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.
Sunday, April 5, 2020
Saturday, April 4, 2020
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.
Friday, April 3, 2020
Living Within History
Yesterday we talked about how events that happened in The Lord of the Rings could become legend later on in Middle Earth and I can't stop thinking about how we are also living in a time that will become a story that future generations will tell.
I think that most of us on Earth know that we are watching history unfold right before our eyes and I think that the members of the Fellowship knew too. Firstly, they are put into a group where all the free peoples are represented to fulfill a secret quest that the leaders of the world have very obviously put all their hope into. That had to be weird for the people in the group, to be working with people they normally wouldn't even talk to, but they went with it because they understand that this time in their history is extraordinary and that extraordinary measures need to be taken. Secondly, Sam asks Frodo at the end of Two Towers if they'll "ever be put into songs or tales, " which clearly indicates that they are aware of the importance of their task and know that it will affect the rest of the world.
I find it amazing that even in the midst of trials and darkness we have the ability to see the light and talk about how the world will look one day, the stories they will tell. Tolkien perfectly portrayed this ability, this hope, in his characters. It is a great comfort to me that we have these works to bring us hope at this time. I wonder how the world would have looked without it.
I think that most of us on Earth know that we are watching history unfold right before our eyes and I think that the members of the Fellowship knew too. Firstly, they are put into a group where all the free peoples are represented to fulfill a secret quest that the leaders of the world have very obviously put all their hope into. That had to be weird for the people in the group, to be working with people they normally wouldn't even talk to, but they went with it because they understand that this time in their history is extraordinary and that extraordinary measures need to be taken. Secondly, Sam asks Frodo at the end of Two Towers if they'll "ever be put into songs or tales, " which clearly indicates that they are aware of the importance of their task and know that it will affect the rest of the world.
I find it amazing that even in the midst of trials and darkness we have the ability to see the light and talk about how the world will look one day, the stories they will tell. Tolkien perfectly portrayed this ability, this hope, in his characters. It is a great comfort to me that we have these works to bring us hope at this time. I wonder how the world would have looked without it.
Friendship as a Motivator in the Two Towers
During Tuesday's meeting, our exercise focused on the choices and decisions made in Book 3, Chapters 1-5 of The Two Towers. I was given Chapter 4, "Treebeard," to look through and identify the various decisions that were made in that chapter. One choice that stood out to me in my list was Treebeard's decision to gather his fellow Ents and go to Isengard to bring an end to Saruman's destruction of the forest. As he comes to realize his decision to go to Isengard, he says: "'Curse him, root and branch! Many of those trees were my friends, creatures I had known from nut and acorn; many had voices of their own that are lost for ever now.'"
Thus the motivation behind Treebeard's choice is not only his duty, as a shepherd of the forest, to protect but also to bring justice to the fallen trees, his fallen friends. It's clear to the reader how close Treebeard holds his friends to his heart since he gets heated when discussing it and even breaks his even, level-headed behavior as he grows "too hasty."
Another instance of this type of motivation is in Book 3, Chapter 1, "The Depature of Boromir." At the end of this Chapter, Gimli highlights their two choices: to attempt to follow Frodo or follow the Orcs. Aragorn makes the decision to follow the Orcs on foot to rescue Merry and Pippin, specifically stating that if he were to follow Frodo, he would "abandon the captives to torment and death" and he "cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left." This is the more physically demanding decision, as it will require traveling by foot across Rohan rather than taking the boats. This choice also diverges from the initial purpose of the Fellowship-to help Frodo get the Ring to Mordor. One could argue that loyalty to either pair of Hobbits acts a motivator for both these choices, but as Merry and Pippin are in more imminent danger, Aragorn is driven to follow them. Additionally, Legolas and Gimli raise no objection to this choice or to their choice to follow Aragorn as it is clear that they too strongly value their companions' safety.
Thus the motivation behind Treebeard's choice is not only his duty, as a shepherd of the forest, to protect but also to bring justice to the fallen trees, his fallen friends. It's clear to the reader how close Treebeard holds his friends to his heart since he gets heated when discussing it and even breaks his even, level-headed behavior as he grows "too hasty."
