Why was Frodo made Ringbearer?

It is certainly not the best word that can be chosen. We're talking about hobbit naifs leaving familiar environs for the first time ever, beset by unnatural fog and foul magic. Incompetent is absolutely the last word I would use. And then of course Frodo saves the other hobbits from having their heads cut off, or whatever evil fate awaited all of them, but let's all forget that (like Peter Jackson evidently did).

Radaghast said:

Did Tom even warn the hobbits that there might be fog?

Click to expand...

My gosh...

"if there isn't a label on the booze saying don't drink while you're pregnant because it'll have an impact on the baby, I'm not responsible for the results of my excessive alcohol consumption". Of course, this case was lost in court, the bottler of the booze being held liable for incomplete labeling.

"If there isn't a label on an oven spray cleaning can saying "don't turn on the gas while using, in your gas oven", it's the labeler's fault for not warning the consumer gas and aerosols don't mix." Yes, this was lost in court too.

"If there's not a label on your big, plush soft zip-up chair saying don't sit on the phone so long your kids zip themselves up inside the chanr and suffocate to death, you're liable for their death", the manufacturer and labeler are both liable for their deaths." And yes, this case was lost in court as well.

"My young son fell dead in the middle of the street in downtown Seattle, of a heart attack. A 3rd year medical student gave him a heart massage, saving his life. But the 3rd year medical student wasn't 'qualified' yet to perform such an action. I'm suing him for hundreds of thousands, for saving my son's life." And yes, this poor medical student lost the case as well, being strapped with unpayable debt and having his future ruined, due to a stupid woman seeing her ship come sailing in. I wonder what 'her young son' will think, when he realizes what his mother actually 'said' by that lawsuit. "Don't care about you, son. Me wants money." Pure Providence saved that child's life, but the woman only saw dollar signs.

Our legal system has long been adversarial to upholding 'personal responsibility,' aiding in the concept 'it's somebody's fault, but not mine.'

It's true... Bombadil didn't warn them 'there might be fog.' But that does not make Bombadil responsible for their capture. They had the warning, and they were unable to withstand the assault.

At some point, we have to admit they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they weren't able to withstand the results.

What does this say? Simply, they were 'incompetent' to keep their sense of direction, etc.

It's not always somebody else's fault. Sometimes it's not even our fault. It's just 'the way things are.'

Ent said:

It's true... Bombadil didn't warn them 'there might be fog.' But that does not make Bombadil responsible for their capture. They had the warning, and they were unable to withstand the assault.

At some point, we have to admit they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they weren't able to withstand the results.

What does this say? Simply, they were 'incompetent' to keep their sense of direction, etc.

It's not always somebody else's fault. Sometimes it's not even our fault. It's just 'the way things are.'

Click to expand...

I didn't say Bombadil was responsible (maybe Tom thought the hobbits had more experience). Only that the hobbits couldn't be expected to be "incompetent" without all the necessary info. Those other analogies you use don't really fit. Again, the hobbits were in unfamiliar territory facing supernatural enemies. How does that equate to spray cans and gas ovens?

I don't know why this word is so important to use, anyway. How about 'inexperienced' or 'naive'? Both would be better fits for persons completely unfamiliar with adventure. Not 'incompetent', imo. That is a word that is used where competence is/was expected.

Radaghast said:

couldn't be expected to be "incompetent" without all the necessary info.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Being 'incompetent' simply MEANS we don't have all the necessary info, education, training, or whatever is needed to make us 'competent'.

Hint: every single being is 'incompetent' to many, many things.

How does it relate to my examples?

In the one case, the mother was 'incompetent' as she didn't have the training needed to understand fire and aerosols. It wasn't the can labeler's fault.

The other was 'incompetent' because she didn't understand alcohol and the blood stream and babies' nourishment. The booze label manufacturer wasn't at fault.

The third was incompetent because she didn't know if she spent a lengthy time on the phone, her kids might get into doing something they shouldn't be, and could put themselves in danger. The manufacturer and labeler of the chair were not at fault.

And in the final, the mother was incompetent as she didn't know her kid might have a heart attack, AND she didn't know what to do if he did. The 3rd year medical student who saved his life was not at fault.

Of course you didn't SAY Bombadil was at fault. But the implication is strongly there, and many attorneys would love to handle teh case.

In any of the cases above, was I using incompetent pejoratively? Of course not. The issue is competence or lack thereof. (The meaning of adding a suffix "in" to begin with.)

All that said, I've said all on the matter I intend to. It's become quite irrelevant, and we've gone far away from the thread's intent, so let's get back on track.

Ent said:

Of course you didn't SAY Bombadil was at fault. But the implication is strongly there, and many attorneys would love to handle the case.

In any of the cases above, was I using incompetent pejoratively? Of course not. The issue is competence or lack thereof. (The meaning of adding a suffix "in" to begin with.)

