“Leaf by Niggle”

In our last discussion, we talked about how this story might be a reflection of Tolkien on himself as a writer. How this story might depict how he was never satisfied with his work. How he never accomplished as much as he wanted. And how what he managed to actually get out was only a pale comparison to the vision he actually had. Well, that’s quite telling in and of itself as what he produced is incredible and so detailed so I can’t imagine what it actually could have been if his vision was fully realized. That’s a whole other discussion in itself, but not what I really want to look at. 

What I’m interested in exploring here is another possible interpretation for this story, one I had upon initially reading it, after looking past the not so subtle spiritual allegory aspect of it, this story could also be read, in my opinion, as a tale on the method of creating something artistic, whether that be a piece of art, a piece of writing, music, or whatever one’s artistic fancy may be. 

It details all of Niggle’s struggle to work on and get done this painting he wishes to accomplish, such as his responsibilities and his own lack of commitment. Then it shows how one sometimes has to put their work aside, not even think about, look at it, or consider it for a time. And then one can come back to it with fresh eyes and start anew, and possibly finally be able to realize the vision they’ve been striving for but have been unable to accomplish until now. That was the impression I took away from reading this story, pushing aside the idea that heaven is where all your greatest aspirations are realized, which is a nice thought but not a fulfilling one.  

The End (Sad but True)

There are several interesting aspects of Appendix A that we didn’t really look at in our discussion that I wanted to explore. The first is Aragorn having the choice of exactly when he would pass on and doing so despite the fact he would abandon Arwen in Middle-earth. This part caught my attention strongly as I found it very intriguing Tolkien decided to do it that way. Especially with the fact that Aragorn is essentially leaving Arwen behind by doing this, after having caused great emotional turmoil between her and Elrond by staying in Middle-earth to be with Aragorn. 

Second, the fact Legolas remains in Middle-earth until Aragorn decided to pass on before going overseas and the fact that he took Gimli with him. This fascinated me because the pull of the sea seemed so strong to Legolas, but his ties to his companions were enough to keep him in Middle-earth until one no longer was in Middle-earth anymore. Inviting Gimli to go West with him when he left also shows his incredibly tight friendship to the Dwarf, that he didn’t want to go without him.  

And third, Arwen’s determination that there was no way for her to go West and yet Legolas and Gimli are said to have. This was perhaps some disparity in the story, that these two pieces of this storyline do not match up, but it was kind of a glaring, hold on, wait up moment for me that really struck me. Not entirely sure what to make of it, but it caught my attention.  

It’s interesting how the departure of all these characters hinge on Aragorn, as if he’s the glue that held it all together. Tolkien gave these characters the ability to decide when it was finally their time. Very wondersome, given a lot of the events that take place in his stories are hinted at being based on fate. Yet this seems to be a decision not tied to fate.  

The Return of the King, Bk V, Chs 6-10, Hope and Despair

In our discussion this week, we talked about how hope and despair go hand in hand. How you cannot have one without the other. That they exist together implicitly. Tolkien does a great job of demonstrating this, time and time again, throughout these chapters. He doesn’t drag his reader down into hopelessness, but he doesn’t raise their expectations either. He keeps a fine balance between the two in order to create a more realistic and riveting read. I really enjoyed looking at all the examples of this.  

One particular example I thought was very interesting was how he showed Eomer, as the newly crowned King of the Mark, lose all hope at the sight of the sails of the ships on the Anduin and yet in that very same moment, he summons the courage to fight to the end, no matter what, despite believing all is lost. I found this intriguing because it is a demonstration of almost foolhardy hope as even though Eomer believes they’re about to be utterly defeated, he’s going to push on anyway. It’s like, there’s no hope, no point, but I’m going to die trying, mentality, which I found really fascinating. Of course, the real hope from the despair comes from when we learn that it’s Aragorn and his company on those boats rather than back up for Mordor’s troops. 

Another scene of this mesh of hope and despair that really caught my attention was the scene between Legolas and Gimli, where Galadriel’s warning to Legolas comes to fruition. Legolas sees the sea and yearns for it endlessly. This in itself holds both hope and despair because Legolas desperately longs for this and yet it means he’ll have to leave Middle-earth to pursue this yearning. Gimli then reminds Legolas that there’s still much for him to enjoy in Middle-earth and this again combines the two. It’s hopeful as it provides a reason for Legolas to stay but despair as it’s a precursor to an implied farewell once this has been fulfilled.  

I really enjoyed looking deeper into each one of these scenes that are filled with both hope and despair and hearing everyone’s interpretation of them. My favorite scene of hope and despair actually comes from book six, where Eowyn is despairing as they’ve had no news about how things have gone at the black gate, and Faramir brings hope by confessing he doesn’t want the world to end as he just found her. It was very sweet, and I thought Tolkien did an amazing job of delivering that scene so it had the perfect amount of romance in it.  

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. 

"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.