Another instance of this type of motivation is in Book 3, Chapter 1, "The Depature of Boromir." At the end of this Chapter, Gimli highlights their two choices: to attempt to follow Frodo or follow the Orcs. Aragorn makes the decision to follow the Orcs on foot to rescue Merry and Pippin, specifically stating that if he were to follow Frodo, he would "abandon the captives to torment and death" and he "cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left." This is the more physically demanding decision, as it will require traveling by foot across Rohan rather than taking the boats. This choice also diverges from the initial purpose of the Fellowship-to help Frodo get the Ring to Mordor. One could argue that loyalty to either pair of Hobbits acts a motivator for both these choices, but as Merry and Pippin are in more imminent danger, Aragorn is driven to follow them. Additionally, Legolas and Gimli raise no objection to this choice or to their choice to follow Aragorn as it is clear that they too strongly value their companions' safety.
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
Why Did Frodo Leave Middle-earth?
I've always kind of wondered why Frodo left Middle-earth at the end of The Lord of the Rings. I was expecting that he would want to return to the shire with Sam, Pippen, and Mary. After doing some research I found some interesting points describing why Frodo chose to leave.
First of all, Frodo suffers from both natural and magical "PTSD". There is a sadness in Frodo that he never quite overcomes despite returning to a life in The Shire. His wound from the Morgul blade that he suffered on Weathertop continues to bother him and we can only guess that he is tormented by the thought of failing to release the ring at the last moment on Mt. Doom.
Second, Frodo was the ring bearer for most of the story. Although Sam did bear the ring for a short while, it did not effect him to the same extent that Frodo experienced. It's important to note that the other three hobbits all return to The Shire and embark on strong public and personal journeys. Sam marries, Pippin and Merry become leaders but Frodo is just not the same. He is just not a whole person at ease with his surroundings similar to most veterans of intense wars.
Frodo leaves Middle-Earth because he's in pain and sailing into the West is his chance to reclaim some peace for himself in the blessed lands of Valinor.
First of all, Frodo suffers from both natural and magical "PTSD". There is a sadness in Frodo that he never quite overcomes despite returning to a life in The Shire. His wound from the Morgul blade that he suffered on Weathertop continues to bother him and we can only guess that he is tormented by the thought of failing to release the ring at the last moment on Mt. Doom.
Second, Frodo was the ring bearer for most of the story. Although Sam did bear the ring for a short while, it did not effect him to the same extent that Frodo experienced. It's important to note that the other three hobbits all return to The Shire and embark on strong public and personal journeys. Sam marries, Pippin and Merry become leaders but Frodo is just not the same. He is just not a whole person at ease with his surroundings similar to most veterans of intense wars.
Frodo leaves Middle-Earth because he's in pain and sailing into the West is his chance to reclaim some peace for himself in the blessed lands of Valinor.
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Tolkien and Changes in Perspective
In both The Hobbit and Lord of the rings, Tolkien makes the decision to have a narrator tell the story rather than having a first person perspective from Bilbo or Frodo. It makes sense for him to have made this choice, because it allows for information to be communicated to the reader without the character having to know it first. This is essential for storytelling in such a complex world.
Additionally though, it allows Tolkien to do something very interesting in shifting the point of view. In The Hobbit, we spend pretty much the entirety of the story with the narrator describing the places and events that Bilbo is also experiencing, so it feels like we almost see what he sees. Then, there is a sudden shift with what the narrator is describing as it changes to the village where we see Smaug attacking the Lake men, which allows the reader to see how this unfolds, and how Bard succeeded in defeating the dragon. This has a much greater impact than just hearing about it after the fact by someone telling a story.
In this week's reading for Lord of the Rings, there was another shift like this. For the first book, the narrator describes the events that involve Frodo, but after the separation of the Fellowship, we are transferred to the individual paths of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, as well as scenes with Merry and Pippin. Frodo, like Bilbo, is clearly such a central and relatable character, and t suddenly be progressing in the story without his influence creates a very clear contrast in this part of the story. It allows the reader to have a wider perspective of what's going on, as well as feel more connected with what the characters are experiencing and feeling, which again would not really be the case if this was all told in a story after the fact. Tolkien's decision to use a third person narrator is very effective because it allows him to make changes like these that help the story progress so much further and in a much more profound way.
