quote:but I'd argue that the climax encompasses the entire arc from the point where Harry enters the woods through Voldemort's defeat.
I actually did feel all the tension pretty much gone after Harry's talk with fake? Dumbledore. The rest just felt like mop up to me.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The climax is the point of highest tension in the story, or the point where the critical action resolving the central conflict takes place.
Exactly.
And in the LoTR, that point happens at the edge of mount doom. That is the point of maximum tension in the story. That is the point when all the heros of the story are united in massive crisis. And at the moment when Frodo stands on the edge of the volcano and we think its over, Frodo succumbs to the rings power and puts it on. That is the peak of the books tension.
Quite honestly, there was absolutely no tension in the scouring of the shire. It came as a completely surprise, out of left field after what seemed a complete story. So there was no build up of tension and even when it is revealed, there isn't any real tension. After defeating Sauron, was there ever even the slightest doubt that our heroes would fail to restore the shire? Was there a point, like the point at the edge of mount doom, when there was reason doubt that they would succeed? You are going to have to explain it to me if you even want me to seriously consider it. Where is the point in the scouring of the shire where the tension peaks?
LoTR follows the archetype of a classic quest tale, like Jason and the Argonauts. And that classic quest tale involves the hero pursuing an impossible quest, achieving the impossible and then returning home to face one more trial.
Its sort of silly to argue about. A story that covers three novels and is able to capture the imagination of millions, certainly has more than one point.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I've long felt that the Scouring of the Shire is not just the most important part of the trilogy, it is the only reason for the trilogy to exist, and that the movies are absolute trash because they fail to include it.
I don't see how you can call the middle of RotK the climax. The ring going into the fire was anything but climactic, since it was clear from the moment the goal is mentioned that the goal will, eventually, be accomplished.
Clear to a modern reader, sure. Clear to everyone who read the series when Tolkien wrote it? That's speculative.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: you'll have to point to where I said the scouring was the climax of the story, as I looked back over my posts and can't seem to find it, or even a place where I suggested it.
quote:And in the LoTR, that point happens at the edge of mount doom. That is the point of maximum tension in the story. That is the point when all the heros of the story are united in massive crisis. And at the moment when Frodo stands on the edge of the volcano and we think its over, Frodo succumbs to the rings power and puts it on. That is the peak of the books tension.
Yes, it is, but that tension has nothing to do with whether or not the ring goes into the fire. That the ring will go into the fire is a foregone conclusion.
twinky: given that no one in the world today is someone who read the series when Tolkien wrote it, I'm not sure how that's relevant.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's relevant because earlier the point was made that the Scouring of the Shire was the whole point of the story. We are contest that point because, among other things, the whole rest of the story would not have seemed nearly as cliché at the time it was written.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, it is, but that tension has nothing to do with whether or not the ring goes into the fire. That the ring will go into the fire is a foregone conclusion.
No more so than in any quest story. It was equally as much a foregone conclusion that our Heros would survive. As I mentioned before, you are arguing two different things. You are arguing that because the author was unable to get you to doubt whether or not the quest would succeed, successful completion of the quest was not the climax of the story. The fact that you couldn't suspend your disbelieve has nothing to do with where the climax of the book lies.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, the LotR book without the Scouring of the Shire would be like Ender's Game without the last chapter where Ender writes and publishes Speaker for the Dead. It's the Hero's Return, where he returns and blesses the world with the boons he's acquired on his adventure. Surely, the Ring being destroyed is a climax, but the story continues, because as much as it is about the Ring, it is also about the changes that occur in these four hobbits. Much like the Hobbit was about the changes in Bilbo, in addition to the slaying of Smaug.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth noting that the original Ender's Game didn't HAVE him writing as Speaker for the Dead. That said, I can easily see why the Scouring was important and even integral to the story, but I cannot see how it was THE point of the story or how the ring's end wasn't the climax by any useful definition of the word climax. (I realize that's not Sean's point, but it's the reason we're having an argument in the first place).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: twinky: given that no one in the world today is someone who read the series when Tolkien wrote it, I'm not sure how that's relevant.
