Why was Frodo made Ringbearer?

Aramarien said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sam was certain to want to accompany Frodo whatever the danger.

Radaghast said:

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...

Just dropping in here to say this is made more explicit in the drafts than the final text. Glorfindel would have stood out like a searchlight anywhere-- especially in Mordor.

Ent said:

... 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....

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...

True. And the way things are in Middle-earth is providence. Merriadoc found his special sword in the Barrow Downs that was able to pierce the Witch King.

In ancient Hebrew one of the words for blame is 'satan'.

This is one of the great lessons of LOTR. Gollum was shown mercy rather than blame, and this saved the world from Sauron. In that language one of the words for mercy is also translated 'friend'. For example, it's how Lazarus is described. He is what he receives. It's the same with blame/satan.

It's like this word "incompetent", or even "ignorant". It has an accurate usage that doesn't require negativity. A bear is dangerous, Sauron is dangerous, Gandalf is dangerous, 'Gimli you yourself are dangerous'. The negativity is what we bring to the equation. Sauron was effective in ushering in the 4th age; he was effective in being a villainous remnant of Melkor, proving Eru's point that all things will ultimately work for the benefit of Eru. The Valar observed that tragedy made things more beautiful. Danger makes things more beautiful, sometimes. Even the word 'blame' doesn't have to be negative. What is negative is negativity, and sometimes negativity is exactly right. There is a time to hate, and a time to love. A time for war, and a time for peace. The key thing that connects everything is Providence. Eru is necessary. That's the lesson: God is necessary.

Frodo was the ring bearer because he was Bilbo's heir. It's about inheritance, which is just a word for sharing formally. Eru could keep all the glory for Eru, but instead Eru delights to share among the Valar, and the Maiar, and Elves, and Men, and even little hobbits. And even a wretch like Gollum gets a share of glory in his own weird way. That's how much Eru extends inheritance. One Providence to rule them all. One Providence to find them. One Providence to bring them all, and in the light empower them.

Goldilocks Gamgee said:

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

Click to expand...

Some additional insights from early drafts of LOTR are found in History of Middle-Earth, Vol 2:

• p. 32, in an early version Frodo is Bilbo's son, "The ring was his father's parting gift".
• p. 62, an elf asks Frodo, "Wy did you choose this moment to set out?" And Frodo replies, "Well, really it chose itself. I had come to the end of my treasure. It had always held me back rom the Journey which half of my heart wished for, ever since Bilbo went away; but now it was gone. So I said to my stay-at-home half: 'There is nothing to keep you here. The Journey might bring you some more treasure, as it did for old Bilbo; and anyway on the road you will be able to live more easily without any. Of course if you like to stay in Hobbiton and earn your living as a gardener or a carpenter, you can.' The stay-at-home half surrendered; it did not want to make other people's chairs or grow other peoples' potatoes. It was soft and fat. I think the Journey will do it good. But of course, the other half is not really looking for treasure, but for Adventure - later rather than sooner."
• p. 240, Bilbo says regarding Frodo, "But after all, as it cannot be destroyed, and can only be handed on - it had best be handed on to him: I chose him as the best in all the Shire : and he is my heir. He knows that I am leaving that to him with all the rest. I don't suppose he would ask to be excused this responsibility, and take only the money."
• p. 262, Gandalf says to Frodo, "I can put it no clearer than by saying that Bilbo was 'meant' to have the Ring, and that he perhaps got involved in the Quest of the treasure mainly for that reason. In which case you were meant to have it. Which may (or may not) be a comforting thought. And has also always been a queer fate over the Rings on their own account. They get lost, and turn up in strange places."
• p. 321, Frodo asks, "Why was I chosen?" And Gandalf answers, "Bilbo passed it on to you to save himself from destruction; and because he could find no one else. He did so reluctantly, but believing that, when you knew more, you would accept the burden for a while out of love for him. He thought you were safe: safe not to misuse it or to let it get into evil hands; safe from its power for a time; and safe in the quiet Shire of the hobbits from the knowledge of its maker. And I promised him to help you. He relied on that. Indeed for your sake and for his I have taken many perilous journeys."