All that said, I've said all on the matter I intend to. It's become quite irrelevant, and we've gone far away from the thread's intent, so let's get back on track.

Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't anything I meant to imply. And I still don't see any equivalence between aerosol spray cans and unfamiliar territory where fog may drop when it normally doesn't (i.e. caused by evil undead beings).

So be it.

So, you equate someone not being able to understand warning labels with someone who can't navigate through or around unnatural fog?

Again, I'm mystified by your adherence to the word 'incompetent'. But, as you say, "so be it."

Radaghast said:

equate someone not being able to understand warning labels with someone who can't navigate through or around unnatural fog?

Click to expand...

My goodness no.
First, an issue there is there were no warning labels to train the people what they were not competent in. The suit was because the people felt there should have been, so they could, by the label, become 'competent'. (This of course assumes they would have read the labels to begin with, which is most questionable.) And, they hadn't trained themselves what it meant to have children, aerosols and fire, zip-up chairs, or heart attacks, etc. around. In every case they lacked training and education suitable to the circumstances they found themselves in. They were 'incompetent.'

In Frodo's case, he lacked training and education in the wiles and ways of fogs and wights...and how to combat those. He didn't know how to avoid the downs, and once he failed in his sense of direction (or was just as deceived by the fogs as he was by what Old Man Willow was doing) he didn't have training in how to battle a wight's attack.

Bombadil gave him the information needed to avoid the wights, not knowing he'd need to know how to battle their confusions... AND Bombadil gave him a sure way to get help if needed. Bombadil in that case was NOT incompetent, as he provided all necessary to assure their safeguarding. (This assumes Bombadil knew wights well, don't kill immediately, and captors retained enough sense to call on him as needed. Being who he was, this isn't beyond sensibility.)

(In a certain sense Frodo was NOT incompetent in that particular task, because he had been given what he needed to escape them, should he become entangled... and he was able to use it.)

So knowledge is what I am equating.
"Lack of information and training." In every case it is the same. Each of them lacked some level of competence with regard to their situation and circumstances.

The focus you note below, isn't the root focus. You cite the 'things involved,' not the core problem - lack of knowledge. Incompetence. Lack of what's needed to perform the task.

Radaghast said:

I still don't see any equivalence between aerosol spray cans and unfamiliar territory

Click to expand...

I am sorry if the word iffended. I am competent to practice criminal law, but totally incompetent to practice patent law or to fly an airplane. I feel no shame in that and meant no disrespect to one of my heroes.

Ent said:

My goodness no.
First, an issue there is there were no warning labels to train the people what they were not competent in. The suit was because the people felt there should have been, so they could, by the label, become 'competent'. (This of course assumes they would have read the labels to begin with, which is most questionable.) And, they hadn't trained themselves what it meant to have children, aerosols and fire, zip-up chairs, or heart attacks, etc. around. In every case they lacked training and education suitable to the circumstances they found themselves in. They were 'incompetent.'

Click to expand...

My apologies. I was rather distracted and didn't read your post carefully enough. I actually was going to phrase the question in a passive tense, i.e. "Were the hobbits even warned about the fog?"

But this isn't about laying blame anywhere. It was nobody's fault that the hobbits ended up in the Barrow and, in truth, Tolkien contrived to make this to happen to set up Frodo's first heroic deed in the book (again, a point missed by Jackson).

Pax @Muskrat, the problem (?) , difficulty(?) in a lawyer being on the forum is:
1) we cannot tell any Lawyer jokes because you've already heard all of them, and
2) You use words very precisely; you have to. Your profession demands it.

But 99.99% of forum-ites (there's a specialized word for you 😄) are not lawyers and can be rather sloppy in how they express themselves.
And it's a continuum, the extreme on one side being the near total incomprehensibility of those Quora questions that @Radaghast sadistically (and masochistically?) posts.

Let's say you were a doctor, an MD.
Someone here used the morbid, --- I think he said something was a "Morbid thought"--- and you could tell from context he meant gloomy or gruesome, or negative.
But an MD uses 'morbid' thusly: Morbidity is the state of having a specific illness or condition. While morbidity can refer to an acute condition, such as a respiratory infection, it often refers to a condition that's chronic (long-lasting).
But everyone I know would use the word as in the first example.

I don't what the answer to this is except maybe to be aware of it when you post.

I have TOLD all the lawyer jokes. Try Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean.” This is why statutory interpretation is so hard. It si virtually impossible to write something complex that cannot be misinterpreted. Ask any politician . They are misinterpreted all the time! Or not.

Muskrat said:

I have TOLD all the lawyer jokes. Try Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean.” This is why statutory interpretation is so hard. It si virtually impossible to write something complex that cannot be misinterpreted. Ask any politician . They are misinterpreted all the time! Or not.

