Tolkien's Organization of Perspectives/POVs

One of the main topics we discussed on Tuesday was how Tolkien chooses to include multiple perspectives which helps the reader get a good look at all the different events occurring  during the story. This use of multiple point-of-views/perspectives is especially useful in The Two Towers as well as The Return of the King since the Fellowship has split up into branches extending all over the map of Middle-earth. I greatly appreciate Tolkien's choice to divide up the perspectives because it really helps to see the development and growth of not only the "main" characters (like Frodo, Sam, or Aragorn) but also more "minor" characters (such as Merry and Pippin).

That being said, I've always thought it was an interesting decision of Tolkien's to divide up The Two Towers into Book 4 being exclusively Frodo and Sam's journey and Book 3 containing the events related to the rest of the Fellowship. I understand this choice on an organizational level since Frodo and Sam are isolated from the rest of the group so it makes more sense to put their whole story together. However, it does leave me a little confused in regards to the timeline of events since the split-up perspectives don't make this too clear, although Tolkien does ensure to include how time passes by mentioning how many days have passed, etc. Ultimately, understanding how different events align doesn't really matter since everyone miraculously and conveniently ends up in Mordor at the same time in The Return of the King.

These are just some ideas that occurred to me after our discussion on Tuesday. I'd be interested to know anyone else's thoughts on this! 

Character Arcs

Hello everyone!

I have been thinking about the development of characters in stories. Most times when reading reviews of books or movies or TV shows you will hear them discuss character arcs. One of the most important things in stories to us is whether or not the characters change along the way. Sometimes I wonder why it is so important to readers and viewers. Yes, we change all the time and that change makes it more realistic, but sometimes we don't even notice how we change. If you asked someone how their character had changed between yesterday and today or even last year and today, we would likely struggle to describe it accurately. Why is it then, that we expect the creator to describe the change extremely accurately and deliberately?

My best personal answer is that it is more satisfying to us when the characters change. If the character keeps learning the same lesson and making the same mistakes over and over again, it gets really frustrating. My other guess is that the majority of the time, characters in these shows and books are generally going through some pretty extreme circumstances so it would be unbelievable if they did not change at all.

Similarities Among Tolkien's Works

As I was writing my Analytic Essay, I came across some interesting similarities between Frodo/Sam and Beren/Lúthien, and then had some really fun conversations with people about just why so many people love the Frodo/Sam dynamic (and some expected them to get together, either when they first read the books or when they first watched the movies).

What first sparked my attention was actually Sam bringing the story of Beren’s quest up while Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are sheltering under Cirith Ungol. Sam says “Beren now, he never though he was going to get that Silmaril from the Iron Crown in Thangorodrim, and yet he did, and that was a worse place and a blacker danger than ours. But that's a long tale, of course, and goes on past the happiness and into grief and beyond it -- and the Silmaril went on and came to Eärendil. And why, sir, I never thought of that before! We've got -- you've got some of the light of it in that star-glass that the Lady gave you! Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?” (Two Towers 363). This started me thinking about other ways the stories are similar.

We’ve already seen Elrond compare Frodo to the heroes of old (“and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together, your seat should be among them” (Fellowship 304), and Tolkien sprinkles references to that story throughout the Lord of the Rings.

Lúthien goes to rescue Beren from Sauron’s prison, Sam goes to rescue Frodo from the Tower of Cirith Ungol (Return of the King). Both characters sing (and are heard by their respective partners).

Beren and Frodo both try to leave behind their companion, only to be told in no uncertain terms that this Will Not Be Acceptable.

Both Sam (and Lúthien feel that they’ve failed and come too late, thinking that their companion has already died, only to discover that they are (fortunately) incorrect.

Both are rescued by a giant Eagle

“three mighty birds appeared, […] Then they lifted up Lúthien and Beren from the earth and bore them aloft into the clouds” (The Silmarillion 215)

“Side by side they lay; and down swept Gwaihir, and down came Landroval and Meneldor the swift […and] the wanderers were lifted up and borne far away out of the darkness and the fire” (Return of the King 246).

Anyways! I just wanted to point out some of these similarities, and then ask you if you’ve noticed any other fun similarities in parts of The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, or The Silmarillion (or any of the other stories we’ve read this semester) that really stuck out to you.

Significance of Gollum and Danger of the Ring

For me, Gollum has always been one of the most complex characters in the stories I have read.  His part in The Hobbit is so brief that we leave that story with the image of a solely evil, violent, pitiful creature.  So , when we see him mentioned and appear again in The Lord of the Rings, we feel like we can already predict what this is going to be like.

