Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza

Despite a later noted dislike of Hans Christian Andersen, one thing we can be sure of - is that Tolkien repeatedly read his stories as a youngster (Letter #234).

Andersen’s The Steadfast Tin Soldier appears in Andrew Lang’s The Yellow Fairy Book - which we know was consulted by Tolkien for his OFS lecture in 1939.

It is this fairy-story which I believe was used to ‘roughly shape’ the Cracks of Doom passage. The allegorical side to Andersen’s tale had some effect on Tolkien too - although I’m not going to comment on that right now. So in my opinion The Steadfast Tin Soldier provided the Professor a ‘bare skeleton plot’ to work from. To my knowledge, no other person has ever made this connection - so I wanted to put it out there to see what Plaza folk think - before I formally put it on my website (priyasethtolkienfan.Wordpress.com).

So could the great and vital scene at the culmination of the quest resulting in the Ring’s destruction be forgotten in our real world? Was there still a last trace left of a forgotten history? Had historical myth turned to legend to eventually become diminished fairy-story? Are these the kind of thoughts that helped Tolkien craft his tale?

I’ll let you be the judge!

Provided below is a list of interpreted representations, followed by a full account of The Steadfast Tin Soldier with lines unbolded that I believe are not of great relevance or importance to my case, and help to slightly shorten the read.


Cast of Characters/Things & Corresponding Representations - in order of Occurrence

25 Tin Soldiers = Hobbits of the Shire

Box containing soldiers = Shire

One legged Tin Soldier = Frodo
= Deformity symbolizes he is different to the rest, hobbled by being destined to carry the Ring
= To become the most famous of Hobbits

Little (Birthday) Boy = Gandalf
= The Shire hobbits were under his charge

Lady Dancer = Frodo’s love for the Shire and Middle-earth, Not enough for him in the end.

Gold Rose/Spangle worn by the Dancer = The Ring
= Loved, in a way, by Frodo

Snuff-box = Mordor

Imp = Sauron

Fall = Fall of Man in disobeying God

Nursery maid = Sam
= Looked out for Frodo
= Rescued Frodo from the ‘fire’ at the end.

Two street Boys = Aragorn & Galadriel
= Sent Frodo on a Physical and Spiritual journey

Water Rat = Obstacles on Journey: Bill Ferny, Nazgul, Balrog etc.

Tunnel/Gutter stream/canal = Dark journey

Sinking = Baptism

Fish = Christianity

Cook = Jesus
= The revealer of light
= Cut up and extraction representing rebirth, symbolically leaving old life behind

Boy who threw Tin Soldier into the stove = Gollum

Stove = Sammath Naur

Final Wind = Finger of God

Blackened Spangle = The Ring destroyed, but a vestige of its evil remains







There were once upon a time five-and twenty tin-soldiers—all brothers, as they were made out of the same old tin spoon. Their uniform was red and blue, and they shouldered their guns and looked straight in front of them. The first words that they heard in this world, when the lid of the box in which they lay was taken off, were: ‘Hurrah, tin-soldiers!’ This was exclaimed by a little boy, clapping his hands; they had been given to him because it was his birthday, and now he began setting them out on the table. Each soldier was exactly like the other in shape, except just one, who had been made last when the tin had run short; but there he stood as firmly on his one leg as the others did on two, and he is the one that became famous. There were many other playthings on the table on which they were being set out, but the nicest of all was a pretty little castle made of cardboard, with windows through which you could see into the rooms. In front of the castle stood some little trees surrounding a tiny mirror which looked like a lake. Wax swans were floating about and reflecting themselves in it. That was all very pretty; but the most beautiful thing was a little lady, who stood in the open doorway. She was cut out of paper, but she had on a dress of the finest muslin, with a scarf of narrow blue ribbon round her shoulders, fastened in the middle with a glittering rose made of gold paper, which was as large as her head. The little lady was stretching out both her arms, for she was a Dancer, and was lifting up one leg so high in the air that the Tin-soldier couldn’t find it anywhere, and thought that she, too, had only one leg.

‘That’s the wife for me!’ he thought; ‘but she is so grand, and lives in a castle, whilst I have only a box with four-and-twenty others. This is no place for her! But I must make her acquaintance.’ Then he stretched himself out behind a snuff-box that lay on the table; from thence he could watch the dainty little lady, who continued to stand on one leg without losing her balance.

When the night came all the other tin-soldiers went into their box, and the people of the house went to bed. Then the toys began to play at visiting, dancing, and fighting. The tin-soldiers rattled in their box, for they wanted to be out too, but they could not raise the lid. The nut-crackers played at leap-frog, and the slate-pencil ran about the slate; there was such a noise that the canary woke up and began to talk to them, in poetry too! The only two who did not stir from their places were the Tin-soldier and the little Dancer. She remained on tip-toe, with both arms outstretched; he stood steadfastly on his one leg, never moving his eyes from her face. The clock struck twelve, and crack! off flew the lid of the snuff-box; but there was no snuff inside, only a little black imp—that was the beauty of it.

