Tolkien's Kings

In our discussion this week, we explored the different types of kings of men Tolkien created in The Lord of the Rings as well as what we felt were the disparities between how they’re represented in the books as well as in the movies. I love the comparison between the films and the books and my post this week is going to touch on this again.  

We looked at how Theoden was a king that was very in touch with his people, after Gandalf stepped in and freed him from Wormtongue’s influence, immersed in the conflicts they’re going through, and their frontman when the Rohirrim went into battle. In comparison, Denethor was extremely out of touch, far removed, and never put himself forth when Gondor was in peril, actually told his people to go burn down in flames, essentially. We also considered how the films didn’t really give us a look into the thought process of Denethor whereas we did get this understanding from the book.  

Keeping all that in mind, I wanted to jump forward a bit and look at Aragorn as the up and coming king as he doesn’t actually take on the mantle of king for very much of the tale, even though most know and see him as such, he pushes these formalities aside until the fighting is done. In this way, Aragorn actually embodies a bit of both the kind of king Theoden was as well as the sort of leader Denethor was. He’s very much a character involved in all the action but he’s also aside by pushing aside and not taking on his mantle as king for so long. The one thing that I missed and I think the film was sorely lacking was Aragorn going into the House of Healing and showing off his sort of mystical healing abilities that also stems from this notion that Gondor has that the king will have the healing touch. I thought this was a really interesting aspect of Aragorn’s character development as king and the film could have really benefited from showing this. The movies are just lacking something really vital to me from not showing this, as small of a scene as it was. 

Of All the Creatures

Hi everyone! Hope everyone's staying sane and safe!

I was just wondering about all the different creatures that Tolkien chose to put in his world. Spiders, elves, dwarves, wizards, hobbits, dragons, etc. Of all of the creatures that exist in all of mythology why did he pick these? He drew from many different sources of inspiration and yet many of the creatures in Middle Earth did not exist before Tolkien wrote them into being. Why not use more creatures that already exist in the real world or at very least had already been thought of before? My guess is that he chose the ones that best suited his plot and what he wanted the world of Middle Earth to feel like to the reader. When one didn't exist that best suited him, he then made one up. That is one of the fantastic things about fantasy is that you can make it whatever you want. If nothing quite fits, create something that does.

Loyalty and Leadership in The Return of the King

Last class, we discussed the contrasting qualities of Theoden and Denethor.  One rode out heroically with his armies while the other stayed far away, hidden from the people's eyes and out of harm's way.  I hope to expand upon these differences by discussing loyalty and also broaden the scope to consider Aragorn and Faramir as well.  If The Return of the King expounds upon anything, it seems to be the qualities of leadership of which loyalty is undoubtedly a piece.

The people of Rohan were loyal to Theoden, their king, even if he was at one time under the poisonous influence of Saruman and Grima.  Once he had regained his strength and courage, the Rohirrim rallied around him to march off to war against Isengard, and then, with little respite, rally to the aid of Gondor.  Yet, even before Theoden recovered from Saruman's spell, his people still had the utmost loyalty for their king.  When Theoden listened to Grima's advice and thus isolated himself--as another Blog post so interestingly discusses--the people of Rohan remained loyal.  Theoden, ill or well, was their king, and his decisions they would follow.  With such loyalty, it is no wonder that Rohan would follow its king to certain doom on the fields before Minas Tirith.

The same is not true for Denethor, Steward of Gondor.  Locked away in his proverbial (and seemingly literal) ivory tower, Denethor did not actively engage with his people nor inspire confidence in his armies.  If any man in Gondor filled this vacancy, it was Faramir, Denethor's son.  While the men of Gondor, and particularly the Citadel Guard, were commanded to remain at their posts unless relieved by the Steward, one of these guards, Beregond, abandoned his post to confront his own lord in the protection of Faramir.  Denethor inspired fear and distrust; Faramir received allegiance and the people's loyalty more than his father could know.

Finally, Aragorn, the returned king of Gondor received the highest degree of loyalty.  Unknown by many and with wonder circulating as to whether he was truly the descendent of Elendil and Isildur, Aragorn did not demand the loyalties of his people.  Rather, his actions earned him the people's respect, including the rulers of both Rohan and Gondor.  Faramir recognized the position Aragorn was claiming, and he relinquished his command of Gondor without hesitation as did Prince Imrahil and the other lords of Gondor.  Unlike Denethor, Aragorn was among his people and demonstrated the admirable qualities of a leader.