Wasn't it written in the 40s, published in early 50s. So, while folks who first read it when he wrote it are old, I can't believe there is no one alive who read it at first publication. Since I don't know who the editors and who all he he reading while he wrote it, it is possible no one who read prior to publication is still alive (if by read it when he wrote it you are going for a very literal meaning), but it is possible one of those folk are still around, though that would take some research to determine.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frodo (and Sam) didn't set out to destroy the ring or to save the world from Sauron. They set out to save the Shire. To protect "home". That task wasn't finished when the ring was destroyed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It was equally as much a foregone conclusion that our Heros would survive.
Given how many heroes die, are adversely affected or otherwise harmed by the quest for the Ring, I think it's pretty obvious that the heroes surviving is not a forgone conclusion.
quote:As I mentioned before, you are arguing two different things. You are arguing that because the author was unable to get you to doubt whether or not the quest would succeed, successful completion of the quest was not the climax of the story.[/qb]
How is this two different things? You've mentioned one.
quote:The fact that you couldn't suspend your disbelieve has nothing to do with where the climax of the book lies.
It has everything to do with it. Tolkien did not really attempt to convince the reader that the quest had a chance of failure; thus, the success of the quest is not supposed to be a point of tension.
My ability to suspend disbelief has nothing to do with it, since Tolkien wasn't asking me to do any suspending in that regard.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Wasn't it written in the 40s, published in early 50s. So, while folks who first read it when he wrote it are old, I can't believe there is no one alive who read it at first publication. Since I don't know who the editors and who all he he reading while he wrote it, it is possible no one who read prior to publication is still alive (if by read it when he wrote it you are going for a very literal meaning), but it is possible one of those folk are still around, though that would take some research to determine.
I was recalling, erroneously, that it was much earlier than that. You're right, though, which makes me question the validity of the idea that Tolkien played as formative role in the establishment of fantasy genre norms as people seem to believe.
People seem to be convinced that the story should be interpreted differently because of when it was published. I've yet to hear any reasons why, though.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Frodo (and Sam) didn't set out to destroy the ring or to save the world from Sauron. They set out to save the Shire. To protect "home". That task wasn't finished when the ring was destroyed.
I don't think they really understood that the shire was at threat. Up until their returned, they thought of the shire as a place that was safe and apart from the rest of the world. I'll have to look at the book and see, but my memory is that the scouring of the shire isn't something that is foreshadowed in any significant way. Aside from the barrels of tobacco at Isengard, it really isn't even hinted at. And even when Merry and Pippin find the tobacco at Isengard, it doesn't seem to raise any questions about whether the shire is safe. That seems in their mind to be a foregone conclusion. I think that is significant. The hobbits don't set out on their quest to save the shire. They see themselves as giving up the shire to serve a greater good, but in the end it is evident that serving that greater good was essential to the shire.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was foreshadowed when Sam looked into Galadriel's mirror; and he was tempted to turn back.
At the end, Frodo says to Sam, "We set out to save the Shire, Sam and it has been saved..."
Certainly, all the other hobbits who lived in the Shire thought that it was a land apart from the rest of the world.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: And even when Merry and Pippin find the tobacco at Isengard, it doesn't seem to raise any questions about whether the shire is safe. That seems in their mind to be a foregone conclusion. I think that is significant.
Also, it should be stressed here that you're talking only about Merry and Pippin. I see these two as being halfway between Sam and Frodo, who knew what was going on, and the hobbits of the Shire, who were blissfully ignorant. It takes Merry and Pippin (especially Pippin) much longer to catch on to how serious this is. These two did not set out to do anything other than support Frodo - and they were only allowed to go because they couldn't be stopped. Sam and Frodo, who were both present at the Council of Elrond, were very clear on how serious the danger was to the Shire, as well as the rest of the world.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Council of Elrond wasn't until after Frodo and Sam set out. They left the Shire in the first place because the Shire was in danger. They got caught up in something bigger, but I believe it is their love of home and need to protect it that drives them. They are not adventurers out for glory as in grail quests stories, but are compelled by a threat. That threat is not resolved until the Shire is safe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
erosomniac, are you basing your statements on what Tolkien was trying to do based on the books' effect on you, or is there a more authoritative source for your assertions? You seem to be very sure of what he was intending.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, LotR isn't fundamentally a quest story; it's a milieu story. The whole business with the One Ring is just a device used to take the reader all around Middle Earth at a time of transition. The films get this exactly backward.
