posted
No need to sigh, Shan. But it might well be in The Hobbit, perhaps in one of the later prefixes. I am absolutely certain that there's a textual reference to Deagol being a cousin.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hobbit, hardboud collectors edition, 1966.
quote:Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature. I don't know where he came from, nor who or what he was. p82
quote: "Ss, ss, ss," said Gollum. He had been underground a long long time . . . brought up memories of ages and ages and ages before, when he lived with his grandmother in a whole in a bank by a river. p85-6
quote:But suddenly Gollum remembered thieving from nests long ago, and sitting under the river bank teaching his grandmother . . . to suck - Eggses! p87
quote:My birthday-present! . . . So he had always said to himself. But who knows how Gollum came by that present, ages ago . . . p91
There is nothing in the Silmarillion, nor the ROTK Appendixes.
The answer lies in FOTR, Ch. 2, The Shadow of the Past. I suggest reading it! Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan, you're talking to someone who has read the books quite extensively. As we speak, I become more and more certain that Deagol is called Smeagol's cousin somewhere in the text. *grin*
(FWIW, TheOneRing.Net -- a site for anal nerds if there ever was one -- agrees with me on this one.)
posted
Tom, I feel the exact same way. I have read the texts some 20 times, and am certain that they are called cousins, yet an extensive search this evening has failed to turn up the specific reference. I'm running out of places to check now. I may have to read the entire canon in its entirety again to find this reference. It's about time anyway, I guess. It's been nearly a year. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you're not alone, my Tolkein lovin' best friend said without outside interference that Smeagol and Deagol were cousins. So stand strong. Though I hadn't heard that, I'm pretty sure I believe you.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bernard said he also remembers them being cousins. So if it's a hallucination, at least it's a fairly widespread and consistent one. I'm still searching.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a side note and sidetrack from this extremely interesting argument *cough* I just wanted to say that I saw the movie again today.
It was MUCH better the second time (not that I didn't like it the first time, I think I just went into it with unrealistic expectations.) I bawled, I laughed, and I thoroughly enjoyed it MORE this time.
The lighting of the beacons is amazing, as is the part at the end where Sauron calls Aragorn's name in English and Elvish and then Aragorn turns to the company, smiles and says "For Frodo" before the big charge. AAAaaaaaah. Heaven. I still hold to my opinion that Elijah Wood's performance was stunning and helped to make the movie.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I looked up the word "Deagol" in the index of people monsters and animals (or something like that) in the back and his name only appeared ONCE in the ENTIRE gazillion pages of the books. It is the line that Shan has already quoted. There was never EVER any mention of a cousin, though there was mention of the grandmother of the whole family of that general race of hobbit-like folks.
So all of you cousin/brother people had better find some PROOF, cause Tolkien is winning the argument so far with "friend." Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
And since I am the only one that has bothered to offer "proof" rather than "speculation" (and Tom - you and I both KNOW that you know better from Ornery - shall I cross-reference this debate over there? )
I WIN, I WIN, I WIN!!!
(Mom said if you said it no more than three times you weren't bragging yet )
It really doesn't matter how many times you have read the book - I'm sure I'd trump that hands-down with a few notable exceptions having begun reading his works at age 8 and proceeding hence to at least quarterly re-readings for almost 20 years. Had to slow down once the child started getting very active - but I do fit in a re-read at least once a year (and that includes the Appendixes, the Sil, etc . . . )
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying Deagol is referenced as anything other than a friend in the main text of LotR. I'm saying he's specifically referenced as a cousin in another one of the supplemental works. My copy of LotR has an index, too, and points to the same single page. But I still distinctly remember "cousin" from something. I also remember the whole "Smeagol is an anglicized version of Trahald" bit that theOneRing.net's writeup mentions, so there's clearly some book out there which goes into more detail.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I've been trying to figure out where I might have seen this reference, and since I don't have any of the books on me, I'm hoping that somebody here has a copy of Unfinished Tales, particularly the bit about the Gladden Fields. Is it in there?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read Unfinished Tales for several hours last night looking for it, to no avail. If TORN and Bernard and Tom and I all remember it, then I feel pretty confident it must be real. If it were just me, ....
Shan: You don't win until everyone else concedes. Winning wouldn't be so fun if it were that easy.