The Lord of the Rings introduces many leadership figures throughout its pages.  From Elrond in Rivendell to Galadriel in Lothlorien, Theoden in Rohan to Denethor in Gondor, and even evil leaders like Saruman and the Witch-king, Tolkien fleshes out distinctions among all of them to illustrate what he viewed as the characteristics of a good leader.  Just a close examination of the qualities of Theoden, Faramir, and Aragorn shows us how good leadership is often rewarded by true loyalty, not coerced but inspired, that would lead someone to leave his home and family to follow his king to the edge of defeat and into the shadows of doom.

The Idea of Isolation (As Shown Through Denethor and Others)

Yesterday in class, someone made an interesting comparison between Denethor, Steward of Gondor, and King Théoden. They pointed out that while Théoden spent all his time with his men and rode into battle with them, Denethor willingly separates himself from his soldiers and the people of Minas Tirith by secluding himself in the White Tower. When Théoden was the victim of Saruman's spell and was totally isolated from his people, he was weak, physically and mentally, and was easily influenced by Wormtongue's shady words. Théoden's character, before he was released from the spell, parallels Denethor's character as he descends into madness during the siege of Gondor. The similar factor of these two powerful men's descent into darkness was obviously Sauron's influence but also their isolation. Luckily, Théoden came out of this okay, but Denethor...not so much. 

The reason why I find this parallel interesting is because it shows one of the most dangerous parts of Sauron's, and by extension the Ring's, influence, which is isolation. As Denethor was steadily fed images of evil and despair through the Palantir, he grew detached from the people who he was to serve as a leader to. The same can be said for Théoden before Gandalf snapped him out of it. Additionally, as the Ring overtook Gollum's mind, he isolated himself completely by going to the deepest, darkest cave he could find. Although he has Sam with him, Frodo also suffers this effect of the Ring as he must bear the mental weight of the Ring alone. 

It makes sense that Tolkien would equate isolation and seclusion with Sauron's evil since one of Tolkien's main positive messages in LOTR is the importance of unity and friendship in the face of danger and conflict. 

Theory about the Arkenstone

I know this is a bit of a step backwards in time for us, as it concerns The Hobbit, but stick with me! The other day as I was scrolling through Pinterest I came across a text-post that piqued my interest.

The post asked, what if the Arkenstone were actually a Silmaril?

(Apparently this isn't a new theory, just ask the internet).

Now, there's nothing in the Hobbit that would argue this, and I still (shame on me) haven't read the entirety of the Silmarillion, so please correct me if you know more! However, we've already seen Tolkien make choices to change something small in his book to become something much more important later (for example, the Ring itself - it originally was just a cute little ring that makes you invisible, and Tolkien changed that to 'super powerful ancient artifact that controls and corrupts minds of even the strongest/most powerful beings in Middle earth'). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that one white gem (the Arkenstone) that shines with light. "fairest of all," and "the Heart of the Mountain" (The Hobbit), which makes Thorin pause even in his gold-sickness, and throw Bilbo away for the crime of taking it, just might be one of the three Silmarils gems that caused tumult and war and bloodshed among the elves for thousands of years.

I looked online to see other people's opinions of this theory, and apparently the Silmarillion does say that the three Silmarils were cast away (one in the sky, one in the ocean, and one in the depths of the earth) so this doesn't seem altogether implausible. Thranduil and Gandalf's reactions might serve to deny this theory (they do react to it, but only as a Really Good Bargaining Tool) but apparently Thranduil wouldn't have seen the Silmarils before, and we already know Gandalf likes to keep his secrets.

The fact that we never hear about it again does make this less likely, but the Dwarves are fairly possessive and somewhat private with their treasures, so possibly no elves who would know the Silmarils by sight ever came in contact with it during Thrain's rule... or after Smaug was killed... but if it were either planned to be or retconned to be a Silmaril, that seems like a very large thing Tolkien just decided never to mention again.

What do you think? Do you have any quotes that would seem to prove or disprove this theory? Have you read about this before?

Tolkien and His Art

We were asked in class why we thought it was important to look at Tolkien's art for his stories, and I haven't been able to get that thought out of my head.

Someone mentioned that its interesting to get the author's vision of what the world and the people looked like, and I definitely agree with that. I also think that his art shows important symbolism which might be lost if we didn't have his vision. For instance, the dust jacket for The Return of the King includes the symbol of Aragorn's future throne and crown as well as the magical tree which resides in Minas Tirith. As a reader, seeing these symbols before even reading the book creates a sense of anticipation and magic as the reader thinks about what these symbols could mean. I think Tolkien's art is so important to creating the right mental space and environment for the audience to read his words in.

