring; Gandalf's "help" was in persuasion, not coercion.

At least in my reading.

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

Gandalf's "help" was in persuasion, not coercion.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think this is probably a better way of identifying the 'help'... though it was a mighty 'powerful' means of persuasion.
Yet his apparent growing in size and power could well have as much to do with his irritation at Bilbo's challenge of his intentions, rather than any 'coercion.' His following words supporting this statement: "I am not trying to rob you, but to help you."

“I came from the end of bag, but no bag went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ring-winner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider.”
– Bilbo Baggins.
That's the sound of either a fool or a hero or both. On the other hand, most people would probably consider a real hero to be a fool.

It is basically a question of definition. According to the classic view, someone who is only 3 or 4 feet tall and eats at least 2 breakfasts cannot be a hero by definition. But this view may also be wrong.

Bilbo also found his mithril armor rather embarrassing at times. At least the neighbors at home would have laughed about it. So it all depends on the context and the viewer's level of knowledge as to what is considered heroic or appropriate or ridiculous.

In any case, I would argue that a society that has lived in peace and economic stability for a long time, as was the case with the hobbits, lives in an intellectual bubble and can no longer realize what is really relevant and what is not. People no longer understand what the real global problems are, and they get caught up in actually irrelevant luxury problems, completely cut off from the real world. And if one person breaks out of such a closed perspective and actually sets things in motion that are relevant worldwide - be it through luck, fate or intelligence - that person is a hero in my view.

In Bilbo's case, everything comes together: Luck, fate and intelligence. And morality. And Gandalf had intuitively foreseen all this and set it in motion.
And the best example of people who will never understand this are the Sackville-Baggins... To them, and presumably most hobbits who consider themselves honorable, Bilbo will simply remain a weird freak, while a few insiders know that he is in fact a hero, at least in the sense that he was instrumental in saving the world.

Since I'm currently reading Shippey, you could perhaps also say in his sense: Bilbo is not a classic hero, but a modern one. And modern heroes are probably also somehow anti-heroes at the same time.

Annatar said:

as was the case with the hobbits, lives in an intellectual bubble and can no longer realize what is really relevant and what is not.

Click to expand...

I would say Thorin may disagree, coming to realize Bilbo had a better perspective on things than he did, chasing after his perceived treasures. Bilbo's treasures were superior.

Annatar said:

And the best example of people who will never understand this are the Sackville-Baggins

Click to expand...

And the Thorins of the world. (Actually, there is little difference between the selfishness of either.)

Yet we see in both cases, Thorin AND Lobelia, they come to realize things in the end. (Not always the case.) Thorin, too late to live differently, Lobelia however, in time to do some good in the world before her departure.

In this I think Tolkien tries to show us "in spite of how askew people seem to be, our responsibility is to never give up hope. We just don't know what end is in view for anyone."

Thorin and Boromir are very similar in Tolkien's depictions. They seem heroic, valiant, admirable characters. Thorin has a lapse lasting for some short time. Boromir's lapse is even shorter.

In Lobelia's case, we are never introduced to her in a 'pleasant' light. Yet in the end, she too is transformed.

The depth and purpose of each of Tolkien's characters is a good study... (and one of the books on my list if I ever get around to it)... as he has much to tell us about ourselves and others through each.

Ent said:

In this I think Tolkien tries to show us "in spite of how askew people seem to be, our responsibility is to never give up hope. We just don't know what end is in view for anyone."

Click to expand...

Yes, and the best example of this is Gollum. Even if he is never cured, the hope for it, or rather the indulgence and forgiveness, helps in other ways and on a much larger scale. (For without Frodo's compassion towards Gollum, the Ring and thus Sauron would never have been destroyed.)

By the way, to make another connection to Bilbo and thus the thread title, I would add that this of course also applies to the situation in the Misty Mountains, when Bilbo decides to take pity on Gollum and not kill him in the end. (Even though Tolkien had to revise the Gollum chapters in The Hobbit a few times after it was first published 😉 )

Annatar said:

when Bilbo decides to take pity on Gollum and not kill him in the end.

Click to expand...

Indeed, this incident and the events surrounding it are among the several the Ent covers (briefly) in the Appendix written for Jeb Smith's book to come out soon.
We see the thread of providence in decisions offered and choices made, throughout Tolkien's work.