Why was Frodo made Ringbearer?

Radaghast said:

How would Aragorn, etc. have gotten into Mordor?

Click to expand...

I think what @Muskrat was getting at with "better bets...." was 'on the surface it would seem better choices were....'

But at the end of the day, it was clear Frodo was the appointed one. Had Eru 'appointed' Aragorn or Glorfindal or some other, there would have been ample Providence at hand to have shown that.

The key being, the Council did not look to 'the wisdom of men' to guide them... they ultimately saw more deeply.

(Several other Scripture passages could be cited here... but I refrain because I have come to believe they are irrelevant. Tolkien is not standing on his Christian background... but on the 'elements' of Religion... in this case the element, Providence... clear for the wise to see in the face of what seemed like 'much better or more reasonable choices.' )

Muskrat said:

Frodo fails on the barrow downs by going to sleep near a barrel when he was specifically told to avoid them. Ranger that he was, the greatest huntsman in this age of the world, I have no doubt that Aragorn could’ve easily found his way through the mountains of shadow. I am sure that he could have crossed the redhorn pass, were he not encumbered by the hobbits.

Click to expand...

I would consider that to be conjecture. However, for argument's sake, assuming he could get into Mordor, there's still the trouble of getting about unseen by enemies.

Plus, of course, this is besides the fact that Aragorn was ultimately needed elsewhere.

Ent said:

I think what @Muskrat was getting at with "better bets...." was 'on the surface it would seem better choices were....'

But at the end of the day, it was clear Frodo was the appointed one. Had Eru 'appointed' Aragorn or Glorfindal or some other, there would have been ample Providence at hand to have shown that.

The key being, the Council did not look to 'the wisdom of men' to guide them... they ultimately saw more deeply.

(Several other Scripture passages could be cited here... but I refrain because I have come to believe they are irrelevant. Tolkien is not standing on his Christian background... but on the 'elements' of Religion... in this case the element, Providence... clear for the wise to see in the face of what seemed like 'much better or more reasonable choices.' )

Click to expand...

Absolutely right. I suppose it is faith over reason reall.

Muskrat said:

I suppose it is faith over reason reall.

Click to expand...

In the end, precisely. The Providence being recognized, the faith rules the day.

Ent said:

I think what @Muskrat was getting at with "better bets...." was 'on the surface it would seem better choices were....'

But at the end of the day, it was clear Frodo was the appointed one. Had Eru 'appointed' Aragorn or Glorfindal or some other, there would have been ample Providence at hand to have shown that.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, though I think Glorfindel would be a very poor candidate; as Gandalf says, "Even if you chose for us an elf-lord, such as Glorfindel, he could not storm the Dark Tower, nor open the road to the Fire by the power that is in him." Aragorn may possess stealth as a Ranger but we know nothing of this ability in Glorfindel. Everything we know about him suggests a beacon. That's exactly how Frodo sees him at the Ford of Bruinen.

But there's a limit to even Aragorn's stealth. I think the book makes this pretty clear by Frodo and Sam's trek through Mordor, and there's no way he could disguise himself as an orc or find cover behind the meager scrub of Mordor. If he were to face Shelob he would be in dire straits indeed without an Elven sword, as the text tells us that not even Beren or Túrin could pierce Shelob's hide.

What often seems to go unremarked upon is the natural abilities of hobbits, and it's not just their resistance to things like the One Ring. There is also their ability to move silently (if not exactly swiftly) and unnoticed. These are abilities established in The Hobbit, even before Tolkien envisioned Bilbo's ring as originally belonging to Sauron, and Tolkien used these already established abilities to contribute to the story he wove in the sequel. It's not all Divine Providence. To say such is the case is to devalue or disregard their bravery during the Quest. The Hobbits are not just clueless puppets; they do actually have some skills. If they were aided by Divine Providence, then anyone else would have needed DP, maybe more.

Muskrat said:

Frodo fails on the barrow downs by going to sleep near a barrel when he was specifically told to avoid them.

Click to expand...

Well, this was obviously not willful ignorance on his part, but trickery by the Wights. The text makes it clear he is trying to avoid the Downs. Anyone, any naif, could have been so confused and fallen into the trap. It's one thing to say, "Avoid the Barrow-downs", another thing entirely if the Barrow-wights have the ability to befuddle you and lure you into their crib.