Connection of Merrry and Pippin

At the beginning of the Lord of the Rings, Merry and Pippin almost seem like one unit, as they are always very close to one another and because of their similar personalities, often get themselves into trouble.  But, as we later see, they can also work pretty well together, and make difficult choices as we see in their escape from.

It is strange to see that they do not remain together in Book 5, and instead go two separate places, Pippin goes to Minas Tirith with Gandalf, while Merry goes to Helm's Deep with Aragorn.  At first, it seems that they will now have to take very separate paths, but Tolkien decides to include the parallel of the Hobbits offering up their swords.  To Denethor, Pippin offers his sword to Gondor in service and gratitude.  To Théoden, Merry offers his sword to the service of Rohan.

I think its a very good choice that Tolkien made to include this parallel.  In not only shows the strength of merry and Pippins bond, but also their good intended nature as Hobbits (still intact after their experiences.  Both of these things help them succeed later on as they led the army in the scouring of the Shire.  Even though Merry and Pippin go through a lot of changes, the fact that they maintain their bond is essential to making their changes for the better.

Eowyn's Transformation

As we begin the Return of the King, we see an awful lot of storyline dedicated to Eowyn and her role in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.  Theoden does not want her to join the battle, probably for her own protection and because he does not think she will make a huge difference.  However, she helps to turn the tide of the whole battle by slaying the Witch King of Angmar with Merry's assistance.  When introduced to her in the Two Towers, she wants to join in the fighting because she sees this as the only way she can help destroy the evil.  The long hours haunted by Grima she spent in the Golden Hall instilled her with a sense of near hopelessness and coldness.  However, when she is injured and taken to the Houses of Healing, we see Faramir slowly bring her around and warm up to become a much more gentle and loving character.  She also discovers her vocation in healing since it did so much for her.  What kind of message do you guys think Tolkien is trying to send with this character? Is it something surface level, like the idea that healing is better than fighting, or something deeper, such as a character change from coldness and despair to warmth and hope? I would argue the latter.

Tolkien's writing style

So I've been reading some other fantasy books while I've been stuck at home. One of my personal favorites series is called "age of fire" by E.E Knight. It's not very well known at all but I love it for its characters and world building.  One thing I don't like about it however is the writing. E. E Knight is a history professor and it really comes through in his writing. The story is meant to be a very in depth character study of three siblings and their relationship to the world around them but he writes the story almost like a dull history book. Like imagine if the entirety of the lord of the rings had been written like the Silmarillion. Large sections of time are left out and sometimes the characters have these super important emotional moments that are just glossed over especially in the last three books of the series. However I still love these books because the first two are so good and I've become so attached to the characters.
However while I've been rereading the age of fire series I couldn't help but imagine just how wonderful they would have been if they'd been written in Tolkien's style. He is able to strike such a good balance between contextualizing the characters and events into his massive world and also allowing you to personally connect with them. The material he is writing is full of made up words and complicated fantasy rules and different speech patterns but Tolkien's writing is still very manageable despite all this. And that's why the lord of the rings is a worldwide bestseller while the weird, badly written fantasy books I like are relegated primarily to my bookshelf.

Respectful or Condescending, Protective or Using

Is Theoden's refusal to let Merry and Eowyn participate in battle with the other warriors indicative of lack of respect for their abilities, condescension about their value to others, chivalric protectiveness for those who need protection, or something else? 

Similarly, does Denethor's willingness to allow Pippin to serve equally with other warriors of Gondor suggest his respect/lack of respect for the Hobbit, the low value he places on Pippin's life, his willingness to use people for his own gains, or something else?

Why is Shelob a she?

Why does Tolkien choose to make Shelob, his most fully described image of evil, female? All of his other evil characters are male, why is it important to him that Shelob be female?

The Scouring of the Shire

This chapter was interesting to me because it really showcases that the group of hobbits are not who they were when they left the shire. Additionally the shire was not the same place that it was when they left. It shows that the shire was no exception to the reach of Mordor, more specifically Saruman and Wormtongue. The whole thing felt a bit like a fever dream to me given that I had only watched the movies before this class. It brought me a lot of joy to see Mary and Pippin lead the shire into battle. I can only imagine what they looked like being a foot or two taller than all the other hobbits. 

Perspectives

Hey all!

So I wasn't able to be in class when perspectives were being talked about so I thought I should discuss it a little bit in a blog post.

Perspectives are incredibly important in Tolkien's works and if any of them were different it would change the information and the story the reader is given. Not only would it change what scenes we saw but also how we might feel towards certain characters. Some characters might become more of a fan favorite and others might become despised if perspectives were changed. In addition to this the story itself would change because some scenes would be added, deleted, or altered based on whose perspective we are in which might drastically change the story we are reading.