‘Hullo, Tin-soldier!’ said the imp. ‘Don’t look at things that aren’t intended for the likes of you!’ But the Tin-soldier took no notice, and seemed not to hear. ‘Very well, wait till to-morrow!’ said the imp. When it was morning, and the children had got up, the Tin-soldier was put in the window; and whether it was the wind or the little black imp, I don’t know, but all at once the window flew open and out fell the little Tin-soldier, head over heels, from the third-storey window! That was a terrible fall, I can tell you! He landed on his head with his leg in the air, his gun being wedged between two paving-stones.

The nursery-maid and the little boy came down at once to look for him, but, though they were so near him that they almost trod on him, they did not notice him. If the Tin-soldier had only called out ‘Here I am!’ they must have found him; but he did not think it fitting for him to cry out, because he had on his uniform. Soon it began to drizzle; then the drops came faster, and there was a regular down-pour. lWhen it was over, two little street boys came along.

‘Just look!’ cried one. ‘Here is a Tin-soldier! He shall sail up and down in a boat!’
So they made a little boat out of newspaper, put the Tin-soldier in it, and made him sail up and down the gutter; both the boys ran along beside him, clapping their hands. What great waves there were in the gutter, and what a swift current! The paper-boat tossed up and down, and in the middle of the stream it went so quick that the Tin-soldier trembled; but he remained steadfast, showed no emotion, looked straight in front of him, shouldering his gun. All at once the boat passed under a long tunnel that was as dark as his box had been. ‘Where can I be coming now?’ he wondered. ‘Oh, dear! This is the black imp’s fault! Ah, if only the little lady were sitting beside me in the boat, it might be twice as dark for all I should care!’

Suddenly there came along a great water-rat that lived in the tunnel.
‘Have you a passport?’ asked the rat. ‘Out with your passport!’ But the Tin-soldier was silent, and grasped his gun more firmly. The boat sped on, and the rat behind it. Ugh! how he showed his teeth, as he cried to the chips of wood and straw: ‘Hold him, hold him! he has not paid the toll! He has not shown his passport!’

But the current became swifter and stronger. The Tin-soldier could already see daylight where the tunnel ended; but in his ears there sounded a roaring enough to frighten any brave man. Only think! at the end of the tunnel the gutter discharged itself into a great canal; that would be just as dangerous for him as it would be for us to go down a waterfall. Now he was so near to it that he could not hold on any longer. On went the boat, the poor Tin-soldier keeping himself as stiff as he could: no one should say of him afterwards that he had flinched. The boat whirled three, four times round, and became filled to the brim with water: it began to sink! The Tin-soldier was standing up to his neck in water, and deeper and deeper sank the boat, and softer and softer grew the paper; now the water was over his head. He was thinking of the pretty little Dancer, whose face he should never see again, and there sounded in his ears, over and over again:
‘Forward, forward, soldier bold!
Death’s before thee, grim and cold!’

The paper came in two, and the soldier fell—but at that moment he was swallowed by a great fish.
Oh! how dark it was inside, even darker than in the tunnel, and it was really very close quarters! But there the steadfast little Tin-soldier lay full length, shouldering his gun. Up and down swam the fish, then he made the most dreadful contortions, and became suddenly quite still. Then it was as if a flash of lightning had passed through him; the daylight streamed in, and a voice exclaimed, ‘Why, here is the little Tin-soldier!’ The fish had been caught, taken to market, sold, and brought into the kitchen, where the cook had cut it open with a great knife. She took up the soldier between her finger and thumb, and carried him into the room, where everyone wanted to see the hero who had been found inside a fish; but the Tin-soldier was not at all proud. They put him on the table, and—no, but what strange things do happen in this world!—the Tin-soldier was in the same room in which he had been before! He saw the same children, and the samq toys on the table; and there was the same grand castle with the pretty little Dancer. She was still standing on one leg with the other high in the air; she too was steadfast. That touched the Tin-soldier, he was nearly going to shed tin-tears; but that would not have been fitting for a soldier. He looked at her, but she said nothing. All at once one of the little boys took up the Tin-soldier, and threw him into the stove, giving no reasons; but doubtless the little black imp in the snuff-box was at the bottom of this too. There the Tin-soldier lay, and felt a heat that was truly terrible; but whether he was suffering from actual fire, or from the ardour of his passion, he did not know. All his colour had disappeared; whether this had happened on his travels or whether it was the result of trouble, who can say? He looked at the little lady, she looked at him, and he felt that he was melting; but he remained steadfast, with his gun at his shoulder. Suddenly a door opened, the draught caught up the little Dancer, and off she flew like a sylph to the Tin-soldier in the stove, burst into flames—and that was the end of her! Then the Tin-soldier melted down into a little lump, and when next morning the maid was taking out the ashes, she found him in the shape of a heart. There was nothing left of the little Dancer but her gilt rose, burnt as black as a cinder.