Personally, I want Peter Jackson to give an aspiring documentarian access to his miles of footage so he or she can create the film version I want to see, which would be something along the lines of Ken Burns's Middle Earth. Show us the land. Don't have any action-packed battle scenes, just survivors and historians talking about them as the camera pans over an artist's depiction. Include all the poetry, either front and center, or as part of the soundtrack. In short, put the focus on Middle Earth, and use the Ring as a means of showing part of it.
...granted, only a handful of people would watch the result, but I'd be one of them.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People seem to be convinced that the story should be interpreted differently because of when it was published. I've yet to hear any reasons why, though.
Today we see it as a classic archetype, the Dark Lord who embodies all evil challenged by an unlikely hero armed only with his own virtue. Its become of a cliche'. Its Harry Potter, Star Wars and a hundred other stories. But LoTR is the original source of that archetype. We think of it as a classic tale, but it isn't. Its only half a century old. You don't find it in Greek Epics or Shakespearean plays. Tolkein originated it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Council of Elrond wasn't until after Frodo and Sam set out. They left the Shire in the first place because the Shire was in danger.
I would say they didn't set out to save the Shire until Frodo said, "I will take the ring, though I do not know the way" at the Council. When they left the Shire, they were only seeking to take the ring to Rivendell then go back.
ETA:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They left the Shire in the first place because the Shire was in danger.
No, they left the Shire in the first place because Frodo was in danger.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Council of Elrond wasn't until after Frodo and Sam set out. They left the Shire in the first place because the Shire was in danger. They got caught up in something bigger, but I believe it is their love of home and need to protect it that drives them. They are not adventurers out for glory as in grail quests stories, but are compelled by a threat. That threat is not resolved until the Shire is safe.
No they left the shire because the ring was no longer safe in the shire and there was very much a sense removing the ring from the shire was all that was needed to protect the shire.. From the moment Gandalf revealed that it was the Lord of the Ring, the prime objective was to keep the ring out of Sauron's hands. They didn't have a clear plan on how they were going to do that until the Council of Elrond, but it was the primary goal from the start.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, they left the Shire in the first place because Frodo was in danger.
No, the book is very clear. They left the shire because the ring is no longer safe in the shire and its presence in the shire will brings danger. But the very clear assumption is that once the ring is out of the shire, the shire will be safe. Even in Sam's vision in Galadriel's mirror, it is strongly implied that the destruction of the shire will not come to pass as long as the quest to destroy the ring is successful. Galadriel says "Remember that the mirror shows many things, and not all have come to pass. Some never come to be, unless those that behold the visions turn aside from their path to prevent them."
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The primary goal of Gandalf, but not of Frodo.
"In the meanwhile it seems that I am a danger, a danger to all that live near me. I cannot keep the Ring and stay here. I ought to leave Bag End, leave the Shire, leave everything and go away...
I should like to save the Shire, if I could...I feel that as long as the Shire lies behind, safe and comfortable, I shall find wandering more bearable; I shall know that somewhere there is a firm foothold, even if my feet cannot stand there again...
But this would mean exile, a flight from danger into danger, drawing it after me. And I suppose I must go alone, if I am to do that and save the Shire."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: The thing is, LotR isn't fundamentally a quest story; it's a milieu story. The whole business with the One Ring is just a device used to take the reader all around Middle Earth at a time of transition. The films get this exactly backward.
Personally, I want Peter Jackson to give an aspiring documentarian access to his miles of footage so he or she can create the film version I want to see, which would be something along the lines of Ken Burns's Middle Earth. Show us the land. Don't have any action-packed battle scenes, just survivors and historians talking about them as the camera pans over an artist's depiction. Include all the poetry, either front and center, or as part of the soundtrack. In short, put the focus on Middle Earth, and use the Ring as a means of showing part of it.
...granted, only a handful of people would watch the result, but I'd be one of them.