However, the Gollum in this story is much more developed and influential in many chapters.  Tolkien no longer uses his character just as a quick encounter to show the negative effects of the ring, but makes him an essential part of the journey to mount doom, and eventually, the destruction of the Ring.

Gollum is much more of a dimensional character in The Lord of the Rings.  We see him being helpful in being a guide and catching food for Sam and Frodo.  Although this is mainly due to the fact that he wants to remain close to the ring in hopes that he can grab hold of it, its surprising to see that he is even still capable of guiding and keeping a promise.

Even so, Tolkien does a great job of showing the inner struggle within Gollum.  By writing about frequent disappearances and reappearances, the reader, like Sam, can never truly trust Gollum.  He is still somehow  able to show some uncorrupt qualities, but ultimately cannot escape the influence of the ring.  I think this duality is a great demonstration of how the ring takes over the person who carries it, it takes over their thoughts and actions, but not enough to keep them from realizing they are being corrupted.  The idea that even after hundred of years with the ring, there is some part of Smeagol inside of Gollum is really very sad.  It highlights the dangers of the ring, and how cruel its way of destruction really is.

Contradictions and Gandalf

If Gandalf has somehow grown even greater and more knowledgeable through his transformation into the White Wizard, then why does he go first to Lothlorien before meeting up with the Company? By doing so, does he allow Boromir to be sacrificed needlessly and the hobbits to be captured and subjected to physical torture? If he is so knowledgeable, why did he not know Sam had gone with Frodo? How are we as readers expected to resolve such apparent contradictions?

Gollum's character - thesis statement

Because I messed up on our Breakout Rooms in class today, we did not have chance to talk about Tolkien's development of Gollum's character. So, if you wish, take a few minutes to apply similar steps of today's exercise to his character:

1) Think about what makes Gollum's character unique or different from other characters in the story.

2) Also, consider how Gollum has grown and changed throughout the text, but especially in the last quarter or so of The Two Towers. You may also want to think about these questions:  How do the new changes in Gollum impact the story as a whole? What was Tolkien’s purpose in writing Gollum as he did in this part of the text? How did Gollum affect you as a reader? Would readers in Tolkien’s own time period have perceived Gollum differently than contemporary readers do today?

3) Write one strong, narrowly focused, arguable thesis statement for an imaginary analytic paper that uses and grows out of the evidence you gathered in the previous parts of this exercise. Share your imaginary thesis and some of your thoughts behind it as a comment to this post.

Shelob's Character - thesis statement exercise

Because I messed up on our Breakout Rooms in class today, we did not have chance to talk about Tolkien's presentation of Shelob. So, if you wish, take a few minutes to apply similar steps of today's exercise to her character:

1) Think about what makes Shelob's character unique or different from other characters in the story.

2) Also, consider the relevance of Tolkien’s history in explaining her character, since we have no earlier knowledge of her. You may also want to think about these questions:  How does the addition of Shelob impact the story as a whole? What was Tolkien’s purpose in writing her as he did in this part of the text? How did she affect you as a reader? Would readers in Tolkien’s own time period have perceived your character differently than contemporary readers do today?

3) Write one strong, narrowly focused, arguable thesis statement for an imaginary analytic paper that uses and grows out of the evidence you gathered in the previous parts of this exercise. Share your imaginary thesis and some of your thoughts behind it as a comment to this post.

Subgroup: Frodo, Sam, and Smeagol

I thought that this was an interesting point in today's lecture so I thought I would expand on it. I know everyone always gives Frodo crap for not really doing much and Sam pretty much pulling all the weight in Mordor. However, after reading "Mount Doom", I think it's important to recognize the absolute agony that Frodo has to deal with as the ring bearer. Talking about this in class made me realize:

1. How relatively resistant the hobbits are to the corruption of the ring
2. The different levels of corruption each member of the party has endured.

Smeagol bared the ring the longest and as a result has been almost completely corrupted. However, being a hobbit, there is still some part of him that has not been corrupted. Frodo has bared the ring the second longest out of the group, and as a result has more pity on Smeagol. He understands the turmoil that Smeagol is going through without the ring. Lastly, Sam bared the ring the least. Sam did however bear the ring for a small amount of time and felt it's effects intensify upon entering Mordor. 

