The Fellowship of the Ring, Bk II, Chs 2-5 Narrative Choices

Going off our discussion in class, on how Tolkien’s choices were deliberate in creating his tale, and how even a slight change would alert the story completely and the impact of the scenes, I’m going to explore, once again, the choices filmmakers made in comparison to how the book was written. I find these differences very interesting as I grew up on the movies—my mother’s a huge Tolkien fan—and had never considered reading the books until this January. (Maybe slightly pondered it when I signed up for the class in November of last year, but it wasn’t really on my radar even then.)  

Specifically, what I want to look at is the drastic tonal difference regarding the Mines of Moria scene. In the book, Gandalf and Aragorn discuss the pros and cons of venturing through the mines in which Aragorn is against it, warning Gandalf it would be perilous for him (foreshadowing much), while Gandalf is all for it. Contrastingly, the filmmakers took Aragorn out of the equation completely, had Gandalf incredibly wary of going into the mines, as he had some sense of his fate there, and left the decision up to the ring bearer, Frodo.  

This pressure, placed on Frodo, to decide the fellowships' next course of action then places the blame of what happens in the mines on him, in a sense. Whereas when Gandalf made the decision, his fate fell on him only. This change compounds the grief Frodo feels at the loss of Gandalf as he also appears to feel a sense of guilt over the outcome too. He is more crushed by it than anyone else, while in the book, the grief seems equally dispersed amongst the group.  

This difference alters the way the audience perceives this scene as well as the events that follow. While the course that is followed is pretty much identical, the atmosphere is not the same.  

The Idea of Responsibility in the Fellowship

When I initially think about who holds the most responsibility in the original nine members of the Fellowship, my mind immediately goes to Frodo, since he has voluntarily taken it up himself to be the Ring Bearer. The weight of this responsibility and duty that Frodo feels is almost physically hindering to him since he must act selflessly in order to fulfill his quest. We see this when he decides to depart from the Fellowship to complete his journey to Mordor alone, despite him knowing the road holds inevitable danger and he is not quite sure of his path. 

However, his lonesome journey is foiled by another character in the Fellowship who also stays true to their promises and responsibilities: Samwise Gamgee. One of the most obvious characteristics of Sam is his undying devotion to his master. He takes it upon himself to ensure the safety of Frodo's wellbeing and it is because of this intense feeling of responsibility and love for Frodo that he chooses to leave the relative security of the Fellowship to go with Frodo to destroy the Ring. 

Besides these two Hobbits, another figure in the Fellowship that was recognized to hold a great deal of responsibility was Gandalf, as he was the one who was knowledgeable about the paths they should take and what danger may lie ahead of them. 

After he falls into the depths of Moria, that responsibility for the guidance of the Company is passed to Aragorn, who feels this burden of responsibility heavily. In the first chapter of The Two Towers, after Aragorn finds Boromir dead, he is distressed and holds himself accountable for the breaking of the Fellowship. Thus, it seems to me that these four characters (Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, and Aragorn) shoulder a great deal of responsibility and hold themselves accountable to their duties, making them admirable figures in the story. 

Alternate Ending Activity

I had a lot of fun with the alternate ending activity we did in class on Tuesday, I didn't share my version  in class so I wanted to post it here.  I had the scene where Gandalf falls from the crumbling bridge in Moria: 

But even as it fell, it swung its whip, and the throngs lashed and curled about the wizards knees, dragging him down to the brink. ”He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone”(331) but this is all hope for him was slipping away, Frodo yelled out ‘Gandalf wait!’ a little hobbit flung himself toward the wizard.   without second thought, Sam went with him grabbing Frodo’s feet as Frodo grabbed Gandalf’s arms.  There size for the best of them though, and all three were now slipping. ‘what shall we do?’ cried Frodo in a panic.  Just then,  Aragorn and Boromir crawled along the crumbling bridge and grabbed hold of their feet. ‘With all your strength,hold on’ shouted Aragorn.  Slowly and painfully, they pulled the three back from the brink, how lucky they were to be alive.  The hobbits relieved, and exhausted. ‘what a foolish thing to have done’ scolded Gandalf,  who to his frustration was unable to hide his sense of relief despite his anger.  Soon, the group continued along in the darkness without another word for a long time.

I got a lot out of this exercise.  For one, it was extremely fun try and put our own spin on such a pivotal scene.  But more importantly, I think it highlights Tolkien's genius as a story teller. By actually trying to write a different ending, I feel like it demonstrated how much detail and story progression is affected by just one change.

The Importance of the Unimportant

For Thursday's class we discussed what scene of certain chapters we found the most important. This was an interesting task. Sometimes the things that are the most obvious are less important than one would think. Discussing slightly less obviously important events can often lead to more interesting discussion. For example, if one were to discuss the chapter in which Frodo left Bag End, that would be an easy thing to point out as the most important. However, one could argue that drinking the last of the wine, or labeling all of the furniture and other objects around the house for others is more important and could potentially lead to a more interesting discussion. I just find it strange that the most obvious things are sometimes so obvious that discussing it often doesn't really lead anywhere.