Additionally though, it allows Tolkien to do something very interesting in shifting the point of view. In The Hobbit, we spend pretty much the entirety of the story with the narrator describing the places and events that Bilbo is also experiencing, so it feels like we almost see what he sees. Then, there is a sudden shift with what the narrator is describing as it changes to the village where we see Smaug attacking the Lake men, which allows the reader to see how this unfolds, and how Bard succeeded in defeating the dragon. This has a much greater impact than just hearing about it after the fact by someone telling a story.
In this week's reading for Lord of the Rings, there was another shift like this. For the first book, the narrator describes the events that involve Frodo, but after the separation of the Fellowship, we are transferred to the individual paths of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, as well as scenes with Merry and Pippin. Frodo, like Bilbo, is clearly such a central and relatable character, and t suddenly be progressing in the story without his influence creates a very clear contrast in this part of the story. It allows the reader to have a wider perspective of what's going on, as well as feel more connected with what the characters are experiencing and feeling, which again would not really be the case if this was all told in a story after the fact. Tolkien's decision to use a third person narrator is very effective because it allows him to make changes like these that help the story progress so much further and in a much more profound way.
Sunday, March 29, 2020
COVID Blues in relation to Gandalf's death
Hey everyone,
with all of this COVID-19 stuff going on, it has kinda been hitting me heavy. Sorry to get personal, but I lost both of my jobs and have spent the last week sulking and reading/Audio-booking LOTR. I've been trying to wrap my head about how classes are going online, and how sometimes it can be really hard to stay motivated, especially in a class that should be so hands on. Also, graduation is postponed, and it breaks my heart, seeing as I was supposed to walk after 6 years of going to college (bummer). Anyways, I really feel like the zoom meetings might help, keep me motivated throughout the rest of the semester. This was the only class I had that started back up this last week, and I really neglected it. I've been a sad couch potato and really hope this starts to get better. My "Extrovertedness" is really getting the best of me. This mood I'm feeling really reminds me of the lost hope everyone had when Gandalf first dies, and everyone just kind of gives up, but then they get to where they're going and find out everything will start to turn out for a somewhat better outcome. That's what I'm hoping for the last few weeks of this semester.
with all of this COVID-19 stuff going on, it has kinda been hitting me heavy. Sorry to get personal, but I lost both of my jobs and have spent the last week sulking and reading/Audio-booking LOTR. I've been trying to wrap my head about how classes are going online, and how sometimes it can be really hard to stay motivated, especially in a class that should be so hands on. Also, graduation is postponed, and it breaks my heart, seeing as I was supposed to walk after 6 years of going to college (bummer). Anyways, I really feel like the zoom meetings might help, keep me motivated throughout the rest of the semester. This was the only class I had that started back up this last week, and I really neglected it. I've been a sad couch potato and really hope this starts to get better. My "Extrovertedness" is really getting the best of me. This mood I'm feeling really reminds me of the lost hope everyone had when Gandalf first dies, and everyone just kind of gives up, but then they get to where they're going and find out everything will start to turn out for a somewhat better outcome. That's what I'm hoping for the last few weeks of this semester.
Inspirations
Hey everyone!
I noticed earlier in the week a couple people writing blog posts about the current pandemic that has really hit our world hard and it got me thinking about how writers are inspired. We have discussed in depth multiple times about Tolkien's inspirations and how one of his big ones, besides medieval literature, was the war he fought in. Relating this to the current pandemic, it makes me wonder what type of stories will come out of young people who lived while this pandemic was going on. Will we see stories with hoarders, self isolation, and quality time with family? Considering some of the biggest themes in Tolkien's works, heroism and comradery, were also things that you saw during the war among the soldiers I think it would be safe to assume we are going to be getting corona virus inspired literature in the future.
Thank you,
Frodo
I noticed earlier in the week a couple people writing blog posts about the current pandemic that has really hit our world hard and it got me thinking about how writers are inspired. We have discussed in depth multiple times about Tolkien's inspirations and how one of his big ones, besides medieval literature, was the war he fought in. Relating this to the current pandemic, it makes me wonder what type of stories will come out of young people who lived while this pandemic was going on. Will we see stories with hoarders, self isolation, and quality time with family? Considering some of the biggest themes in Tolkien's works, heroism and comradery, were also things that you saw during the war among the soldiers I think it would be safe to assume we are going to be getting corona virus inspired literature in the future.