Did you watch the hours and hours of special features on the extended edition DVD sets? Your description of a Ken Burns style documentary sounds remarkably like how these 'making of' features turned out, though it wasn't the intent. Of course, when watching these, one has to put up with the usual amount of talk about director vision and inspiration. However, there was so much put into the props, costumes, and set design, that when the artists, actors, and directors talk about the making of the movie, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine them as participants in the battle of Helm's Deep, for instance.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Today we see it as a classic archetype, the Dark Lord who embodies all evil challenged by an unlikely hero armed only with his own virtue. Its become of a cliche'. Its Harry Potter, Star Wars and a hundred other stories. But LoTR is the original source of that archetype. We think of it as a classic tale, but it isn't. Its only half a century old. You don't find it in Greek Epics or Shakespearean plays. Tolkein originated it.
I hope you don't think I'm nitpicking (I myself despise being nitpicked) but I felt the need to point out that what Tolkien did was bring back the old "unlikely hero clothed only in his virtue challenges the mighty evil dragon" archetype. More specifically, the LotR and the Hobbit seem to be a new perspective of Beowulf, which was Tolkien's favorite poem. Arguably, this speech was the single most important moment in his academic career. What was once an obscure Anglo-Saxon poem is now one of the most widely read and revered epic poems of all time, thanks to his influence.
But it's a mistake to think he simply revived the role of dragon slayer and brought it into the 20th century, he actually subverted it. Because Frodo, the scrappy hero, after enduring much hardship and privation and the loss of all his companions except his faithful squire, finally breaks through into the den of the dragon... and he fails.
I don't know how erosomniac forsaw this - admittedly I was only 10 years old when I read it - but this is still one of the most profoundly shocking things I've ever read. I had put my trust in the hero, hoping, believing, knowing his good character and pure heart would save the day. And he failed. He was corrupted, totally submitted to the will of the ring and his thirst for power. In the end, it wasn't his heroics or good deeds or pure heart that slew the dragon, it was his pity for a wretched creature. His simple kindness to Gollum throughout the series was the deciding factor.
And out of all the countless high fantasy books I've read that have been written since LotR, I haven't found a single one that realises that fact. They revert back to the old dragon slaying formula, none of them quite grasp the eucatastrophe (to use Tolkien's word for it) and what it means, none of them have a hero who, in the final moment of truth, utterly fails.
For me, anyway, that was the climax of the book, and the most important lesson I took from it. However, I know it's an enormous book, and so complex and multifaceted that every person will have his own view on what was important, different things will stand out. I find bickering about it a little silly - why not share our experiences of it and broaden our enjoyment of the book instead of narrowing it down to one specific thing?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I had put my trust in the hero, hoping, believing, knowing his good character and pure heart would save the day. And he failed. He was corrupted, totally submitted to the will of the ring and his thirst for power. In the end, it wasn't his heroics or good deeds or pure heart that slew the dragon, it was his pity for a wretched creature. His simple kindness to Gollum throughout the series was the deciding factor.
I have two thoughts about this.
1. Frodo made it all the way there, risking his life all the way. The fact that he had a (possibly temporary) change of heart at the last moment, right at the brink, is a relatively small point. Look how many times he risked his life to get there. That stuff counts for something.
2. It's not Frodo specifically that is the hero, so much as it's ALL the hobbits, even Gollum, if you want to call him a hobbit. Gollum wasn't perfect, but he never tried to take over the world. Gollum, relative to a human, dwarf, elf, or even Gandalf, was only mildly corruptible. It took Sam, Frodo, AND Gollum to get the ring to Mount Doom. They all played a role. OSC says that Sam is the real hero. I think the story here might be simply the fact that the hobbits are basically very humble and simple, in a "morality tale" sense. It's almost like Tolkien was writing a moral lesson in the value of humility, along with his epic.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You nailed it - that is why I belive this is MORE than a milieu story although certainly the milieu is very much a big part of the book. Tolkien was creating a mythology, so he lovingly crafted the world, the languages, the songs and poems, the creation story, etc. but it is also more than that. It is an epic tale of good vs evil and at the heart of it is this fascinating look into human nature and the fact that power corrupts and no one is immune from its influence. Milton was another influence on Tolkien, as well - let's not forget that.
