posted
Which character goes through the greatest transformation?
I tend to agree the Tolkien that it is Sam. He is the heart and soul of the books for me, and the character I most identifiy with.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's actually very little in the way of character transformation in Tolkien's stories.
But a good case could be made that Gimli makes the largest transformation with becoming such good pals with Legolas and returning (after the story) to Mirkwood in order to share that wonder with him.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
He goes from "head-nuggies" favored uncle of the idyllic hobbit-folk, to a clash with multiple arch-enemies, survives the life/death transition, comes back and relinquishes his broad and sage knowledge to a couple of the same humble kinsfolk he befriended early on.
posted
Aragorn, as he begins to embrace his history and destiny.
Or Frodo, who is so injured and soul weary that he leaves the Shire forever, and Middle Earth as well, to sail away with the Elves.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to agree with Saruman. All of the good characters shifted within the spectrum of good to higher planes of good. Saruman went from one of the higher planes of good to the lower planes of evil. Prettyg dramatic shift if you ask me.
Even so, if you are counting Silmarillion characters, Elrond, Arwen, Galadriel, Gil-Galad... there are tons of Elf characters that go through dramatic transformations for various reasons.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the flip side, it is the inability to change and adapt, to transform as men do, that dooms the Elves as a race. They are stuck looking backword.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not Aragorn. in the books he's never in any doubt as to who he is an what his destiny is. It's one of the things I had to work to accept in the movies, his moral uncertainty about his identity.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movie did greatly amplify Aragorn's self doubt in order to create a better story arc for his character.
However, I think Aragorn did have his weak moments in the books. For example, Aragorn doubted his leadership abilities when Frodo left the company.
One of my favorite moments in the book is when Strider told the hobbits that he concealed his name because, sometimes, even a ranger likes the prima facie trust of strangers. While that is not exactly a weakness, I find that deeply humanizing and endearing. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, on the day Aragorn found out who he was (heir to the kingship of Gondor and Arnor) at age 20, he fell hopelessly (everyone thought) in love with an elf princess who was about a thousand years old. So he always accepted his lineage and his destiny to fight against the enemy for the whole of his long life. The actual restoration of the kingship was beyond hope for most of that time, it seems, aside from some sense of foresight in Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond and others. Aragorn didn't really change inside, only to hobbit eyes.
I go with Gandalf. Saruman was never good during the Lord of the Rings storyline, only his power to do evil decreased steadily and was finally extinguished. Gandalf actually died and was clothed anew in a body unlike his old one (they didn't recognize him at first, even while conversing with him.) Also he changed on the inside as well. He became his eternal self always. It's as though the veil that hid the remembrance of the istari when they were clothed in bodies was removed from his after he vanquished the balrog.
Maybe I should write the stories of the two blue wizards. They had vitally important work going on in the Third Age which was not shown to Tolkien.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pippin may not undergo the greatest transformation, but his was definitely the one I noticed most and liked best the way it was written. He grows up quite dramatically through the trilogy.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still go with Samwise. He went from simple minded gardener to this heroic warrior and eventually to the first man in Hobbiton.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure there is a graduate thesis in the idea that those who do not change die in LotR.
Elves pass on. Dwarves fade out. Ents disappear.
Only humans have the potential to grow and change, so they continue.
Sarumon and Wormtongue can not accept their change in station so continue to do evil until with almost relief, they are destroyed.
Theoden changes from what Wormtongue had whithered him down to, yet even he dies. Perhaps he was not able to change enough, being too defensive in the war against evil.
Borimor's father, who's name I cannot remember, likewise can not change with the coming of the king. So he dies horribly.
Sauron and Gandalf both change during their histories, and hence both become the most powerful beings of their time. Yet Sauron can change no further so perishes. Gandalf has reaced the pinnacle of his ability to change, so passes on.
Gollum can not change past what the ring has done to him. Neither can Bilbo, though the ring changed him even less.
Frodo is caught in the loop of the ring, not able to change beyond the time at Weathertop. So he too must pass on.
Its as if the ring halts changes that it doesn't create. Those that do not change die. Isildur could not be anything once he was the warrior king who defeated Sauron, so he dies.
Oh, there are about 20,000 holes in this theory, but its fun to play with.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saruman WAS good when he first came to middle earth wasn't he? I know he became evil later on, Radagast taught him how to commune with and control animals, so on and so forth, but he did help destroy Dol Goldur and kick out the Necromancer (Sauron), and the white council wouldn't have been able to do it without him.
I still consider that the most dramatic change. Though Denethor changes pretty dramatically too. He was once a great and good king of Gondor, but his mind was poisoned by the death of his wife and by the influence of Sauron through his Palantir.
I suppose it depends on what kind of change you mean. I consider these to be the largest scale changes, but I don't think they are the best or most notable changes. The Hobbits in my opinion don't really change, so much as they discover something they had in them all along. They always had courage and heroism, but never the chance to display them.
Theoden changed a few times, but that was due to an outside influence, the warped mind twistings of Saruman, and the help of Gandalf that brought him back, so I don't count him.