The Two Towers, Book III, Chs 1-5, Choices and Decisions

Oftentimes, as readers and consumers, we don’t necessarily consider the choices a writer has their characters make, we take them as a simple fact of the story, that that’s just how things went down. Sometimes we ask why, if we don’t entirely agree with a decision, but this is not often followed up with how things would be altered if the decision made was different or more to our liking. We, as a class, looked into this a bit in The Fellowship of the Ring and I enjoyed this different take on that sort of exercise we did for The Two Towers so I wanted to use my post to further explore what I found from doing this exercise.  

I had Ch I, “The Departure of Boromir.” For number one, “What?” I chose the decision by Aragorn and the others to pursue Pippin and Merry instead of following the ring-bearer, Frodo, and Sam. I believe it was influenced, both negatively and positively, by Boromir’s actions. Negatively by him going after Frodo and the ring, prompting Frodo to run off and leave alone. Positively by his attempt to make up for this by trying to protect Pippin and Merry from the Orc attack. This was also positively influenced by the discovery that Frodo did not go alone, Sam was with him. The obvious alternate decision that could have been made is for Aragorn and the others to abandon Pippin and Merry to follow Frodo and Sam instead. It’s a hard choice, but I don’t think I would like Aragorn very much if he’d made this decision, to sacrifice the hobbits currently in peril to go after the ones that were on the path to certain peril, but not yet in peril 

For number two, “Why?” I thought that the reason Tolkien had his characters make this decision was to split the paths of the company into three, a foreshadow of further or different splits in the company that would take place later. A nod to the fact they could never really remain together, they all have their own paths to follow for the goal to be reached. It also shows the characters' faith in Frodo for making this decision to leave and their belief he’ll see it through to the end, as well as their desire not to abandon the others to an unknown fate at the hands of the orcs. Heartstrings are definitely pulled by all that occurs for this decision to come to pass; a character we’re just beginning to sympathize with dies, we fear for Frodo and Sam on their path alone, but even more close at hand for Pippin and Merry and what’s going to happen to them if Aragorn and the others don’t get to them in time, and we’re rooting for Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli to be successful in their chase. This also divides the narrative from one into three different ones, so there’s some overlap in the plot and jumping back and forth, adding suspension. For whether or not it was the right decision, I would say it was, as Frodo made his decision based on the effects he observed the ring was having on others, and not wanting to afflict them with it further. He would have probably attempted to separate himself from the others even if they’d come after him. And the choice to follow Frodo would have changed things considerably. Merry and Pippin, though they made it out of their situation of their own accord, probably would have been a bit miffed at simply being abandoned, though they would have understand the others reasoning for it, it still wouldn't have been a fantastic feeling to believe they may be viewed as more expendable. And the help and interaction Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli had with the Rohirrim and Rohan would not have occurred, and these are major, significant pieces of the plotline.  

For three, “So What?” the working thesis I came up with is the fates of the fellowship were divided, they had to follow their own paths in order for the ultimate outcome of middle-earth being free of the ring and Sauron to be accomplished as they each played a different, separate role. It’s not that great, I’m still working on it, that’s why it’s a working thesis.  

This exercise was really interesting, and we didn’t have much time to really explore it in class, that’s why I wanted to explore it more fully here. Disclaimer, this is not what I came up with in class, especially number three.  

The Lord of the Rings, Bk2, Ch 2 The Council of Elrond, Natural Vs Unnatural/Supernatural

This is going to be a throwback to one of the exercises we did for the Hobbit. I thought it would be very interesting to do for the Lord of the rings as one thing I found really interesting about the discussion we had regarding this topic was how it could be thought of in two ways: what’s natural or unnatural to us versus what is natural or unnatural within middle-earth. What I found really intriguing for this exercise for this specific chapter is there’s a lot of unnatural things going on in middle-earth, which is why all these different people gathered for the council of Elrond.  

All the uncanny things that have happened in middle-earth: The dwarves ceased receiving messages from the re-established mines of Moria, the dwarves were questioned in regards to hobbits by messengers of Mordor, there’s been an invasion of Gondor from Mordor, an Orc attack in Mirkwood is suspected to have been coordinated to aid in Gollum’s escape of the Mirkwood Elves, and Saruman has turned towards the path of power.  

So much has gone south, all because of the ring, that brought the council together. Evil is hard at work disrupting the normal rhythm of the world. All these disruptions in middle-earth are the conclusive reason why the ring needs to be dealt with, and dealt with by being destroyed and that no other path besides this one is viable.    

It was very interesting to look at and see how all these unnatural aspects develop further as key elements in the story later on and as an explanation for what’s occurred. The black riders pursuit of Frodo and his gang to Rivendell, the trip through the mines of Moria, Saruman’s interference and fall, the battle at Gondor, Gollum’s role in Frodo and Sam’s journey. All of these are built off what we learn from the council and this is an intriguing narrative choice, to have this sort of outline given before getting into the thick of the action.