The idea that defeating great evil demands a high price of the hero is another thing that I love about LOTR. Destroying the ring claims Frodo's life - he cannot return to the life he loved - the price was too high. There should be a high price to pay, a high cost. Beowulf paid with his life, as well - granted he goes to fight the dragon knowing his life is nearing its end. But he still has a sense of regret and loss there at the end. We see some of that in Frodo as he leaves Middle Earth. We also see it in Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: [I have two thoughts about this.
1. Frodo made it all the way there, risking his life all the way. The fact that he had a (possibly temporary) change of heart at the last moment, right at the brink, is a relatively small point. Look how many times he risked his life to get there. That stuff counts for something.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily blaming Frodo his failure. I don't think anyone, man or hobbit could've resisted that temptation in that moment. I thought he was a very good and noble hobbit, but I have to disagree with you on one point: it counted for nothing. Or rather, the only thing that really counted how he treated "the least of these" among his companions. Sure he may have sacrificed so much, and gotten right to the brink - but his small change of heart would've doomed Middle Earth to another age of darkness. Once he made that choice, once he gave the ring complete control, there was no going back until either he or the ring were destroyed. It's not like 15 minutes after he proclaims himself the new dark lord he says "hmmm, well this wasn't as fun as I supposed it would be, Sam." and casually tosses the ring into the fire. I doubt Frodo as we know him would've even existed after 15 minutes.
quote:2. It's not Frodo specifically that is the hero, so much as it's ALL the hobbits, even Gollum, if you want to call him a hobbit. Gollum wasn't perfect, but he never tried to take over the world. Gollum, relative to a human, dwarf, elf, or even Gandalf, was only mildly corruptible.
I meant hero is the traditional sense. Since LotR is in many ways a subversion of these medieval heros, obviously Frodo (and Sam) would be as well. Possibly Tolkien also saw Wiglaf as the real hero of the last part of Beowulf? After all, Beowulf starts out doing his mighty deeds for honor and valor, and finally, because it's his duty as king. (or ring bearer) But Wiglaf does his part out of love for Beowulf.
quote:It took Sam, Frodo, AND Gollum to get the ring to Mount Doom. They all played a role. OSC says that Sam is the real hero.
As does Tolkien.
quote:I think the story here might be simply the fact that the hobbits are basically very humble and simple, in a "morality tale" sense. It's almost like Tolkien was writing a moral lesson in the value of humility, along with his epic.
I certainly believe that's true as well. As I said earlier, I don't think you can see LotR as just "one thing" and possibly hope to get more than a fragment of it's true meaning. I've also thought of it as a study into the nature of power at it's rawest level. (the ring *is* power, in the most primal form Tolkien could put into a fantasy setting) Perhaps it could be best described as an parable of of I Corinthians 25-30? Consider:
quote:
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Scouring of the Shire is also vital to the story Tolkien was telling because of the influence of WWI and the dramatic changes that England underwent during and after the war. Class shifts, the increasing industrialization of the countryside - and soldiers who came home but didn't really come home.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Once he made that choice, once he gave the ring complete control, there was no going back until either he or the ring were destroyed. It's not like 15 minutes after he proclaims himself the new dark lord he says "hmmm, well this wasn't as fun as I supposed it would be, Sam." and casually tosses the ring into the fire. I doubt Frodo as we know him would've even existed after 15 minutes."
I'm not so sure about that bolded portion. You may be right. My mind is still open on that subject.
I sometimes wonder if C.S. Lewis's thoughts on humility might have influenced Tolkien. I am thinking of how the mice and Lucy were the first creatures to be with Aslan after he was sacrificed by the White Witch. Also, I might be thinking of Reepicheep.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Hobbits are an insular people, believing the world is the Shire.
One Hobbit leaves the shire for the outside world, embraces it, enriches it and the shire, but also brings back something that is dangerous to the shire--the ring.
Another Hobbit recognizes that danger and leaves the shire with this danger in order to save that Shire. Three friends join him. Two discovers a reason to love things outside the shire. Merry falls in love with Rohan. Pippin falls in love with Gondor. And by using what they have learned and what they have gained outside the shire, in the scouring of the shire they are able to save it.