Narnia: "...from this extremely interesting argument *cough*..." ROFL!
But I did find these highly interesting bits about the Istari.
"Most of the remaining writings about the Istari (as a group) are unhappily no more than very rapid jottings, often illegible. Of major interest, however, is a brief and very hasty sketch of a narrative, telling of a council of the Valar, summoned it seems by Manwë ('and maybe he called upon Eru for counsel?'), at which it was resolved to send out three emissaries to Middle-earth. 'Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and wearinesses coming from the flesh.' "
". . . for, strange indeed though this may seem, the Istari, being clad in bodies of Middle-earth, might even as Men and Elves fall away from their purposes, and do evil, forgetting the good in the search for power to effect it."
"For it is said indeed that being embodied the Istari had need to learn much anew by slow experience, and though they knew whence they came the memory of the Blessed Realm was to them a vision from afar off, for which (so long as they remained true to their mission) they yearned exceedingly. Thus by enduring of free will the pangs of exile and the deceits of Sauron they might redress the evils of that time."
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well ak, I admire your search. I am definitely not as versed as you or Tom in all the extras, but I did put a question into TORN to see if someone could find us a reference, because I found it rather odd that no less than 7 people were pretty sure they were cousins. It must be SOMEWHERE! So maybe someone knows where. Until then, we'll just have to content ourselves with all the nifty tidbits that we've learned because of our search. (My tidbit is in the Sauron eye thread. I KNEW that he had a physical form!!)
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always looked at the Istari as Tolkien's attempt to allegorize the various Earthly prophets; they're all powerful spirits made flesh, and all have a line to the truth, but they can fall by the side and both mislead and be misled. In particular, I can't help wondering if the Blue Wizards are Tolkien's way of acknowledging -- in a somewhat backhanded fashion -- Eastern religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's some interesting bits about them in that part too. I had forgotten they even had names. I wonder what they got up to? They may have labored diligently and successfully, so far as we know, and still we might not have heard anything about them. Too bad there's no Middle earth BBC or CNN to keep us in touch with the farther flung regions.
[ January 01, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to a data search of The Unfinished Tales, Déagol is only referenced once in that book, and that in a footnote:
quote:In a letter written in 1959 my father said: "Between 2463 [Déagol the Stoor found the One Ring, according to the Tale of Years] and the beginning of Gandalf's special enquiries concerning the Ring (nearly 500 years later) they [the Stoors] appear indeed to have died out altogether (except of course for Sméagol); or to have fled from the shadow of Dol Guldur."
Searching Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, I found this:
quote:In the Shire etiquette, at the date of the Party, 'expectation of receiving' was limited to second cousins or nearer kin, and to residence within 12 miles. Even close friends (if unrelated) were not 'expected' to give, though they might. The Shire residence-limit was obviously a fairly recent result of the gradual break-up of kinship communities and families and dispersal of relatives, under long-settled conditions. For the received birthday presents (no doubt as a relic of the customs of small ancient families) must be delivered in person, properly on the eve of the Day, and at latest before nuncheon on the Day. They were received privately by the 'byrding'; and it was very improper to exhibit them separately or as a collection – precisely to avoid such embarrassments as may occur in our wedding-exhibitions (which would have horrified the Shirefolk). The giver could thus accommodate his gift to his purse and his affections without incurring public comment or offending (if anyone) any other than the recipient. But custom did not demand costly presents, and a Hobbit was more readily flattered and delighted by an unexpectedly 'good' or desirable present than offended by a customary token of family good-will.
A trace of this can be seen in the account of Sméagol and Déagol – modified by the individual characters of these rather miserable specimens. Déagol, evidently a relative (as no doubt all the members of the small community were), had already given his customary present to Sméagol, although they probably set out on their expedition v. early in the morning. Being a mean little soul he grudged it. Sméagol, being meaner and greedier, tried to use the 'birthday' as an excuse for an act of tyranny. 'Because I wants it' was his frank statement of his chief claim. But he also implied that D's gift was a poor and insufficient token: hence D's retort that on the contrary it was more than he could afford.
From this piece it appears as if Tolkien himself had not specified the relationship between Sméagol and Déagol precisely. It does not preclude him having done so elsewhere, of course.