I’m not sure about all the correspondences you’ve drawn here as I think some of them are rather tenuous - many stories, after all, may contain flames, but that doesn’t mean they all draw inspiration from each other. The comparison I like best is probably that of Frodo to the Tin Soldier: he is perceived as “queer” by other Hobbits, although made of the same material. However, it’s not this peculiarity that sends him on his quest, and this is where the spirit of Tolkien’s tale diverges, in my mind. The Tin Soldier is entirely passive. He makes no choices or sacrifices: things happen to him. This diminishes the nature of Frodo’s quest in the likening.

Hello Aiks

The Steadfast Tin Soldier is a wonderful story - as in my opinion are most of Hans Christian Andersen’s tales. And I agree that such a fairy tale does enrich our imagination.

This one is so full of blatant Christian allegory - that it’s even obvious to someone like me - who doesn’t actively look out for it in fairy-story, or really care one way or the other if it’s present. We have then, through a religious perspective:

a) The “fall” - yes as humans we are all fallen - according to Christianity.

b) The fall of man being instigated by Satan (represented by the Imp).

c) The unforeseen “journey” - mirroring our own lives.

d) The “rat” - getting past Satan’s follower and the many evil obstacles we face during our time on Earth.

e) The “sinking” - for those who remain true and steadfast in their faith submitting themselves to a Christian baptism.

f) Being ‘found’ and consumed by the ‘fish’ - the second most recognized Christian symbol after the Cross.

g) Re-entering the world and seeing the ‘light’ after wholly being enveloped by Christianity.

h) Extracted and being brought back into the real world by a singular person - the Savior (Cook).

i) Discovering that all the people and all the things around you have not changed.

j) Still being subject to evil within the real world - as the whim of others is not under our control.

k) The ultimate source of the evil of others being Satan (the Imp) himself.

l) Remaining steadfast with the Christian faith to the very end.

m) Being prepared to sacrifice your very existence to those who desire your oblivion.

n) Rescued by God and finding salvation after the physical body is destroyed.

o) Leaving behind nothing but love - for those who remember you (symbolic Heart)

p) Undergoing a physical to spiritual metamorphosis (symbolized by the change from Soldier to Heart)


Now Tolkien probably didn’t like the the allegorical message - partly because, I feel, of the tale’s simplicity and unsophisticated nature. But nevertheless the ‘bones’ of this very short story, especially it’s end, has some eerily similar elements to the physical/spiritual journey of Frodo - and particularly the Cracks of Doom scene.

I too have little doubt Tolkien knew it. And knew it well! But could he openly make such a confession. Impossible - is my thought!

Best to lie quiet - than have to be on the defensive!

We all know Tolkien aired a dislike of overt allegory - and the consensus among scholars is that Hans Andersen was disliked for this reason. There exists a quote where the Professor once said:

(Andersen) “he was always getting at me”.

Hmm... It would not be at all surprising if Tolkien felt Andersen was laughing at him (from his grave).

“What, you disliked my stories - yet you had the cheek to use one for the most vital scene of your tale!” ....
“Really Tolkien - that’s pretty bad behavior!”

Hello Silky Gooseness

In a fairy-story as short as The Steadfast Tin Soldier, I think one should not expect the complexities of a fully developed character, such as Frodo, to be extensively mirrored. Nevertheless, in this case we have much in common when we analogously compare against Tolkien’s fairy tale.

For I think you might have missed the point in calling out a seeming “passive” nature (and thus a lack of positive action) on the one-legged soldier’s part. That point is, for me, embedded in the tale’s title. And that is the soldier is “steadfast”.

Yes (when humans aren’t around - just like the toys in Toy Story) he can play like the other tin soldiers want to. But he refuses to. He keeps his mind and eye on his duty and the thing/person he loves. His first movement is to position himself by the snuff-box to secure a view of what is important to him. And he is unwavering. Even during the unforeseen journey he is focused on the dancer and the soldier role into which he was born. Right to the very end - she is his greatest desire, but he remains true to his character.

In this respect there is, in my opinion, obvious parallels with Frodo, who too is swept off by forces not under his control but nonetheless remains committed and steadfast in the self-appointed task of destroying the Ring.

Yes, I agree - fire plays a part in quite a few fairy tales. But I have yet to see one where the hero is sent to flames at the story’s climax, yet emerges ‘saved’. Where the evil force wanting his ruin is consonant with Satan, and whose agent is key in the final action.