Thank you,
Frodo
Sources: Gylfaginning compared to The Silmarillion
Gylfaginning states that Odin and Freya are father/mother to all who "fall in battle". This we can then assume, must be the driving force behind this culture. Because it establishes that only those who die in battle are favored by the creator and are allowed to go to Valhala. Those who die a normal death will go to the icy realm of Hel; one of Loki's children. A group of people who held these creation myths to be true would have to be conflict oriented. Speaking of Loki, he represents an especially interesting point of contention between mythologies. Loki is the seed of evil in norse mythology. Himself being born from a frost giant, his children Fenrir, Hel, and Jormungandr all take part in the destruction during Ragnarok (the fate of the gods). In Tolkien and in Christian mythos, Satan and Melkor are children of the creator same as all the other gods or angels. They were both more clever than their siblings and this turned them towards rebellion, deceit, and ultimately pure evil. They both bring about the distancing of man/elf from god and the undoing of eternal bliss. Loki's main characteristic is his cleverness which is similar to Melkor. However Loki is not ultimately good or evil. He fights with the frost giants during Ragnarok but throughout all the time of the gods he is just as often found helping them as harming them. In this way Melkor more closely resembles Satan; in that he is the root of all evil in middle earth. We can see the same difference in understanding of existence here that I talked with the existence of original evil. In Norse mythology and Greek mythology there is no peace that comes before existence. There is no guarantee of eternal bliss even at the moment of creation. There is always chaos. The Norse Mythos goes as far as to have the downfall of its own gods foretold in its creation myth. Its not just the destruction of the world or of people but of almost all the gods and every feature of the old order. In Tolkien's mythos and in Christianity the beginning is marked by the promise of eternal bliss. Evil does not exist at all before the creation of the angels or Ainur/Valar. Instead it is introduced by a single discordant child of the creator. Who from there on represents all evil and everything that is wrong with the world. These are two distinct viewpoints to have on creation and existence. In the case of North mythology the creation of the world comes after the creation of evil and therefore all the order and good which comes from the world must eventually return to evil. There will be a rebirth but the old gods will no longer exist. Tolkien's viewpoint is that the song of Iluvatar was completely pure. Melkor was the sole originator of all corruption and theoretically had he never existed the world could have existed without any strife or conflict. I think this is the reason that Melkor and Satan have to be pure evil unlike Loki. They don't just perform evil actions. They are the originators, they are the spoilers of eternal bliss. And while they are necessary for the events of creation and for the future of men/elves they will always be hated for introducing all the misery and turmoil which people encounter in their lifetimes.
We've talked a lot in this class about how Tolkien's Christianity influences the themes and morals of his fiction. But its obvious that his knowledge of ancient mythologies influenced his writings greatly as well. Knowing the history of the tropes that Tolkien uses allows us to understand his true intentions for middle earth. It helps us understand the choices Tolkien made consciously or unconsciously to create an engrossing fantasy world. With self contained morals and logic. Honestly I think reading ancient mythologies helps our understanding of the nature of humanity as a whole so It makes sense to me that it would help you to understand what Tolkien is trying to convey in his stories better. Although sometimes I do wonder exactly how productive all this comparing and contrasting really is.
Boromir
Why does Tolkien choose to dispense with Boromir so early in LOTR? He is clearly a character based on heroic traditions as are several of Tolkien's characters. Did we really need another traditional hero? Why did he bother to introduce him at all, if he was going to die so early in the narrative? Remember that Tolkien could have written this story without needing Boromir in any scene at all, so what purpose(s) does he have in including this character?
Friendship in LOTR
In an earlier post, the friendship between Sam and Frodo was discussed, but Tolkien also chooses to allow a specific bond of friendship to develop between Legolas and Gimli. Why between these two characters? Why not Legolas and Merry? Or Gimli and Sam? Or Aragorn and Legolas? Or Merry and Aragorn? What moral, ethical or even simply thematic point is Tolkien trying to make with this friendship?
Friendship itself as well as the loyalty between friends is also a key theme throughout LOTR. Apart from the bond between Legolas and Gimli, what other ways does Tolkien emphasize the importance of friendship in his works?