Choices in Literature and Real Life

Today has been rife with talk about the coronavirus. Every class I went to discussed measures for protecting ourselves and those we may come into contact with, as well as what may happen after break (going online, quarantines, etc). One of the conversations I had today I found particularly interesting – someone made the comment that this year so far has seemed much like a beginning writer’s attempt at a dystopian novel – continually writing and rewriting beginnings. From the WWIII talk, to Australia on fire, to the corruption of our government and the rich in America, 2020 has been a rollercoaster. This comment made me think about how we view books, and the “logic” or illogic of the events they contain.

(Tangent, if you haven’t heard of the “Tiffany Problem”, look it up – its all about how things can seem too outrageous in a story, but were actually true in real life. During the 12th century the name Theophania was popular, shortened to Tiffany, but if you read a book set in the 12th century and saw the name Tiffany, would you cry foul?)

Tolkien had to make many, many, many choices while writing The Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings, and the Silmarillion, and somehow had to make sure readers would be able to justify each choice as making sense (or at least not breaking immersion) in universe. Some of this can be explained away via the “otherness” of Middle Earth. We don’t have Elves, Nazgul, or talking Eagles in our world (to name a few), so these are things that Tolkien chose to make “other” while still making sure they all seemed right for the world. Much of this, I would argue, he is able to do because of how slowly he brings each up to us. We are slowly introduced to how “other” things can be, and that allows us to believe that those things make sense in universe. One example of this was also brought up today in class – the Nazgul. We originally see them in Fellowship as a hunched dark figure hissing at the Gaffer – then as a black figure on a horse, then as the Ring-View-ancient-kings that Frodo sees, and we later (I believe in Two Towers, but I could be misremembering) we see them riding on the “fellbeasts,” or pterodactyl-like winged creatures. I think if Tolkien had chosen to bring them into the Shire already riding these winged steeds it would have felt far less natural (and, of course, the Nazgul probably would have caught the hobbits before they made it to Rivendell – another good reason not to give them flying steeds just yet).

To tie this back to real life though - if someone had written the events of this year as a creative writing project, wouldn't you have said "That's far too unlikely! Make it more realistic"? Honestly, after the way things are going this year, I'm not sure any of Tolkien's decisions could surprise me!

Fellowship of the Ring

The Fellowship of the Ring was a necessary group of characters to get Frodo comfortable with the idea that the ring is his to bare. I think that Frodo would not have accepted the ring and the responsibility of destroying it less the Fellowship came with him for the first few days of the journey. additionally, it also highlights the main characters of the story and lets the reader know that these are the characters to focus on.

The end of the first book ends with the disbanding of the fellowship. This seemed a bit odd especially because Boromir dies in the very beginning of the second book. It seems like the death of Boromir should have been the ending of the first book, but Tolkien wanted to make sure that the reader focused in on Sam and Frodo as the focal point of the entire story. This is why Tolkien instead ended the first book with Sam and Frodo departing from the party.     

The Breaking of the Fellowship

From a young age, the breaking of the Fellowship of the Ring always surprised me. It just didn't seem like they lasted that long. I originally thought that the Fellowship wasn't worthy of having the book/movie named after it (remind you  I was very young), because they didn't even make it an entire book. By the time the Council of Elrond occurs, half of Fellowship has already happened. Besides the goings on in Moria, the Fellowship was largely devoid of any grand adventure that is present in  the rest of LOTR. This opinion of mine was formulated based upon the movies, but once I read the books, it didn't change. 

I still the think the Fellowship could have lasted longer if some decisions were made differently, but then it would be an entirely different story, like what we discussed in class on Tuesday. It is apparent to me now that the forming of the Fellowship is not the purpose of LOTR, but instead it is merely a vessel that Tolkien uses to begin the journey of each member. It gave each individual a sense of a collective objective, despite the great differences in tribulations that each member will see in the upcoming books. Elrond could have easily sent out Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn to destroy the Ring, but instead he sent nine (the antithesis of the ringwraiths???). Each of these nine would fulfill their own purpose throughout the upcoming journey. 

Also, I think it is incredibly ironic that we broke our class Fellowship on Thursday. It seemed fitting given the turmoil going on right now. 

Plot Changes in Lord of the Rings

Our in-class exercise yesterday made me think a lot about the interconnectedness of the plots in the story.  The most important event that was lost in our alternative story was Gandalf's "death" and "resurrection" due to Moria.  But the more I thought about it, the more I saw a chain reaction that would be set off by any plot change, and how the Fellowship's decision to destroy the Ring was really the only path to success.  I am sure that Tolkien could have created the Fellowship's path in any way he chose, but he structured the world and story well enough that this plot is the only feasible one to the reader.  As readers, we usually catch plot holes and ask, "why couldn't they just do this instead?", but Tolkien was thorough enough that this does not happen. 

There is some willing suspension of disbelief to believe in the world of Middle Earth, but I do not think that the reader has to do this where the plot is concerned.  This is one of the many reasons for why Middle-Earth and Tolkien's stories feel so believable and close to real life. 