   

Lord of the Rings in Gaming: Third Age Total War

       As a lover of the RTS genre of video games, perhaps my favorite game series of all time is the Total War franchise (it does make up more than half of my Steam library, after all). For those not familiar with the series, in many ways Total War games are like Civilization, full of constructing buildings, diplomacy with various factions, and turn based army construction. However, what makes the Total War series so amazing is its focus on historical moments of history and real-time battles, launching the player into a battlefield when armies clash, allowing them to lead up to 40 units made up of hundreds of soldiers. Now, how does a typically historical game series (Warhammer being the exception) have to do with the Lord of the Rings? There is a mod for the game Medieval 2:Total War, called Third Age Total War, which converts the original medieval base game into a full campaign map of Middle Earth:

            As you can see from this image, Third Age Total War allows the player to lead a wide variety of factions, from Harad to Rhun, Gondor to Rohan, and of course the best faction of all: the Dwarves of Erebor (not that I have a dwarf bias or anything). While I couldn't figure out how to take in-game screenshots, I did manage to take a few pictures on my phone, but few are of okay quality at best. Thus, to get a sense of the scale the game can achieve, I have attached a link to a battle of Helm's Deep done by a popular YouTuber, albeit more true to the movie than the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T9dH4dDjXQ

          As you can probably tell, this game is quite a lot of fun, especially when trying to while the COVID hours away. As for analyzing the game itself, while some online scripted battles like in the link can really capture the feeling you get from reading the battles in the books, a part of me feels like this game shows the reason why the book was written from the point of view of a small fellowship. Don't get me wrong; the game is an awesome strategy game that allows epic battles on the scale of the books. However, the downside is that it is a strategy game, thus necessitating a much more top-down view of Middle Earth, both literally and figuratively. While the beginning of a campaign can give you the sense of beating back a near-unstoppable tide of evil against all odds, most of the early game is deciding to build mines in Erebor to generate enough income to produce enough units of Dwarven axemen to defeat a neighboring Orc settlement.  Slowly but surely, the game turns into a cold calculation of alliances, nation-building, and tactical victories, which is hardly what the books are about. But at the end of the day, there is something satisfying in your small dwarven army of 1000 facing off against a force of 5000 and somehow winning... or not. However, thank goodness for quicksaves!

Gollum and Pronouns

In book four on page 618, Frodo extracts a promise from Gollum to help him and Sam get into Mordor. Frodo asks that Gollum promise by the Ring rather than on it as Gollum had initially wanted to, saying that a direct line of connection to the Ring would be detrimental for Gollum. Eventually, Gollum promises saying, "We promise, yes I promise . . . I will serve the master of the Precious."

This was interesting to me because the quick change from using 'we' to refer to himself to 'I' could be initially seen as a typo, however, later on in the book we see that it is actually a clever way to let the audience know when Gollum was speaking truthfully.
 
On page 643, Frodo notes "that Gollum used I, and that seemed usually to be a sign, on its rare appearances, that some remnants of old truth and sincerity were for the moment on top.

We already know that getting any information out of Gollum is extremely difficult. At the Council of Elrond Gandalf tells how he struggled with Gollum for many days until he got something even remotely helpful out of the creature. Because Frodo and Sam are now relying on Gollum to take them safely into Mordor it is important that we know we, and the characters, can trust him to a certain extent. If the characters couldn't trust him at all then the travel into Mordor would take longer, or they would end up going in through the front gate because they don't trust Gollum has another way, which would lead to their deaths

In Class Exercise: Chapter 4 Tree Beard

Hello everyone!

The chapter I ended up writing about was Treebeard. 

Many choices are made throughout this chapter, including Pippin and Merry don't freak out and get scared with Treebeard which is a moment of their growth. Treebeard decides to be hospitable, and he brings them to the Entmoot. One of the most important decisions in this chapter is when the Ents begin to march, deciding to take a stand against Sarumon. 