Sam, of all the heroes, holds the shire deepest in his heart. Despite the temptations of the ring, the wonders of Galadriel and even despite fulfilling his dreams of meeting elves and oliphants, Sam retains the Shire in his heart the deepest. This is what allows him to become the greatest Sheriff in shire history.
Bilbo falls in love with the world outside of the Shire. He eventually rejects the shire as petty and ignorant. This allows him to leave this world for the rarefied atmosphere of Elrond's home and eventually the lands over the sea. This is also what allows Bilbo to accidentally bring that which threatens to destroy the shire into the shire.
Frodo's love for the shire is not as deep as Sam's. While he cares for it, he has been influenced by Bilbo into seeing its pettiness. Frodo discovers that there is worse outside the shire than the minor problems to be found inside it. He also recognizes that just by his leaving the Shire he has been contaminated with those evils. He chooses exile to save the Shire.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes, I realize that Sam is the best of the hobbits. However, let's not forget that Gollum
1. Carried the ring for, what, 500 years? And managed to not try to take over the world.
2. Was also the only person/creature who could (and let's remember, did) guide Sam and Frodo through the swamps and into Mordor. Yes, there was that whole unfortunate business with the spider, but still...Gollum was NOT trying to take over the world.
I still say it's all the hobbits, including Gollum, that teach the moral lesson. You know, maybe.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Gollum was capable of taking over the world. He was certainly not the bearer the ring would have chosen. The ring twisted and corrupted, but I don't think it necessarily changes the nature of who bears it...it just makes you a worst version of yourself, if that makes sense.
Gollum was a murderer and completely self-absorbed...his selfishness led him to covet the ring rather than want to use it to conquer - he just hoarded it and hid it away from the world.
Isildur's pride led him to believe he could subvert the ring to his own will - Denethor and Boromir fell into the same trap. But Gollum was a coward...ring or no ring he would never even consider trying to take over the world.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, fine, but, who would you rather give the ring to, if you had no choice? Gollum, or Boromir (or Denethor, or various others)?
My point being, a corrupted Smeagol is far less worrisome than a corrupted king, or maybe wizard. Gollum's faults were small to begin with, so the ring could not make him into something awful on a grand scale.
I guess what I'm saying is, humility hedges your bets. That's the one virtue that makes your mistakes smaller simply by having it.
Really, it's a very Taoist/Zen virtue. Here's a little Chinese parable:
"The Emperor hears of a wise sage who lives in the woods. Everyone speaks of his wisdom and virtue. The Emperor sends his most trusted envoy to bring the sage to court to give the Emperor daily advice on matters of state. The envoy finds the sage in the woods, gathering food. The envoy says, "The emperor wishes you to come live at court. He will feed and clothe you well, and give you plenty of spending money, in return for advice." The sage replies "In the halls of the Emperor there is an enormous, beautiful turtle shell, encrusted with precious jewels. Once that turtle played in the mud, happily. If you were that turtle, where would you rather be, in the Emperor's hall, or splashing in the mud?" The envoy realized the sage was right, and returned to the Emperor without the sage.
This is what I mean. Who would you rather give the ring to, that sage, who would accept it only grudgingly, or the Emperor?
Or, more to the point, who would you rather be?
I definitely agree that Sam is the real hero. I think Tolkien may have, as well, been quietly pointing out Gollum, Frodo, and hobbits generally as usefully humble. But, you know, whatever.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope you don't think I'm nitpicking (I myself despise being nitpicked) but I felt the need to point out that what Tolkien did was bring back the old "unlikely hero clothed only in his virtue challenges the mighty evil dragon" archetype. More specifically, the LotR and the Hobbit seem to be a new perspective of Beowulf, which was Tolkien's favorite poem. Arguably, this speech was the single most important moment in his academic career. What was once an obscure Anglo-Saxon poem is now one of the most widely read and revered epic poems of all time, thanks to his influence.