Friendship itself as well as the loyalty between friends is also a key theme throughout LOTR. Apart from the bond between Legolas and Gimli, what other ways does Tolkien emphasize the importance of friendship in his works?
Possible Paper Topics?
Some of you are having trouble coming up with a good topic for your Analytic Paper. While a strong, highly specific thesis statement is even more important than a good topic, those below are examples of a few potentially successful paper topics. You are free to develop any topic of your own, but the topics below may help you get started, if you do not already have a topic in mind. Remember that the suggestions below are topics, not thesis statements. To earn a high score on one of these or a topic of your own, you will have to focus it on a much more specific point (thesis) you wish to make that you support and argue using direct, clear evidence from the text.
What other possible topics are you considering for your own Analytic Paper or might you suggest to others in our class who are still seeking a good paper topic?
● Tom Bombadil – Discuss the moral/ethical problem of Tom Bombadil within The Lord of the Rings. In other words, analyze his place within the moral and physical structures of Tolkien’s Middle-earth. The problem of Bombadil is that he does not always seem to fit in with other things we know of this world. For example, he is unaffected by the One Ring. How can you explain Bombadil’s apparent exemption from the rules that govern other beings in Middle-earth? Examine not just what we actually see of Bombadil, but also what all other characters in the story say about him. Work toward finding something conclusive to say about this seemingly elusive character.
● Women – Examine the female principle in Tolkien’s literary world. Focus on specific archetypes of femaleness represented in any of Tolkien’s works. You may wish to expand your argument to include a more general examination of the male-female opposition in Tolkien’s world. In addition to the more obvious female figures, you may wish to consider unexpected characters, such as Lúthien, Entwives, Farmer Giles’ mare, female Dwarves, women Orcs, Goldberry, etc. However you approach this topic, work to explain how women in Tolkien function as models for larger concepts.
● Stewardship – Establish a clear, cohesive explanation of the concept of stewardship as it is developed in any of Tolkien’s works. Consider the similarities and differences between the kinds of stewardship represented by characters such as Aragorn, Smith of Wootton Major, Gandalf, Denethor, the Ents, etc. Focus on getting at the essence of stewardship in one or more works by Tolkien. Consider how the concept of stewardship might serve to mediate between other concepts such as kingship or wizardship.
● Physical Sustenance – Analyze how the presence or absence of food not only activates the plot of the trilogy, but also comments with some significance on the mental, emotional, and spiritual states of Tolkien’s world. Focus on how sustenance or nurturance signifies something larger than what a Hobbit enjoys eating or drinking. This should not be an archaeological examination of the eating habits of elves or dwarves, but an argument about what those habits and what the denial of those habits suggests in terms of the larger purpose of Tolkien’s work.
● Sound and Language – Tolkien goes to great lengths to create languages, song lyrics, and names of characters that not only enhance but actually embody some of the abstract concepts he wishes to promote in his works. Explore how forms of sound or spoken language affect or change the ways readers comprehend Tolkien’s purpose and the meanings behind the story in one or more texts.
● Fate and Free Will – Throughout his works, Tolkien explores the relationships between an externally proscribed fate and the choices of the individual to affect his or her future. Examine Tolkien’s perspective on this ancient debate. To be successful in addressing this very tricky topic, establish a specific position that you argue extensively using textual evidence, as it will not be enough to simply survey the various instances where Tolkien presents each of these philosophic perspectives.
What other possible topics are you considering for your own Analytic Paper or might you suggest to others in our class who are still seeking a good paper topic?
● Tom Bombadil – Discuss the moral/ethical problem of Tom Bombadil within The Lord of the Rings. In other words, analyze his place within the moral and physical structures of Tolkien’s Middle-earth. The problem of Bombadil is that he does not always seem to fit in with other things we know of this world. For example, he is unaffected by the One Ring. How can you explain Bombadil’s apparent exemption from the rules that govern other beings in Middle-earth? Examine not just what we actually see of Bombadil, but also what all other characters in the story say about him. Work toward finding something conclusive to say about this seemingly elusive character.