I focused on the why of the Ents acting against Sarumon and marching to Isengard (THEY'RE TAKING THE HOBBITS TO ISENGARD). They are definitely negatively influenced by the narrative so far. The orcs randomly and cruelly cut down trees of the forest. Ents are difficult to action but they're enraged by the mutant orcs and the destruction of the land to point of even possibly moving to their deaths. I think they decided to finally act because if they didn't, without their help, the lands and forests would've been ultimately hurt more in the long run than if they formed the alliance. I also think that to Tolkien (and to me at least) they did make the right choice because indecision is worse than decision from what I can tell. From what I can tell, Tolkien believes you should take action in the world you live in or else you can't be good (for example, Tom isn't exactly portrayed as good and he is very indifferent to most of the world despite being notably powerful). I would also argue they made the right decision not only for themselves but their world and other beings in it. I personally think it's right to be considerate for those outside of yourself, and the Ents are making the right decision. However, it should still be recognized that the Ents are acting out of selflessness but out of some extent of self preservation. I think that if Sarumon has ordered the Orcs to leave the forests alone, and even maybe help it and the lands, then the Ents probably would have stayed neutral and that could have vastly changed the course of the plot.

That's all for now,

Elendil

The real treasure was the friends we made along the way

When looking at LotR, its easy to pick out the friendships throughout the story. The unyielding friendship of Frodo and Sam, the unexpected one between Legolas and Gimli and others all show the varieties of friendships Tolkien writes about. He makes characters both with strong ties to those they are familar with and those outside of their own race. In the case of Frodo and Sam, I feel as though thier friendship is a very deep and importaint one. In a way it represents where one comes from and the importance of one's roots. It is the familiarity of home.
Legolas and Gimil's friendship, on the other hand, is more about overcoming old feuds to forge a bond. Given that Tolkien lived through both world wars, I think it is safe to say he say the importance of both friendships with those from the same place as you, but also those that are different from you. LotR has a very strong theme of unity and by using different races as an example, Tolkien is showing the power of unity and how importaint it is to see things from someone else's view.

Legolas and Gimli

Hello everyone!

I remember seeing recently someone posted asking why Legolas and Gimli were chosen by Tolkien to be friends. I remember us discussing this in a class discussion briefly and I think the short answer was to show character growth.

This is because Legolas, being an elf, and Gimli, being a dwarf, should hate each other in Tolkien's world because that's just how their kind interact with the other. These two characters put aside their differences and ended up becoming good friends because they had decided that hating someone for what they are and not who they truly are is ridiculous. They also both decided to look at the bigger picture so they could actually succeed in their quest to help destroy the ring. Imagine if these two had been bickering the whole time, it would have been a major distraction to everyone and would have caused tensions to be high.

To me their friendship also just fits in with Tolkien's whole theme of the unlikely being the likely. Frodo was the unlikely hero and Legolas and Gimli were the unlikely friends. So to me their friendship just makes sense in the Lord of the Rings.

Thank you!
-Frodo

In-Class Exercise: The Two Towers, Book III, Chapters 6-11

Mythopoeia. According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, mythopoeia is defined as a creating of myth. J.R.R. Tolkien included many, many examples of mythopoeia throughout his works, in fact, it's quite amazing just how much he was able to create. One could even say that Tolkien mastered the art of mythopoeia. One specific example of an event that will probably become a myth in Middle Earth would be the Ents fighting back against Sauroman in Isengard. This unforeseen act of rebellion and show of force, on behalf of creatures that were sort of overlooked prior to this event, will become a story that will be told to generations. This type of thing had never happened before, making it all the more unique and interesting. The Ents, because of their actions, will forever be considered creatures never to be underestimated or taken advantage of.

What is a myth?

on Thursday in class we discussed the myths being created in the beginning of two towers. I thought I would consider for a bit the more basic question of myths themselves.

I'm sure I could look on wikipedia, or Merriam-Webster, and quickly get a tidy definition. But that doesn't really answer my question of what myth means.

When I hear myth I think of a belief in a past event shared between people. It's the feeling that the world has been shaped by epic events in the past, but it is myth and not history because it is only what people believe, not what they know.

Myths are an essential part of every culture, often more so than their history, because yes maybe a culture is shaped by such and such a war, but myths are the reasons people go to war, to preserve their own mythic righteousness, and the mythic evil of their enemies. People are people, but myths can make them into heroes and monsters.

I think the existence of myths or lack thereof is what makes a fictional story. A world like middle-earth, where the people all have their interwoven myths about the past and the future that motivate them feels real, while one where people do what they do in the near vacuum of their own personal situation feels fake and 2-dimensional.