Click to expand...

ooooo ...."There's glory for you!"

Warning, warning! Danger Will Robinson! Vent alert!

It drives me to distraction when someone says [whatever] "increased exponentially", or there was an "exponential increase" in something.
Really? REALLY? An exponential increase?
99.99% of people wouldn't recognize an exponent (much less understand its function) if it hit them in the face.
(Nor would they understand a linear or geometric increase; most are flummoxed by mere fractions 🙄)
But it has become common adjective when "significant" or "substantial" increase(s) would be two correct words to use.
BTW.... how is it we never hear or read of an exponential decrease in something?

Lately I have reading about people who have been “appraised”” of some fact or else become “ disorientated.” I share your feelingss.

Halasían said:

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

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Wise and great as Gandalf and Elrond are they both decline the task. In the next chapter Gandalf doesn't have a plan beyond getting to Lorien (implied, not stated in The Ring Goes South). This might be a hint as to what happens to Gandalf in Moria; and istr Elrond cannot see much further what the plan should be. And Elrond and Gandalf - these are the powerful elite of Middle Earth.

But it was providence that Bilbo found the Ring and it was providence that its true identity was not revealed until it had passed to Frodo. I don't think Gandalf and Elrond drew up a formal list of pros and cons and worked it out - they decided it was better to leave it to providence.

Now one could argue that Bilbo stole the Ring from Gollum so that Gollum had the prior claim - but who was it who "cast" the Ring into the Fire?

Deimos said:

It drives me to distraction when someone says [whatever] "increased exponentially", or there was an "exponential increase" in something.

Click to expand...

That's solid droppings of the avian super-order fowl compared to "exponential leap" - every time a non-quantum-physicist uses the term I want to call in a thermonuclear carpet-bombing strike.

Deimos said:

(Nor would they understand a linear or geometric increase; most are flummoxed by mere fractions 🙄)
...
BTW.... how is it we never hear or read of an exponential decrease in something?

Click to expand...

Cuz it's a complicated fraction, what else? 😈

Olorgando said:

That's solid droppings of the avian super-order fowl compared to "exponential leap" - every time a non-quantum-physicist uses the term I want to call in a thermonuclear carpet-bombing strike.

Cuz it's a complicated fraction, what else? 😈

Click to expand...

Oh that is excellent! Exponential gold stars for that. 😄

Deimos said:

And it's a continuum, the extreme on one side being the near total incomprehensibility of those Quora questions that @Radaghast sadistically (and masochistically?) posts.

Click to expand...

🤣

Why was Frodo made Ringbearer?
Although Frodo at first glance seemed the average hobbit, he was not. "There is a seed of courage hidden (often deeply, it is true) in the heart of the fattest and most timid hobbit, waiting for some final and desperate danger to make it grow. Frodo was neither very fat nor very timid; indeed , thought he did not know it, Bilbo (and Gandalf) had thought him the best hobbit in the Shire." (FOTR; Fog on the Barrow Downs)

Frodo was different than other hobbits in the Shire. Besides suffering the trauma of being an orphan, he grew up with more education about the outside world because he lived with Bilbo. Dwarves and Gandalf often visited Bag End. Bilbo taught Frodo stories about the Elves and even High Elvish. This 'education" most likely helped Frodo be more open minded about the wide world and more wise than his peers. Above all, Frodo was also humble, and had no desire of power, perhaps his greatest strength. This is what enabled him to be able to carry the Ring for so long and so far. The Ring feeds on the desire for power, which Frodo did not have.
Would any hobbit have this? Perhaps MOST hobbits did not have a desire for power, but Frodo also had an altruism that he felt that if he could destroy the Ring and save the Shire, it would be worth it.

Bilbo did volunteer to take the Ring to Mordor. But what was his motive? Guilt? Adventure? Desire of the Ring? To save Middle Earth? Most likely a combination of all. However, how many hobbits would CHOOSE to take the Ring? I absolutely love Sam, however, I do not believe Sam would ever CHOOSE to take the Ring at the Council of Elrond.

Frodo was humble, empathetic, kind, and wise. He was well aware that he did not have the great courage of a warrior. He started seeing with a keen eye, as Galadriel noted. He had no desire for power, only to save the Shire. These were the strengths that were the opposite of the Ring and enabled him to carry it.

Frodo was not "made Ringbearer". Eru did not make him Ringbearer. But everything was set in motion that would help give Frodo make the decision. Once he made that decision, Frodo was given the Grace (as Tolkien put it in his Letters) to carry out his task. Perhaps this is what Elrond meant when he said that this task was appointed for Frodo. A task may be appointed for a person, but they may not CHOOSE to take it. Frodo chose.

The concept of choice/free will is an important theme for Tolkien.

Aramarien said:

But everything was set in motion that would help give Frodo make the decision

Click to expand...

And the others to "see it" once he did.