● Women – Examine the female principle in Tolkien’s literary world. Focus on specific archetypes of femaleness represented in any of Tolkien’s works. You may wish to expand your argument to include a more general examination of the male-female opposition in Tolkien’s world. In addition to the more obvious female figures, you may wish to consider unexpected characters, such as Lúthien, Entwives, Farmer Giles’ mare, female Dwarves, women Orcs, Goldberry, etc. However you approach this topic, work to explain how women in Tolkien function as models for larger concepts.
● Stewardship – Establish a clear, cohesive explanation of the concept of stewardship as it is developed in any of Tolkien’s works. Consider the similarities and differences between the kinds of stewardship represented by characters such as Aragorn, Smith of Wootton Major, Gandalf, Denethor, the Ents, etc. Focus on getting at the essence of stewardship in one or more works by Tolkien. Consider how the concept of stewardship might serve to mediate between other concepts such as kingship or wizardship.
● Physical Sustenance – Analyze how the presence or absence of food not only activates the plot of the trilogy, but also comments with some significance on the mental, emotional, and spiritual states of Tolkien’s world. Focus on how sustenance or nurturance signifies something larger than what a Hobbit enjoys eating or drinking. This should not be an archaeological examination of the eating habits of elves or dwarves, but an argument about what those habits and what the denial of those habits suggests in terms of the larger purpose of Tolkien’s work.
● Sound and Language – Tolkien goes to great lengths to create languages, song lyrics, and names of characters that not only enhance but actually embody some of the abstract concepts he wishes to promote in his works. Explore how forms of sound or spoken language affect or change the ways readers comprehend Tolkien’s purpose and the meanings behind the story in one or more texts.
● Fate and Free Will – Throughout his works, Tolkien explores the relationships between an externally proscribed fate and the choices of the individual to affect his or her future. Examine Tolkien’s perspective on this ancient debate. To be successful in addressing this very tricky topic, establish a specific position that you argue extensively using textual evidence, as it will not be enough to simply survey the various instances where Tolkien presents each of these philosophic perspectives.
Boromir, a Tragic Hero(?)
With all the discussion circulating about heroism, I continually return in my thoughts to how that noble quality relates to The Lord of the Ring's enigmatic man, Boromir of Gondor. Of all the nine members of the Fellowship, Boromir is the one whose role is the smallest though his reputation is among the most discussed. Also interesting, Boromir, though he dies at the very beginning of The Two Towers, is a critical figure throughout the rest of the story. This is in no small part due to Tolkien's elaboration of Boromir's family, namely his brother Faramir and father Denethor. Both these characters in their own right bring much to the table of plot, but even then, their character development relies significantly on what is already known about Boromir. So then, how should the reader interpret this character?
For one, Boromir's character arc enabled Tolkien to add a tragic element to his story, thus establishing the gravity and fragility of the Fellowship's aim, destroying the Ring. When the class discussed the chapters covering Lothlorien, it was noted that Boromir's change seemed to be most manifest after leaving the Golden Wood. I think this is essential to understanding Boromir. Galadriel had tested each member of the Fellowship with what "a choice between a shadow full of fear that lay ahead, and something that [each] greatly desired." We, as the reader, suspect what Boromir has been tested with based on his odd behavior after that moment. Still, Sam finally puts our suspicions into words when he tells Faramir that Boromir saw in Lothlorien that which he wanted so desperately, the Ring of Power.
Boromir was almost written to be an inadvertent foil to the mission of the Quest. He routinely proposes that the Ring be taken to Gondor under the safekeeping of the steward and of the mighty walls of Minas Tirith. While his suggestion that the Ring could be used against the forces of Mordor is blatantly ignorant of such an action's ramifications, his intentions don't seem to be solely the product of selfishness or an undying lust for personal power. Boromir certainly demonstrates much pride, and in some respects that causes his downfall, yet Tolkien seems to continually remind the writer of Boromir's good qualities in lieu of his bad. When asked by Faramir if he was a friend of Boromir's, Frodo responds by saying he was for his part, no less remembering what Boromir had tried to do at Amon Hen. The hobbit is generally dismayed by the news of Boromir's passing, and that alone speaks volumes to the real nature of Boromir before he was overtaken by his temptatious desire.