Development of Characters

I saw that a lot of people wrote about the storytelling style of Two Towers this week, and I was thinking about how the character development is unique in the book.  In the Fellowship of the Ring, it mostly focuses either on Frodo or on the Fellowship as a whole.  We do not see a whole lot of individual character development.  There is an awful lot that happens concerning the plot in Two Towers, and Tolkien somehow manages to also develop Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, Sam, Frodo, Gandalf, Legolas, Theoden, Gimli, Saruman, Eowyn, and even Gollum.  I think he does a masterful job of giving each character their own storyline that deepens their role in the overarching plot.  We see Pippin become braver and take initiative to take care of himself and Merry, Legolas and Gimli become good friends, Sam becomes stronger and wiser, Gandalf reveals more of his magic and strength, and so on.  However widespread the Fellowship is, Tolkien still manages to make each one feel real, unique, important, and developed.  He does a good job of weaving the tapestry of the story while not letting any of the characters become stagnant. 

The Passage of Time in The Lord of the Rings

As we have been reviewing The Two Towers this past week, I have been reminded about how little time actually progresses from start to finish, particularly in Book 3.  It starts with the death of Boromir and concludes with the parley at Isengard.  I checked Appendix B of The Lord of the Rings to see precisely how many days passed between these two events, and what I found is that Book 3 consists of only ten days.  Similarly, Book 4 of The Two Towers regarding Frodo and Sam's quest only takes 18 days.  Contrasted with the entire Fellowship of the Ring, which includes over eighteen years of events, The Two Towers packs a lot of information in a short amount of text.

I wonder why Tolkien decided to dedicate so much time within The Fellowship of the Ring while making the sequel significantly shorter.  On the surface, perhaps it could have been to quicken the pace and insert the necessary degree of urgency as Middle-Earth prepared for its great and final conflict.  When reading The Two Towers, the change in pace seems fairly obvious as the plot develops quite quickly.  Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas pursue the hobbits, encounter the Riders of Rohan, and soon battle at the fortress of Helm's Deep with their new friends all in under a week.  On the other hand, Merry and Pippin escape the orc band, meet Treebeard, sack Isengard, and reunite with their friends by the end of those ten days.  So much happens in so little time, and I for myself struggle to comprehend that this is not taking weeks upon weeks to accomplish.

Furthermore, Tolkien's technique of splitting up The Two Towers into one book dedicated to Frodo and Sam and another to the remainder of the Fellowship plays with time as well.  As I mentioned above, Frodo and Sam's half of Two Towers takes eight more days to tell.  Thus, in the second half of Book 4, the first half of Book 5 in the Return of the King is already underway.  To give an example, when Frodo is stung by Shelob, Gandalf and Pippin had already been in Minas Tirith for nearly four days, Aragorn was currently battling Corsairs at Pelargir, and the Rohirrim was on its way to Gondor's aid.  All in all, Tolkien shifts the timeframe in The Two Towers and The Return of the King four times.

Why do you think Tolkien decided to write The Two Towers and The Return of the King in their split styles?  What do you think was his rationale for spending so much time in The Fellowship of the Ring and speeding up the plot significantly in the other books?

The Breaking of the Fellowship Continued

I'm sure everybody was sad, like I was, the very first time they read/watched LOTR and witness the Fellowship of the Ring break apart. At the end of the first book really isn't the only time that the Fellowship breaks though. Throughout the books, the Fellowship continues to fragment into smaller and smaller groups. The first instance of this was the death of Gandalf in Moria. The next and probably the most important break was at the fall of Boromir when Frodo and Sam split off to head directly towards Mordor. Merry and Pippin are also removed from the Fellowship at that time when they are captured by orcs.

Although Legolas, Aragorn, and Gimli eventually rendezvous with Merry and Pippin in Isengard, they aren't with them for that much longer for the rest of the books. The last time that most of the Fellowship is together before the destruction of the ring would be when Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli meet the hobbits after the ents seige Isengard. After that, they head towards Edoras. Gandalf and Pippin go on ahead on Shadowfax while the rest travel more slowly. The next break in the Fellowship is when Merry is left behind in Edoras while Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli travel to the Path of the Dead.

Sam and Frodo get separated temporarily at Shelob's Lair, and are only reunited once Sam rescues Frodo from the orcs. Gandalf and Pippin move on to Gondor, and Gandalf really isn't with Pippin that much, so most of Pippin's experiences in Gondor are by himself. The only characters that don't really have their own independent journeys at some time or another between the Council of Elrond and the destruction of the Ring are Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. This is an interesting choice because those three, along with Gandalf, are the most capable to adventure independently. Tolkien doesn't decide to give these stronger and more experienced characters any epic solo adventures in LOTR. Instead he gives this to the hobbits, who are the most unexpected people to  be able to survive in such a harsh environment by themselves.