That line on page 262 about the rings getting lost and turning up in strange places. The strangest place to find a ring would be in this reality. Indeed, many readers find LOTR themes working in their lives with such synchronicity as to beg the question, what if...

Goldilocks Gamgee said:

My question is simple -- why was Frodo made Ringbearer? Yes, he was a hobbit and had apparently shown resilience to the Ring's power for quite some time, having brought it to Rivendell, where the further decisions were made. However, while still in the Shire, there is a scene in which Gandalf asks Frodo to toss the Ring into a fireplace, to check if it is, indeed, the One Ring. Frodo does it, but barely, despite having never used the Ring. He thus proved that the chances of him being able to throw it into the Crack of Doom and destroy it forever are very, very low. Would it not have been wiser to choose almost any other Hobbit to be Ringbearer? A hobbit who wasn't already under the influence of the Ring?

The only explanation I have found is that Frodo being Ringbearer highlights one of the main themes of Tolkien's works -- "even the smallest person can change the course of the future". Those seemingly insignificant coming to shape the fates of the mighty. However, there is a key difference between insignificance and incompetence, and since Frodo shows himself early on to be in the latter of those two categories, making him Ringbearer seems foolish.

Click to expand...

I think there's two things going on here, minimum... first, there is continual emphasis in both The Hobbit and TLOTR to the resiliance of hobbits, and their nature.. and their almost magical ability to merge with the land, landscape... an affinity to the likes of Bjorn o f the Bjornlings, Honey cakes.. and Tom Bombadil and Ents, rather than Elves and Men... so a worked thing like a ring of power had less influence on Smeagol/Gollum who carried it much longer than many an other creature could have, surprising the "wise" - also Bilbo, etc. Sam Gamgee with the Ring was to start with a world of Gardeners... A hobbit was a surpirsingly safe ring keeper... both lack of ambition, and lack of access to the ambitious, if nothing else, but also "character"....
So A Hobbit isn't a bad idea, and this hobbit has an "elvish" air to him, has book learning, had met elves and was Bilbo's heir, less flighty than Pippin, less melancholy homely than Merry, more learned than Sam...

Secondly, the 'shadow of the past" chapter in The Shire in which Gandalf both lets Frodo know what the ring is, while he confirms it for himself, shows that Frodo is much stronger than anticipated, while Gandalf is much more terrified... and afraid if he took the ring from Frodo it would destroy him... so Frodo it is for the time being, which they both think short..

Thirdly when Frodo gets to Rivendell he has passed through fire and water, through death into a second life... he has been passed by Bombadil, and survived ancient evil like the Barrow Downs and the daily nastiness of Bree under the influence of Mordor... on strength of character. He has made friends with Aragorn.. and the council, what there is of it, decides on secrecy and what the Enemy would least likely do, and in all his troubles, kept the ring safe... so Frodo as ring bearer makes serious sense, if they're doing the "unexpected" which is more or less what they decide the only chance is... I think Elrond even says something finally like "even if I could send a company of the finest elf warriors with you, it would not help"... Frodo as Ring Bearer is the ultimate lost cause but along the way, I think we realise that even Elendil never mind the heir is missing what it would take...

And fouthrly, of two things... I see people talking "outside" the texts...
So - any hero of old, or person of power... ie Gandalf or other Istar/Maya would only be more quickly corrupted by the Ring, and become a worse dark lord (Galadriel)

Bilbo "got" the ring from Gollum... there are very few people he could have given it to... Gandalf? The Dwarfs? - he didn't actually really know what he had, and it wasn't really working on him for a long time... it only makes sense that Bilbo passes it to Frodo.... Frodo would like to give it to Gandalf, and if not him Elrond or Aragorn.... but all are so sure that having it would be terrible, they'd rather Frodo had it, and they keep him safe...

Reminds ma a little of Kierkegaard, I believe because it is absurd. The rational, Gandalf or Aragorn will fail, so we must do something ‘unexpected,’ that is, seemingly crazy. Faith over reason. How many of us would make such a choice? As big a fan as I am, as a skeptical lawyer, I must say I still find it unconvincing, though I wish it made sense.