I'm sorry but while LoTR in many respects fits the archetype of the epic poem, the quest story, Beowulf does not fit the new archetype inspired by LoTR. Beowulf is not an unlikely hero like Frodo. Beowulf is a classical hero, strong, brave, virtuous, and aristocratic. Grendel isn't ultimate evil threatening the entire world.
The thing that makes LoTR such an important work is that it bridges the classic world with the modern. It is in many ways a classical heros quest, but the changes it makes to that classic tale inspire an modern epic tradition that is fundamentally different from the old.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I definitely agree that Sam is the real hero.
That is an assessment that ignores a very very important fact. The quest only succeeds because of Frodo's compassion for Gollum, and that is a choice that Sam would not have made.
Sam is certainly heroic, but to claim he is "the real hero" of the story is to fail to understand what made Frodo a true hero -- which is one of the central points of the book.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, except I haven't even mentioned Grendel. I'm not referring to Beowulf's exploits as a young man, I'm talking about his slaying of the dragon as an old man, with all his companions fled except Wiglaf. A dragon that, if not threatening the whole world, was certainly threatening his kingdom.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It still doesn't parallel the LoTR story. Beowulf as an old man, is king, a hero proven in battle. Frodo and the rest of the hobbits are just ordinary citizens from the smallest a weakest of peoples who have no credentials that would distinguish them.
And the difference between fighting a monster that threatens a village or kingdom, and fighting an ultimate evil that threatens the world is pretty central to the ethical changes demanded by the modern world.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that there is some precendent for the unlikely hero in fairy tales.
Yes, what there is not is a precedent for unlikely heros in great epics. I'm not suggesting that Tolkein created something out of whole clothe. One can definitely see many influence on the work. But Tolkein's innovations to the hero story are very important. Important enough to have inspired a whole new archetype. It is worth considering why.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think, there, we also have the influence of WWI.
Do you mean perhaps WWII?
No I think she meant WWI as Tolkien was a veteran of WWI.
In fact Tolkien made a comment regarding those who look for WWII in LOTR,
"One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but WWII is generally considered to be a stronger influence on his writing of the LoTR. He began the book in 1937 as a children's novel to parallel The Hobbit. WWII changed the direction of the novel.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I mean WWI. Tolkien served (briefly) in WWI. It was ugly, mechanized warfare, and the heroism of the working class foot soldiers made an impression on him.
ETA: Tolkien was in the trenches during the Battle of the Somme and it is easy to see that devastation - the gas, the mud and ash and rotting bodies - in Mordor.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It still doesn't parallel the LoTR story. Beowulf as an old man, is king, a hero proven in battle. Frodo and the rest of the hobbits are just ordinary citizens from the smallest a weakest of peoples who have no credentials that would distinguish them.
I didn't say it was a parallel story, just in the same genre.
Beowulf is an old man (at least 70, possibly near 80), not the sort of person you'd send to kill a dragon. The reason he goes, instead of sending a bunch of 20 year old heroes to do it, is because it's his duty as king to protect his land. He goes in expecting to die (and does, albeit moments after the dragon does), but does it anyway because it's his duty. I always thought that was a central theme to Beowulf - that a king would put his life in danger not for honor or glory or riches, but to protect his people. It's a very different notion of kingship than we have today - of a leader granted responsibility and authority, but kept safe in the background.
I digress, though. Please don't think I'm trying to downplay Tolkien's creativity or influence - he essentially invented the modern high fantasy - I'm just pointing out some of the building blocks of earlier epics Tolkien used to craft his own genre. You seem to think that means I think less of him, which isn't the case at all. LotR is one of my favorite books.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: OK, fine, but, who would you rather give the ring to, if you had no choice? Gollum, or Boromir (or Denethor, or various others)?
My point being, a corrupted Smeagol is far less worrisome than a corrupted king, or maybe wizard. Gollum's faults were small to begin with, so the ring could not make him into something awful on a grand scale.
I guess what I'm saying is, humility hedges your bets. That's the one virtue that makes your mistakes smaller simply by having it.