I love hobbits, but Strider says they could never make it to Rivendell without help. Surely everyone agrees. And surely Orodruin is much harder to get to than Imladris. How could any rational person think Frodo could do it? Same deal sending Merry and Pippen instead of stronger folk. I think it was a matter of faith and good intentions. Those are crucial in Middle Earth. Would that it were so in our world! My wife and I would certainly advise our clients differently!

My point exactly. He is the good naive kid who succeeds despite all odds and all likelihood.

What is clear, is NO ONE at the Council thought any of the hobbits were appropriate 'material' to carry the ring to begin with.
Not a one was even mentioned as a candidate.
Others were... as well as other solutions like pitch it into the sea. Therefore, the mindset of the council - every member of it - was not in the least turned toward any hobbits. Dwarves, Elves and Men were rejected. Even the Valar were.

At the end of the day, Bilbo offered himself on the chopping block... (not the council)... and the council (especially the wise)... easly saw he was not the appropriate one.

But when Frodo offered himself... the wise saw Providence brought it to this point, and Faith would see it through.

To the thread's title, why was Frodo chosen? Because no other candidate had been chosen by Eru to do the job. And in spite of sight, faith saw the way.

It need not be any more complex than this.

Had Frodo proven himself to be a mighty anything up to that point, making him a candidate? Not in the least. He had, indeed, failed to prevent them from getting too close to the Downs, failed to prevent himself from being muddled, failed on the roadway, etc. etc.

But his qualification for the task had nothing to do with himself...

It's true, in many ways hobbits aren't given their due. But to the Council, hobbits are nearly the 'unknown stuff of legend.' Even the wise (save possibly Gandalf) have little real understanding of how 'tough' a hobbit might be to resist the ring, etc.

We need to be sure to divorce ALL we know about hobbits by the end of having read the story, from what little was known about hobbits up to the time of the council... and what was known about them 'to the members of the council'... not to ourselves.

Then we can more rightly see 'why Frodo was chosen.' They were clueless 'how tough a hobbit might be to be able to resist the ring' (almost) etc.

Like the issue with 'Christianity' vs. 'elements of religion' we need to put ourselves in the shoes of the characters in the text, not in the shoes of the readers.

Wise old Ent!

Muskrat said:

Frodo IS incompetent . He fails on the Barrow Downs, at Bree, on Weathertop, and at the end. But he does not give up when any noormal person would have quit. That is admirable. Would anyone have beeb competant to take the Ring? It was an impossible task, and only by providence was is accomplished. Better bets would have been Aragorn, Glorfindel, etc. But Frodo was meant to carry the Ring, he chose to do it, and Gandalf and Elrond were so intuned with the Great Beyond that they could perceive ? Intuit? that.

Click to expand...

Incompetent? Is that not a bit harsh?
Could most people have done much better, any better?
A young woman at a university died recently because she became disoriented in a snow storm while walking from one building to another.
She died 50 feet from her dorm. Ships can be lost due to fog, run aground, maybe even "hit an iceberg".
Have you never been paralyzed with fear? How rational would you be in that condition?
Frodo was a normal human [Hobbit] of normal human [Hobbit] capacities.
Those Hobbit capacities served him well when needed. When the demands of the situation exceed his capacities he did have some help.
But when he failed , he failed not because of incompetence but because he was a flawed human, as are members of all the races of ME (and ours).

Goldilocks Gamgee said:

My question is simple -- why was Frodo made Ringbearer?

Click to expand...

The simple answer is Frodo became a Ringbearer because Bilbo left the Ring to him.

Halasían said:

The simple answer is Frodo became a Ringbearer because Bilbo left the Ring to him.

Click to expand...

You forgot the "Doh!" 😄

Radaghast said:

Perhaps, though I think Glorfindel would be a very poor candidate; as Gandalf says, "Even if you chose for us an elf-lord, such as Glorfindel, he could not storm the Dark Tower, nor open the road to the Fire by the power that is in him." Aragorn may possess stealth as a Ranger but we know nothing of this ability in Glorfindel. Everything we know about him suggests a beacon. That's exactly how Frodo sees him at the Ford of Bruinen.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the bells on Asfaloth!