For substantive meaningful change, I like the Gimli/Legolas relationship. Both came into the fellowship greatly distrusting each other, and arguable left it the second most tightknit friends after Frodo and Samwise.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, Saruman seemed good when we first heard of him, as head of the White Council, but already he had turned evil by then, seeking his own gain.
It's true that when he came from the West he was good. Istari, when they were clothed in bodies to allow them to treat on equal terms with men and elves, also had a veil cast over their memory, and could therefore forget their mission and fall into error and evil as Saruman did.
Gandalf's veil seemed to be removed after he died and came back. He said "Olorin I was called in my youth in the West" to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. That was his name in the Undying Lands before he was embodied and sent to Middle Earth at the start of the third age. Presumably he would not have remembered that beforehand.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Denethor was never king, and in the books Aragorn had PLENTY of doubts bout his destiny. He was not sure he should even go back to Gondor, adn fights against taking him rightful place as King at first.
He was aware of his ancestory, but that didn't make him King in Gondor, not in and of itself. He accepts Elronds challange to win the hand or Arwen, but that doesn't make is transformation any less.
posted
Tatiana, I thought Gandalf mentione his name Olorin to Faramir when he visited Gondor when he was young, which would have been before his transformation..or am I remembering incorrectly?
Regarding Aragorn, kwea, I guess I never got the sense he had doubts about his destiny. MAybe he had doubts that he could do it, but he didn't doubt that he must try. I also thought he didn't take his place as King right away because they were in the middle of a war with Sauron and he didn't want to cause any distractions at such a time.
Posts: 239 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beren One Hand: One of my favorite moments in the book is when Strider told the hobbits that he concealed his name because, sometimes, even a ranger likes the prima facie trust of strangers. While that is not exactly a weakness, I find that deeply humanizing and endearing.
Hmmmm. Rather revealing, if you ask me . . . Posts: 6 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the biggest problems that some early critics had with Lord of the Rings is that none of the characters seem to change or grow in any real way, at first glance anyway. I've never gone along with that. For me the change that is the most profound is the deepening of Frodo, the 'grandeur' of soul that he takes on, revealed especially after the return to the Shire. Many of the changes pointed out by others take place outside the scope of the book e.g. Denethor, Saruman). Sam changes profoundly as well, as pointed out by someone already, with the other hobbits going through their own growth too. I don't think you can expect to see changes in the older more stable races (Elves, Dwarves), their characters are so tied up in their racial characteristics, and their story is secondary. Tolkien wasn't about character development anyway, which is why Jackson felt the need to impose some in the movies, he was more about the grandeur and mythological sweep of the world he created. IMHO, anyway...
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, I only can recall Faramir ever calling him Mithrandir, which is his elvish name, meaning grey wanderer. I only found out that Olorin was actually his name in Valimar before he was embodied and sent here by reading incidental writings about the Istari in Unfinished Tales and Book of Lost Tales. I'd love to know about it if that name is mentioned anywhere else in the trilogy besides that one scene when he meets Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli in Fangorn Forest. I just reread it (for the umpteenth time) and if it is, I don't recall it.
Minute details about the history and characters of Middle Earth are endlessly fascinating to me. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think in LOTR the contrasts between the different characters are more important than the archs of individual characters. Aragorn vs. Boromir, Boromir vs. Faramir, Gandalf vs. Saruman, Sam vs. Gollum, Gollum vs. Frodo, and so on.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sartorius, you make a good point about the contrasts between the characters.
Tatiana, the quote you mention is from Faramir, in The Window on the West, not from the scene with Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas, in that scene he just seems to suddenly remember that Gandalf was his name. I do believe that you are right that it is the only place it is mentioned... Perhaps I'll have to re-read he trilogy, just to be sure! Posts: 239 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Beren - I am, per MD orders, resting. And when I tire of that, I am given permission to find another spot to rest in. So forth, and so on . . . apparently, I overdid in the early stages of pnuemonia recovery.
I wonder if he considers sitting in a movie theater resting . . . (grin)
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
And if we consider The Silmarillion too I'd say Sauron. He goes from a good creator under Aule to Morgoth Reborn.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering one of the major themes of the entire trilogy (not that it really was a trilogy as it was written) is the redemption of the kingdoms of man by reinstating the rightful King in Gondor, I don't think it is even a little bit nitpicky.
After all, the third books isn't called "return of the Steward", is it?
See, I always saw a great reluctance in Aragorn when it came to Gondor, almost like he was avoiding it. That is why I feel he progressed so far, from a homeless wandering ranger to the King of Gondor, resplendent in his glory.
He was leader of the Dundiean, but while they had a noble history they didn't have much as far as material possessions, nor were they widely respected. . . quite the contrary, as evidenced by Strider's reception in Bree.