Overall, perspectives in Tolkien's works do really matter and affect many factors in his stories. If they were changed many things in these stories would be changed.

-Frodo

Friendships and Overtones in LOTR

Hello everyone!

With rereading LOTR, especially Two Towers, I've been reminded of a lot of the romantic overtones that comes off between say Frodo and Sam, or Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn (especially the first two). A classmate mentioned though a possible reason why these overtones seem so clear to us is because of how often we don't see healthy relationships and friendships like these within media. This, paired with watching a lot of meta literary device videos, has led me to think a bit more about male friendships and writing friendships and how those two intersect with Middle Earth.

Many of the stories and characters we encounter are male, especially for protagonists. However, Tolkien is NOT one for stereotypes. Many of our protagonists are emotionally vulnerable with one another, emotionally and mentally support each other, have solid banter back and forth (see Legolas and Gimli), and impossible loyalty (see Sam with Frodo). Part of the fun with writing friendships and romantic relationships is that... all of these happen in both! All of these can easily switch between "Besties" to "I wanna kiss you" - specifically that if the dynamics stay platonic it makes sense but if they develop into a romantic dynamic it can feel appropriate as well.

While of course I love both the friendship and the perceived overtones, what do you guys think? If we had more friendships like this in common media do you think the overtones/seen chemistry would completely disappear? Do you think the aspects of their friendship are key to creating romantic chemistry? Why or why not?

Elendil

More thoughts on perspectives.

The exercise we did on Tuesday got me thinking about the perspectives in LoTR and to a lesser extent The Hobbit.

It is something that you don't really think about but that is so absolutely crucial to our understanding of the story.

There are scenes where it is crucial to be in the perspective of the important characters, to know what they know, and there are other scenes where we must be in the perspective of one of the side characters to see it from the proper perspective of awe at something awesome.

This is something that Tolkien juggles so perfectly that when reading the books I barely thought about it, but looking back so many things would be different if a few of these choices had been changed. What would the journey through Mordor have looked like if we only saw it through Frodo's eyes? Only Sam's? if we had not had pieces of Gollum's perspective? Even if the facts had been the same it would have been a totally different story.

In many stories I find the way that the author jumps back and forth between multiple groups separate in space and often time to be grating, when they cut away just as something important is happening, especially when they go to characters I care less about. However Tolkien handles this almost seamlessly, and with a great sense of the unification of the purposes of all the characters, even if their situations are different.

TL; DR: this whole post is me ranting about how the more I think about it, the more I am in awe of J.R.R. Tolkien's writing skills.

Cinematic Liberty and The Lord of the Rings

Something that has bothered me for some time is how the final chapters of The Two Towers in which Frodo, Sam, and Gollum travel to the very edges of Mordor are inserted into the movie version of The Return of the King.  Why would Peter Jackson put Minas Morgul, the Secret Stairs, and Shelob's Lair in the third installment of The Lord of the Rings? 

J.R.R. Tolkien crafted a marvelous cliff-hanger to conclude The Two Towers.  A living Frodo is abducted by orcs and imprisoned in a near-impenetrable tower.  Sam is the new Ring-Bearer and refuses to go on the quest without Frodo.  Gollum's malicious nature has reached its apex, and he lies dangerously near in wait for the ring.  To only complicate matters, Tolkien's style of splitting each book into one part dedicated to Frodo and Sam and another to the remainder of the Fellowship ensures that the reader will have to wait all the way through Book 5 before the journey of the ring is picked up again.  The end of The Two Towers is a masterful ending, and it is a genuine shame that Peter Jackson deviated from it as much as he did.

However, I understand why Jackson may have made the decisions he did. Had he decided to finish The Two Towers with Frodo's capture and Sam's difficult decision, he would have only been left with the skirmish at Cirith Ungol, the passage of Mordor, and the final destruction of the Ring in The Return of the King.  After all, the majority of Book 6 of The Lord of the Rings takes place after the destruction of the ring.  Still then, Jackson may have been able to fit more of the return journey back and the Scouring of the Shire had he stayed more faithful to the books themselves.

I am an avid fan of the movies, and I do not always turn up my nose at cinematic liberty (i.e., the elves at Helm's Deep). Still, I do wonder how directors decide what to keep from the original source and what they choose to change or even discard.  Jackson added a visit to Osgiliath in The Two Towers but wrote out the takeover of the Shire by Saruman.  The former served little purpose while the other would have dramatically shown the tremendous changes each of the hobbits encountered on their journey that prepared them to stand up to a rogue wizard and his motley band of thugs.