There is also this little snippet in a footnote, make of it what you will:
quote:In more primitive communities, as those still living in clan-smials, the byrding also made a gift to the 'head of the family'. There is no mention of Sméagol's presents. I imagine that he was an orphan; and do not suppose that he gave any present on his birthday, save (grudgingly) the tribute to his 'grandmother'. Fish probably. One of the reasons, maybe, for the expedition. It would have been just like Sméagol to give fish, actually caught by Déagol!
Edit: I'd like to search History of Middle Earth too, but unfortunately and inexplicably find myself unable to open the pdf-file I downloaded. Perhaps someone else has better luck.
posted
But Tom, I don't think this is allegorical at all. History, real or feigned, with its variable applicability to the here and now. I dislike allegory quite a bit, really. I'm not nearly so cordial about it as JRRT was. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I remember about the index in the end of RotK is that it was supposed to be complete in items but not necessarily in references. That is, everyone should be in there, but every single time their name came up in the books may not be. I'm still not positive where I read this, but I seem to have remembered it from long ago, and I only read the Hobbit, the LotR trilogy, and the Silmarillion until the last few years when the movie rekindled my passion for Tolkien. So it's my feeling that it must be somewhere in those works. Someone should post this question on TORN and I'm sure it will be settled quickly.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Q: Is Déagol Sméagol's cousin or friend? In The Complete Guide to Middle-earth (1978 ed.) by Robert Foster and in Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia by David Day (1991 ed.) Déagol is listed as being Sméagol's cousin. However, in my Ballantine edition of LOTR, Tolkien says that Déagol is Sméagol's friend. I think, upon initial creation (in earlier editions of LOTR) Déagol was in fact Sméagol's kinsman and not just an acquaintance, but this was changed for the revised editions of LOTR (merely a guess). Can any of you shed any light on this? Why was such a change made, if indeed there was a change? Did Tolkien himself or has his son, Christopher commented on this? Christopher describes the evolution of The Fellowship of the Ring in Return of the Shadow: The History of the LOTR Part 1 (Middle-earth Series, Volume 6) and so I only skimmed the book last time I was at the bookstore as I couldn't afford to buy it. It doesn't mention the change and refers to Déagol as being Sméagol's friend. It did mention that initially, Déagol was in fact the name of Sméagol, which I thought was interesting, although it has no bearing on my question.
–Mark
A: In the earliest versions of The Lord of the Rings, published in The Return of the Shadow, the story of two friends finding the Ring does not appear. Only "Digol" appears, in the role that we know as Sméagol. Digol "found the ring in the mud of the river-bank under the roots of a thorn tree." Later, using it, he earns the nickname Gollum.
In the "fourth phase" of composition, the name Sméagol is introduced, as is the story of the murder of Déagol. In this version, Déagol is called a "friend," as he is in all subsequent versions, including the published text of 1954-55, and the later revised texts. I do not know where Foster came up with the "cousin" connection (at least the instances he cites do not contain that information).
However, in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (published in 1981, three years after Foster last revised his book), Tolkien notes that Déagol was "evidently a relative (as no doubt all the members of the small community were)" of Sméagol’s (see p. 292).
- Turgon
Update!
Craig wrote in to point out that "the use of "cousin," especially in England, is applied to anyone who is in the clan with you -- basically anyone you consider related, or kin. It did not historically have the definite definition of aunt or uncle's child as it does now."
posted
I think "Google Queen" has a nicer ring to it.
Besides, I don't think I'm worth of the title, yet. I've yet to find the answer to the ultimate movie quote stumper.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But Tom, I don't think this is allegorical at all. History, real or feigned, with its variable applicability to the here and now."
If it's feigned history, meant to suggest alternate sources for modern faith, it's allegory. If it's meant to be "real" history, Tolkien was ultimately a crankcase. All in all, I prefer to think of it as loosely allegorical. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, there are certainly in-betweens for your view. For instance, it could be feigned history, not meant to suggest sources for modern faith, as Tolkien maintained his entire life.
posted
Tolkien specifically stated that it was NOT allegorical in any way. He said he had cordially disliked allegory in all its manifestations ever since he got old and wary enough to detect it. That he preferred history, real or feigned. I was paraphrasing his definitive statement on the subject. It is NOT allegory. Absolutely not. <shudders> I deeply dislike allegory, nay, even loathe it. So please don't let me ever again hear you make the faintest hint or suggestion that Lord of the Rings might be allegory. That is base slander.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tolkien specifically stated that it was NOT allegorical in any way."