So I feel he changed quite a bit, as did his station in life, becoming one of the most widely respected leaders of all of Middle-Earth, perhaps of all time.
posted
Did Frodo really change though? He suffered a lot, and came out perhaps somewhat wiser. But he basically stayed the same, only with newly developled parts of his personality that were always there to begin with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the books make clear that all the hobbits change dramatically. That's one of the points of Scouring of the Shire.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, Sam seems to be the only one in the whole story who remains "human," or able to continue changing and able to continue dealing with "human" issues. Everyone else kind of recedes into heroic two dimensionality by the end and can no longer be bothered with change. They make choices that lock them into a mythic unchanging eternalness. Even Merry and Pippen reach this point.
I say Sam is the only one who really can change and continue to change. Everyone else is doomed to that transcendent heroic end.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That is why I feel he progressed so far, from a homeless wandering ranger to the King of Gondor, resplendent in his glory.
He was leader of the Dundiean, but while they had a noble history they didn't have much as far as material possessions, nor were they widely respected. . . quite the contrary, as evidenced by Strider's reception in Bree.
So I feel he changed quite a bit, as did his station in life, becoming one of the most widely respected leaders of all of Middle-Earth, perhaps of all time.
Kwea
A change in circumstances I don't think is the kind of change under discussion though. It's more a development of person, a deepening of character (in a positive sense), or a revealing to self of strengths and capabilities previously unknown. From that view, there's no doubt that the biggest transformation took place in the hobbits, especially Frodo and Sam. Frodo develops a serenity and depth he never had before, and Sam becomes, as someone pointed out earlier the 'first man of Hobbiton'. I can't remember any real doubts Aragorn has about his destiny. His concerns about going to Gondor are only doubts about what was best to do in the particular circumstances at the end of Fellowship, not about his ultimate responsibility, which he had been groomed for all his life. He carried Elendil's sword with him, and never hesitated to display it, and proclaim his ownership of it. No doubts there.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Did Frodo really change though? He suffered a lot, and came out perhaps somewhat wiser. But he basically stayed the same, only with newly developled parts of his personality that were always there to begin with.
He started out as a carefree hobbit whose biggest worries were the Sackville Baggins making off with the good silver. He may have had some desire for Bilbo-like adventures, but only in the way most of us want to climb Mt. Everest: reading about it is better. All he wanted was to live his life in the Shire. He wanted this so badly that when the Shire was threatened he was willing to take great personal risk in order to save it.
At the end of the books the Shire is safe and all is well, but he cannot stay. His spirit was too severely damaged for the Shire to heal him, so he sailed for the Havens, leaving behind his beloved home and beloved friends. I think this sort of change is deeper than simple developements of already established personality.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to reread the books, first of all. He went for how many years without even asking for Narsil to be reforged? He went to Gondor as a soldier, and then left, without ever trying for glory or to regain his rightful place.
I saw a completely different Aragorn then you did, obviously. . .which means there is no "of course" about anything in this discussion.
I wasn't talking about just a change in circumstance, I was talking about one of the greatest rulers in the history of Middle-Earth coming from almost complete obscurity to not only regain his rightful throne, but to motivate a whole race, lifting them up so that they almost regained the glory of old.
I do think that a very good claim could be made for the hobbits as well, particularly in the books. The whole point of the book was the events in The Scouring of the Shire, according to Tolkien himself, because it shows how much they have changed, and how competent they were at dealing with trouble and setting things right.
posted
i would personally say Boromir goes through the most change. He goes from mighty haughty warlord, to slave to a piece of jewelry, albeight some nice ultimate power jewelry, and then to self sacrificing hero.
Though of course, Sauron also goes through some pretty big changes. he goes from soon to be ruler of the earth, to little pile of ashes and a big ol fireball.
posted
That still sounds like a change in circumstances to me, sorry. His decision to take his place on the throne wasn't motivated through any character development/growth obvious in the book. From the first time we meet him, Aragorn declares himself. Yes, he served in Denethor's armies, as well as with the Rohirrim, but there's nothing to indicate that his failure to claim the throne then was the result of anything other than the circumstances/conditions not being right. Aragorn's ability to motivate his people to regain their old glory was as a result of the personal qualities he already had, not any new strengths we see developing throughout the book.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He started out as a carefree hobbit whose biggest worries were the Sackville Baggins making off with the good silver. He may have had some desire for Bilbo-like adventures, but only in the way most of us want to climb Mt. Everest: reading about it is better. All he wanted was to live his life in the Shire. He wanted this so badly that when the Shire was threatened he was willing to take great personal risk in order to save it."
I don't agree with that. The book specifically says that Frodo is more like Bilbo than the other Hobbits, and it's part of what makes all the Hobbits in the Shire regard him as weird and odd, becuase he is so much like his uncle. If he wasn't, Gandalf never would have entrusted the mission to him to begin with.
I do think the four main Hobbits changed, somewhat, but certainly not the most in the book.
Another thought, what about Thorin? He went from being a prick who really only cared about himself and his gold, as most Dwarves go, to being a wiser, more caring Dwarf who realized there was more to the world than money. He died shortly after making his realization, but with Bilbo's help, and the help of King Bard and Thranduil he realized that making friends with other cultures was better for him and his people than being greedy and exclusive.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Having a good three day weekend Shan?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