What are your thoughts on cinematic liberty?  Why do you think directors are fine with "messing with" the order of events?  Do you think the movies would have been better had they kept with Tolkien's design?

Dynamics of Frodo, Sam, Gollum, and the Ring

In the Thursday discussion, we talked a lot about the dynamics between Frodo, Sam, Gollum, and the Ring.  Frodo's possession of the Ring causes him to sympathize with Gollum and be kinder to him, because he knows what he suffered as a Ring-Bearer.  Sam's eyes are more opened to the treachery of Gollum's character, so he treats him more harshly.  Sam is also focused on protecting Frodo, so he is inclined to distrust a deceptive being like Gollum.  Frodo's knowledge of the Ring is what gives him the idea of making Gollum swear by it as their guide.  He knows that it is as treacherous as Gollum, but that it will be a binding oath.  Sam and Frodo both pity Gollum for his wretchedness, but Sam is the only one that does not allow this pity to blind him.  Even when Sam becomes a Ring-Bearer himself, he does not sympathize with Gollum nearly as much as Frodo, probably because Gollum had just betrayed them to Shelob and almost gotten Frodo killed.  All of these various factors, coupled with the desperate importance of the Quest, allow the three of them to work together for a certain amount of time.  Gollum, even though he had his own treacherous plans, was just enough of a guide to allow Frodo and Sam success with the Quest. 

Shelob

As a child, there were two scenes in LOTR that I always dreaded watching. The first was the troll scene in Moria, and the second was Shelob's lair. I don't know what it is about spiders. I'm not an arachnophobe by any means, but I certainly understand people who are. Spiders just seem so alien. In the animal kingdom, there aren't many organisms that rival the sheer creepiness of spiders. They have too many legs and too many eyes.

This is probably why Tolkien chose Shelob to be a spider. She wasn't the first spider in Middle-Earth either. Ungoliant was an even more deadly spider in The Silmarillion who reeked havoc on Valinor. Spiders just seem evil. It is easy to imagine a giant spider trying to ruin my day. It is an easy method for Tolkien to portray his antagonist to the reader. It is harder to picture a Balrog or Gollum without any other knowledge. But a spider? Everyone can get in. Everyone could picture the terror of walking through a cave, and running into copious amounts of spider webs. It just strikes a certain fear into your heart. I certainly would never want a run-in with Shelob. I think I'd rather take my chances with Smaug.

"Integral" Characters

The exercises and discussions this week got me considering this question, which should have an obvious answer. But what does integral really mean for a story? And it got me thinking, is there any character that The Lord of the Rings could function, as it is, without? Obviously, Tolkien didn't add any characters to his story that had no purpose, there would be no reason for that. But are they all really vital, is the question. And the short answer for this, for the primary characters at least, is yes, they're all vital. As I said, obvious answer. But again, why is this the case? The story would be vastly different if even a single one of them is omitted.
This also goes back to a previous exercise we did on Tolkien's narrative choices, where we tested out other possibilities he could have made, such as maybe not killing Gandalf off, though we all agreed this was a must, but it is a possibility. If any character was still present, Boromir, or there in a different capacity, Gandalf for example, the story would not be the same. Each narrative choice and character are vital to the flow and progress of the story. Not much could be omitted or changed without altering the story. It's like the butterfly effect, one little change could send ripples through the whole story, causing it to be an entirely different one from the one we know or even possibly cause it to unravel.
Just some things I've been pondering.

In-Class Exercise: The Two Towers, Book IV, Chapters 1-6

In this exercise, we discussed how Tolkien created and managed to include each character's perspective within his stories. It was really interesting to see that in ensuring that each character's, even if they are not main characters, point of view is shown we are able to understand all sides of the story and develop attachments to all characters. Tolkien's ability to do this is really amazing and just goes to show how great of a writer he was. For this exercise, our group decided to focus on Faramir's perspective. We decided that it's important to note that, in his actions and despite the fact that he could have taken the ring from Frodo to better his relationship with his father, Faramir respected Frodo and Sam's mission, helping them even. Clearly, he values doing the right thing, putting the interests of all of Middle Earth above his own. Also, his honorable actions kind of puts Boromir's character into perspective in that the two brothers seem pretty different. While Boromir was aware of the stakes of the Fellowship's quest, he remained prideful and attempted to take the ring from Frodo. Faramir, having no prior knowledge of Frodo and Sam's quest and no reason to trust them other than their word, allows Frodo to leave with the ring, even attempting to protect him from Gollum. All in all, it is clear that perspective is crucial to a successful, intriguing, and well-rounded story.