But we all know it IS allegory. I mean, sure, certain deliberate metaphors weren't at the front of his mind when he was writing it -- but the guy WAS trying to write a mythopoeic history of England. How can that not be allegory? *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference lies in the freedom of readers to decide if and how to apply the story to their own experience. With allegory, there's a specific mapping that the author has in mind that you can't break free of.
For instance, in Animal Farm, the pigs are the communist party leadership, and the revolt of the animals is the communist revolution. There's no freedom to read it as just a story about farm animals. I actually DO read it that way, but I do it deliberately, just because I abhor allegory.
Or in Gulliver's Travels, the different episodes are direct jabs at this or that group or attitude applicable to Swift's current world.
Allegory is preachy. It grinds axes. In allegory, the author dictates what the meaning of things is, and how the reader should respond to things. That's why I loathe it so.
History, or just fiction -- good stories of any kind -- leave readers free to decide for themselves what they mean, and if and how they apply to life. They show life as it is (in some way), they tell the truth about what it's like to be alive, and then leave readers free to come to whatever understanding they may of the events depicted. The author's deepest beliefs and understanding of life will be reflected, unavoidably, of course, but the author isn't saying, "I know and you don't and so listen up while I teach you". The author isn't patronizing the readers, or wink wink nudge nudging them.
That's why any suggestion that a great work of fiction is allegorical is deadly to it. Because it makes it so much less than it is, if you read it like that. So please, with Lord of the Rings, read it as it's meant. As a history, real or fictional. A story about some hobbits and stuff that happened to them once upon a time.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be in your humble opinion, right, Tom?
I believe the author was pretty clear in his intentions, which were to write a story to please himself and secondly to please his readers.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, to please himself, he wrote an allegory.
It doesn't matter if Tolkien's comfortable with the fact that it's an allegory; it's an allegory regardless of whether or not he's happy with that.
Now, I can certainly understand that some people are unhappy with the thought of being "preached to" by any literature at all -- and I can understand how Tolkien, who really disliked his friend Lewis' fiction for exactly that reason, didn't want to be lumped into that camp. But while I don't like people to call me fat, and while I never set out to be fat, I'm fat regardless; it takes an effort of will to not see me as fat, in the same way that someone has to be really determined to miss the allegory in LotR.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with Tom. Tolkien's Ring trilogy is allegorical. ANY fantasy story that tells the truth about reality in the broad sense has to be allegorical to some extent. Tolkien was careful not to write allegorically in the narrow way that C.S. Lewis did, with closely drawn parallels at every turn, that you could use a code book to decipher.
But look, consider just one example: In Tolkien, elves are a gracious, immortal, superhuman race. The orcs were said to have been elves once, but they were perverted by evil. In Biblical theology, angels are a gracious, immortal, superhuman race. The devils were angels who were cast out of heaven and became perverted by evil. Is this not allegorical?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, what great fiction is NOT allegorical, if you use the word in that way? I think you are misusing the word. Allegory means there is a point by point correspondence between the elements in the allegorical work and the real life situation or narrative it is intended to bring to mind.
Did Tolkien intend for the readers to think of the elves as angels? I would say not. If that's true then who are hobbits? Who are dwarves? Christian mythology and symbolism do not contain characters who correspond to these races.
Another allegorical accusation Tolkien refuted said that the ring represented the atomic bomb and the War of the Ring was supposed to be WW2. Tolkien parried it by saying if that were true, then Saruman's researches into ring lore would have turned up information that let him make his own, and that instead of destroying the ring, Gandalf and the others would have used it, and in that story hobbits would have ended up reviled by everybody.
I would say that any effort to directly map point by point Tolkien's story to anything else would be valid only to the extent that readers might draw their own meanings from that. There is NOTHING that indicates Tolkien did so or intended for us to do so.
Lewis is allegorical, Tolkien is not.