Deimos said:

Incompetent? Is that not a bit harsh?

Click to expand...

Personally, I think not, if we understand 'incompetent' rightly.
It's not such a 'negative' word as we currently wish to make it.
It simply means 'not competent'. And who among them was?

Incompetent def: "not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully."

They were all incompetent to the task.
I personally feel @Muskrat has chosen an excellent word.

Muskrat said:

I love hobbits, but Strider says they could never make it to Rivendell without help. Surely everyone agrees. And surely Orodruin is much harder to get to than Imladris. How could any rational person think Frodo could do it? Same deal sending Merry and Pippen instead of stronger folk. I think it was a matter of faith and good intentions. Those are crucial in Middle Earth. Would that it were so in our world! My wife and I would certainly advise our clients differently!

Click to expand...

They couldn't get through the wilderness and avoid the Ringwraiths without his help, true. But at that point, none of them had any experience. You cannot logically have expected that they should have just navigated their way to Rivendell without issue with Ringwraiths on their trail.

And they had guidance up until the Breaking of the Fellowship. At that point, their hobbit resourcefulness and ingenuity (mostly Sam's) took over with some help from unexpected areas.

Ent said:

Personally, I think not, if we understand 'incompetent' rightly.
It's not such a 'negative' word as we currently wish to make it.
It simply means 'not competent'. And who among them was?

Incompetent def: "not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully."

They were all incompetent to the task.
I personally feel @Muskrat has chosen an excellent word.

Click to expand...

It's not an appropriate word to the situation and person. Frodo was not some professional hired to do a task. At the time he was fleeing the Shire. And nobody knew at that point what was to be done with the Ring. Even after Frodo volunteered to take the Ring (where nobody else would) he was not exactly a mercenary.

Ent said:

Personally, I think not, if we understand 'incompetent' rightly.
It's not such a 'negative' word as we currently wish to make it.
It simply means 'not competent'. And who among them was?

Incompetent def: "not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully."

They were all incompetent to the task.
I personally feel @Muskrat has chosen an excellent word.

Click to expand...

I disagree.
I know what Muskrat is saying but the word is almost always used as a pejorative, synonymous with "bungler, ham-fisted, clumsy, inept, unfit " etc.
No one uses the word in a neutral sense.
If you doubt that, post your statement ---"they were all incompetent to the task"--- in a new thread as : Aragorn was incompetent to lead the Fellowship on a successful quest to destroy the Ring.
Then sit back and wait for the firestorm; you won't have to wait long.

I mean, the chapter is titled "Fog on the Barrow-downs". Did Tom even warn the hobbits that there might be fog? Even if you're familiar with an area, fog can throw you off.

Well, @Radaghast and @Deimos, I don't disagree with you at all, we've come to misuse the word, as noted in my former post about it.
And soon, I'm sure the dictionaries will be changed to incorporate the negative aspect we've come to place on it, just as other words have changed over time. As one writer writes, "language is always in motion."

Yet every dictionary I visit still gives the 'neutral' sense as the first definition, with the pejorative listed further down.

You're free to disagree with me.
But Frodo WAS 'incompetent to the task.' So was Aragorn. So was Gandalf. So was every one of them.

(In case you ask, Gandalf was incompetent to stand against Saruman. He was incompetent to stand against the Balrog. He needed to 'die' and return as the White before he was competent to handle those kinds of matters. And he made mistakes in judgment.)

So I agree with you. If sir @Muskrat was using it in a 'pejorative' sense, then it was misapplied. But I hardly think that was his intent... especially he being in the legal arena, and well understanding the 'competence' aspect of things... and I believe it was more than proper.

The problem is in the perspective of the reader, not the writer... (in my view).

Might he have more effectively chosen a more socially suitable word? One the masses more readily grasp? Probably. But he didn't. And I personally don't think it's overly harsh, when it's rightly understood according to its (still current) primary definition.

The same is true with Tolkien's use of the word 'confusticate.' It too has assumed a more pejorative application. But it is inconsistent with its philology and historical primary definition, and Tolkien, in his day, misused it, it not having been 'the primary definition' at his time, though it was headed in that direction.

We can agree to disagree. I certainly don't mind.