What we, the reader, experienced from the Tin Soldier’s demise was the effect defined per Tolkien’s classic coining: ‘eucatastrophe’.

That sudden joy when we come to a realization all was not lost. When we comprehend that, in a way, the Tin Soldier triumphed.

Because, of course, Andersen appears to have conveyed divine intervention. And I do not recall another fairy-story where the ‘Finger of God’ was used in such a manner at the culmination point.

But there again if you (or anyone else) can, please let me know. I readily confess there’s many I haven’t read.

One decent piece of evidence worth considering in pondering Tolkien’s ideas behind the Mount Doom quest finale is a
Letter to David Masson (12 December 1955).

In it, Tolkien wrote:

‘... "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil", are words that occur to me, and of which the scene, in the Sammath Naur was meant to be a "fairy-story" exemplum ...'.

Unfortunately, what followed is not currently available in the public domain. Nonetheless - what we do have is fascinating!

The Cracks of Doom scene not only had a religious angle as its basis, but its construct also had a fairy-story aspect to it. And we know through the quotation marks - Tolkien specifically stressed ‘fairy-story’.

Now why would he do that? Surely he wouldn’t have placed such emphasis if he was referring back to his own TLotR?

An ‘exemplum’ is simply Latin for ‘example’ or ‘model’. Or it can mean be a short tale used to illustrate a point, especially moral.

So we can all argue what Tolkien meant by “fairy-story” exemplum - because it isn’t entirely clear (especially to me). Perhaps he was generalizing - but there again, there’s a strong possibility that he had a particular fairy-story in mind. One which too had an allegorically religious ending featuring ‘mercy’*, ‘temptation’** and a divine ‘delivery from evil’.

Yes, it’s quite possible the Sammath Naur plot/action had an underlying and existing root based upon fairy tale. And that was an idea present at the back of the Professor’s mind from near inception of The Hobbit sequel. Personally, I think this is the nearest Tolkien came to admitting the seed of The Cracks of Doom scene came from another classic fairy-story. I know of no nearer match than The Steadfast Tin Soldier. Which, I must add, is pretty much a ‘bulls-eye’ and far too close a correspondence to be mere coincidence.

Comments are welcome!

*Mercy - One can make the argument that the Tin Soldier exhibited mercy. There was no anger/ill-will/animosity shown towards the boy who threw him into the fire; even while enduring pain. His only complaint in the entire story was against the Imp - the cause of his ‘troubles’.

**Temptation - Certainly the Tin Soldier always kept his eye on the dancer who carried the gold spangle. Andersen portrays, some might say, an obsessive desire. Towards the end, in almost shedding tin-tears at the sight of the pretty dancer, it might be argued that he was tempted to forsake his duty/role. But, of course, he didn’t!

Sorry, i have been preoccupied with the plaza art competition and have not attended to this challenging thread as i should.

It all seems quite interesting. But i don't see what we learn from it. If we wish to explain one thing don't we do so in terms of something else? So to say that this fairy-story is a reworking of that fairy-story does not seem to explain anything. I don't feel i have gained literary insight into the Mordor story because i now see that it is a bit like the older Danish story.

Hello Chrysophylax Dives

Knowledge of the building blocks behind Tolkien’s work, and knowing there exists a solid substructure connecting our world to his feigned Ages - enriches my reading experience, and sometimes understanding of the text. The framework behind the Professor’s work is very real. It involved an awful lot of effort on his part. The secondary, even tertiary, layers of construction were, I believe, meant to provide some level of authenticity for the reader. A sort of kinship connection for us - so that we could bond with his tale.

Of course, Tolkien never wanted us to dig too deep. He preferred us to enjoy the artistry: to taste the soup - but not delve too deep and seek the bones of the ox. Rather puzzling a stance for a philologist, I would say. For surely such enquiry was part of his routine activity in examining medieval texts, tracing the evolution of language/dialects etc. The only thing I can think is that he wanted the reader who was knowledgeable in Botany - to recognize ‘sympathetic’ traces and familiar matters that the average person would be unaware of. Similarly, those who spent time actively reading fairy tales - to attain pleasure when they ran across similarities from existing works. And the same went for folk focused on Christianity, or consumed in Medieval works etc. etc. This would then perhaps, in his mind, provide much extra individualized enjoyment.

Nevertheless - digressing slightly, it is highly unfair to the reader that Tolkien left many loose ends and vexing matters unexplained. We have no choice but to dig deeper and extract what we can through logic and the few clues left in his letters etc. Unless one is quite familiar with those ‘fairy-stories’ the Professor has read (or likely read), one cannot attain a decent understanding of many things - including Tom Bombadil, Goldberry or for that matter a vital part of the early plot. After much research - that's my impression!