[ January 03, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think you are misusing the word. Allegory means there is a point by point correspondence between the elements in the allegorical work and the real life situation or narrative it is intended to bring to mind. "
That's one kind of allegory, agreed. But it's not the only kind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know where I can get the lyrics to that beautiful song Pippin sang to Denethor or do I also hafta wait for the script to magically appear on the internet?
Posts: 4628 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Home is behind, the world ahead, and there are many paths to tread. Through shadow, to the edge of night, until the stars are all alight... Mist and shadow, cloud and shade. All shall fail, all shall fade..."
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(The lyrics are in the soundtrack leaflet too.)
Another impressive and interesting tidbit about the soundtrack: Viggo Mortenson himself wrote the melody that he sang in the title track. Pretty nifty.
Oh and, Renee Fleming is my absolute favorite EVER. I'm so glad her voice is in this movie.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
must . . . get . . . soundtrack, precious . . .
I do have to say that Pippin's song and the intertwining of Denethor's messy meal and the race to the battle was quite impactful (is that an actual derivative of impact?)
I think you mentioned before that Viggo wrote the music for the Lay of Luthien which is nifty - I was gald to see the amount of poetry and music included in the EE's and wish there had been even more -
quote: Viggo Mortenson himself wrote the melody that he sang in the title track. Pretty nifty.
Billy Boyd also wrote the melody for Pippen's song. I think it's quite cool that all of the songs in ROTK were sung by the people that wrote the music.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
i just went to see ROTK for the second time the second time-its ten times better! in the first time I was so involved that I was missing a ton of scenes just waiting to see 'what happenes' (and I read the books about 7 times at least)I was also sobbing for half an hour at the end and was having difficulties not crying out loud when Frodo leaves.
abou the sound track- are they different in the three movies? most of the songs sounded the same for me. should I buy all three of them?
Posts: 109 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
raphael, the soundtracks are pretty different. HS seems to have a 'theme' for every race, big city or evil hideout. To get all the themes in their best and original form, all three soundtracks are a must. For instance, the Rohan theme (my favorite) is much better on TTT soundtrack than it is in it's edited and varied form on the RotK soundtrack. Same goes for the Hobbit theme from FotR to Rotk and all of that stuff. The "Samwise the Brave" track from TTT appears in FotR, but not in it's huge, long and unedited form. That's why I'm waiting for the box set.
But, if you're not a freak like me, one soundtrack will do really well and I suggest getting RotK. That has a pretty good representation of all the themes (but you'll be missing Gollum's song and May it Be from the other two.)
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It costs 50$..bah humbug, nobody would get that for me. I'd rather save my money for that Arwen Pendant. I'd be even more happy if I got the books.
What are the lyrics to Aragorn's song btw? It's Elvish, right?
Posts: 4628 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was late seeing it and late writing a review and no I didn't read the whole thread, just deal.
When I went into the theater I told my mom that the movie would be made for me if I could hear just a few lines.
"If I return Father, think better of me."
"Your father loves you, Faramir, and he will remember it ere the end."
As you may guess, I was looking much forward to the scenes with Faramir and Denethor.
I was not completely happy, but I am hopeful there will be more in the extended version. I'd also like to see Faramir and Eowyn in the Houses of Healing, instead of just getting to see them standing beside each other.
Legolas stunt was way too unnecessary. So were all the Shelob shots. Maybe because I was holding my mother's arm and whimpering. But seriously, we could have culled a few minutes from these to give us some glimpses of Faramir and Eowyn. I mean, we have all this build up around Eowyn and her shattered heart and we don't get to see for sure that she finds love after Aragorn?
Loved Pippin's song. One of the finest things I've ever seen on film.
"Don't go where I can't follow." Big sob factor. Well done.
Beacons - awesome.
I even found myself very touched by Legolas and "How about at the side of a friend?"
The look on the faces of Merry and Pippin when they realized what the blowing up of Mount Doom meant, that Frodo and Sam would not be coming back.
The Grey Havens. Thanks, PJ for not ending the movie at the celebration in Minas Tirith.
"We set out to save the Shire, and we did. But not for me."
Perfect.
I'll have more thoughts after seeing it a second time, I'm sure.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I just wanted to say that I saw the movie again today.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Narnia, I love you!!!!!![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