Grief and Tolkien

In Tolkien's main works he expounds upon the effect that losing loved ones has on a person.

In The Hobbit Bilbo loses dwarves with whom he had been traveling for a long time. Thorin, Fili, and Kili had become his friends and he loses them in battle. In the text it says that Bilbo "turned away, and he went by himself, and sat alone wrapped in a blanket, and, . . .  he wept until his eyes were red and his voice hoarse. . . Indeed it was long before he had the heart to make a joke again" (312).

These descriptions of red eyes and a hoarse voice cause us as the audience to feel an echo of that pain and I can't help but feel that it is an echo of Tolkien's pain. That is one of the greatest parts of writing and reading, you can get to know people who have long since past away. Their writings are a door into their heart and soul which you often can't even get when you've met a person face to face. I never had the opportunity to meet Tolkien or even live on the earth at the same time as him, but through his books I feel like I know him. I can feel a portion of the grief he had for his friends he lost in the war.

His descriptions of grief are relatable to everyone who has lost someone or who has felt profound sorrow. I know the feeling of isolating myself, sobbing and screaming until there is nothing left. Tolkien's words bring that all back for me. I also know the pain that tears at your throat when you watch helplessly as someone you love is carried away in a hearse.

I guess, in a way, authors use the reader's experiences to help them understand the emotion they are trying to convey through their work. If I had never had those experiences then I wouldn't understand the grief Bilbo feels at the end of The Hobbit, I wouldn't understand why the Fellowship is so despondent after they lose Gandalf. I could guess but I wouldn't really know.

Clearly, the act of writing and reading is a two-person activity, the author comes to the table with their experience and we come to the opposite side of the table with our experience and we try to meet somewhere in the middle.

Analyzing Tolkien

During the Multi-media project, we all had to find real-life references that Tolkien drew on for his work. Something I wondered about during the research was how many Tolkien intentionally incorporated his writing. I'm sure that all of them influenced his creative decisions but I'm curious if he had the goal in mind of interweaving these historical stories and events with his writing. I'm curious if he was reviewing medieval texts and thinking "this would make a good story for the Silmarillion" or if it was mostly unconscious. I have this feeling that for a lot of them he wasn't intentionally inserting real-life into his writings. I think the best example of this is the connections to world war 1. Tolkien always denied any of his works being allegorical to real-life events. I doubt he had any fondness for literature glorifying war. What I think happened was those events influenced his world view so fundamentally that they inevitably slipped into his writing. He experienced the desperation of war but was lucky enough to escape. It's obvious he felt that there was some sort of higher plan that allowed him to escape from death. This is the sentiment that slips into all his writing. I like to think about his influences this way. He was a man who just wrote from his own honest perspective. He created a world that made sense to him and it touched millions of people. I think that's really amazing.

"She also took the spoons."

Something I have been discovering more and more as I dig into Tolkien's works is his keen sense of humor.  I suppose that the reason I missed so many of his quips the first time I read The Lord of the Rings was due to my being so young when I read it.  Now, as I am older, I feel as though I catch more of the jokes and can (sometimes quite literally) laugh at the humor.  I have also experienced this same discovery rereading other works such as C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia.  Books like these possess a new meaning when read outside of childhood, and the clever techniques utilized by the author are much more apparent.

One particular passage that I believe exemplifies Tolkien's usage of humor is found in the list of Bilbo's gifts to other hobbits in the Shire.  "For Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, as a present; on a case of silver spoons.  Bilbo believed that she had acquired a good many of his spoons, while he was away on his former journey.  Lobelia knew that quite well.  When she arrived later in the day, she took the point at once, but she also took the spoons."

That last line is brilliant humor.  It is well-crafted, witty, and memorable, and it is moments like these throughout the book that make the story shine.  It is almost as if for one split-second, the reader escapes the narrative of the story learning more about the author than about his characters.  For me, I love these little moments in which one almost hears the voice of the author himself in the middle of a developing story.  While this particular example is difficult to miss, there are other moments throughout the story in which it seems as though Tolkien includes a humorous moment or line of dialogue so as to temporarily distract the reader from the gravitas of the central plot.  Tolkien's humor is yet another example of his mastery of storytelling and an often subtle feature that makes his works so enjoyable to read.

Thoughts on the Multimedia Project

I personally enjoyed the multimedia project even though having everyone watch you and listen to your prerecorded self in class was kind of embarrassing. I personally really loved the group aspect of it because in my experience in the honors college honors students are a lot more willing to actually do work when it comes to group projects s everyone ends up working on the project equally. I also really enjoyed getting to know other people in the class. I also found while working with other people that everyone offered up a different perspective and came up with different ideas that we could not have done by ourselves. Due to this I appreciate that it was a group project because it allowed these Tolkien works to be explored further than I could have done so on my own.

It was also really cool trying to find connections to other Tolkien works and to his personal life with these stories. Without this project I would have never heard of some of the unique characters that Tolkien has created. Don't get me wrong I thoroughly enjoy the characters of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings but these other Tolkien works have so many connections to Tolkien's life and present new characters and ideas and it really feels like when you read through them ll that you get to know Tolkien better.