Really, it's a very Taoist/Zen virtue. Here's a little Chinese parable:
"The Emperor hears of a wise sage who lives in the woods. Everyone speaks of his wisdom and virtue. The Emperor sends his most trusted envoy to bring the sage to court to give the Emperor daily advice on matters of state. The envoy finds the sage in the woods, gathering food. The envoy says, "The emperor wishes you to come live at court. He will feed and clothe you well, and give you plenty of spending money, in return for advice." The sage replies "In the halls of the Emperor there is an enormous, beautiful turtle shell, encrusted with precious jewels. Once that turtle played in the mud, happily. If you were that turtle, where would you rather be, in the Emperor's hall, or splashing in the mud?" The envoy realized the sage was right, and returned to the Emperor without the sage.
This is what I mean. Who would you rather give the ring to, that sage, who would accept it only grudgingly, or the Emperor?
Or, more to the point, who would you rather be?
I definitely agree that Sam is the real hero. I think Tolkien may have, as well, been quietly pointing out Gollum, Frodo, and hobbits generally as usefully humble. But, you know, whatever.
I think we agree on the fact that the Ring corrupted, but did not have the tendency to change Gollum into anything other than a self-absorbed creature. But we cannot forget that the Ring is an embodiment of Sauron's personality as well and was doing what it could to get back to Sauron. It's efforts were foiled by Gollum's total self-absorption. It seems that it gave up, eventually, and simply abandoned Gollum as a lost cause and perhaps hoped that it would eventually be stumbled upon by a goblin. At the time the Ring slipped from Gollum's possession, it had no way of knowing (unless it possessed some measure of pre-cognition in addition to its already far-fetched normal cognition...) that Bilbo would chance upon the Ring. Again, however, the Ring was confounded by the nature of Bilbo's personality, and perhaps, on the nature of hobbits in general who are apparently not easily corruptible by their very nature. Yet it still was constantly working to find a way to get back home.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I digress, though. Please don't think I'm trying to downplay Tolkien's creativity or influence - he essentially invented the modern high fantasy - I'm just pointing out some of the building blocks of earlier epics Tolkien used to craft his own genre. You seem to think that means I think less of him, which isn't the case at all. LotR is one of my favorite books.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent. My original post on this issue was in response to a question of why people would have seen Tolkien differently when it was first published. To answer that question, it was necessary to focus on innovations in LoTR that have been very influential. In that context, I thought you were disputing the underlying point.
I'm happy to agree that Tolkien was strongly influenced by Beowulf and the classic epic quest in general. That simply wasn't relevant in answering the question of why LoTR would have been viewed differently in 1955 than it is today.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Quite honestly, there was absolutely no tension in the scouring of the shire. It came as a completely surprise, out of left field after what seemed a complete story. So there was no build up of tension and even when it is revealed, there isn't any real tension. After defeating Sauron, was there ever even the slightest doubt that our heroes would fail to restore the shire? Was there a point, like the point at the edge of mount doom, when there was reason doubt that they would succeed? You are going to have to explain it to me if you even want me to seriously consider it. Where is the point in the scouring of the shire where the tension peaks?
Bar none the scourge of the shire was my favorite part of any of the LoTR books. I personally feel like that it was the best possible way to show how the Hobbits changed thoughout the trilogy. Pippen and Merry were then some of the tallest hobbits in history, and Sam when it came down to it was able to prevail as a hero. If it were not for the scourge Sam would have never gotten to be seen as anything other than a loyal but short fused servant to Frodo. Instead he is able to show his true colors by saving the Shire.
If you can not guess, my favorite character is Sam.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm happy to agree that Tolkien was strongly influenced by Beowulf and the classic epic quest in general. That simply wasn't relevant in answering the question of why LoTR would have been viewed differently in 1955 than it is today.
Sorry, I should have told you I completely agreed with your argument against erosomniac about that issue. (if you notice, the rest of that post was dedicated to refuting his claim that the scene on Mt. Doom wasn't climatic) Nobody had written a significant epic fantasy for, well, several hundred years beforehand as far as I know, and the epics closest to Tolkien style were written over a thousand years ago. Clearly, it wasn't a commonly read genre. I didn't even think of my comment in terms of what you were discussing with erosomniac, it was just a little aside that came to me. Your posts make a lot more sense now that I have. Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