Finally, I want to conclude by comparing the character of Boromir with that of Sir Gawain as I see some striking similarities between the two. In his analysis (thoroughly compiled by Christopher Tolkien) of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," J.R.R. Tolkien expresses what he viewed as Sir Gawain's various qualities, whether admirable or not, "a subtle form of pride," "the warmth of his character," generosity, and impetuosity. I see some of these same qualities displayed in Boromir. He displayed a keen sense of pride in Gondor and, to a degree, his status in that kingdom. However, throughout the book he is also seen as being a warm, friendly man. Even when he confronts Frodo at Amon Hen, he initially approaches the hobbit kindly, offering his counsel. That was his real nature, but of course, we all know what his madness for the Ring would also produce mere moments later. Still, the Boromir that sought to take the Ring from Frodo was not the true man of Gondor just as the same Bibo Baggins whose countenance so sharply shifted when he saw the Ring in Rivendell was not the true Bilbo Baggins. The temptation of the Ring drew out the worst in both, illustrated excellently by the corruption of Gollum.
Boromir's failure should not define him. Just as Sir Gawain made a mistake in withholding the girdle from the lord of the castle, so too did Boromir gravely err in trying to steal the Ring. Boromir's actions are not admirable and should not be treated thus, but his mistake breaks "the mathematical perfection of an ideal creature, inhuman in flawlessness" by presenting him as a tragic archetype of the consequences of falling into temptation. Still, Boromir after his great mistake demonstrates heroism by recognizing his errors, seeking forgiveness--tragically Frodo is not there to hear Boromir's sorrowful pleas, and ultimately sacrifices his life in defense of Merry and Pippin. Through his struggles, Boromir, like Sir Gawain, "becomes a real man," imperfect, flawed and not always admirable but still with such qualities that cause us to mourn his departure. As a result, Boromir exists as a form of tragic hero, one who deserves both sympathy and rebuke.
I'm curious, though. How do you view Boromir? Was Peter Jackson perhaps too forgiving in his portrayal of him in the movie adaptations?
For one, Boromir's character arc enabled Tolkien to add a tragic element to his story, thus establishing the gravity and fragility of the Fellowship's aim, destroying the Ring. When the class discussed the chapters covering Lothlorien, it was noted that Boromir's change seemed to be most manifest after leaving the Golden Wood. I think this is essential to understanding Boromir. Galadriel had tested each member of the Fellowship with what "a choice between a shadow full of fear that lay ahead, and something that [each] greatly desired." We, as the reader, suspect what Boromir has been tested with based on his odd behavior after that moment. Still, Sam finally puts our suspicions into words when he tells Faramir that Boromir saw in Lothlorien that which he wanted so desperately, the Ring of Power.
Boromir was almost written to be an inadvertent foil to the mission of the Quest. He routinely proposes that the Ring be taken to Gondor under the safekeeping of the steward and of the mighty walls of Minas Tirith. While his suggestion that the Ring could be used against the forces of Mordor is blatantly ignorant of such an action's ramifications, his intentions don't seem to be solely the product of selfishness or an undying lust for personal power. Boromir certainly demonstrates much pride, and in some respects that causes his downfall, yet Tolkien seems to continually remind the writer of Boromir's good qualities in lieu of his bad. When asked by Faramir if he was a friend of Boromir's, Frodo responds by saying he was for his part, no less remembering what Boromir had tried to do at Amon Hen. The hobbit is generally dismayed by the news of Boromir's passing, and that alone speaks volumes to the real nature of Boromir before he was overtaken by his temptatious desire.
Finally, I want to conclude by comparing the character of Boromir with that of Sir Gawain as I see some striking similarities between the two. In his analysis (thoroughly compiled by Christopher Tolkien) of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," J.R.R. Tolkien expresses what he viewed as Sir Gawain's various qualities, whether admirable or not, "a subtle form of pride," "the warmth of his character," generosity, and impetuosity. I see some of these same qualities displayed in Boromir. He displayed a keen sense of pride in Gondor and, to a degree, his status in that kingdom. However, throughout the book he is also seen as being a warm, friendly man. Even when he confronts Frodo at Amon Hen, he initially approaches the hobbit kindly, offering his counsel. That was his real nature, but of course, we all know what his madness for the Ring would also produce mere moments later. Still, the Boromir that sought to take the Ring from Frodo was not the true man of Gondor just as the same Bibo Baggins whose countenance so sharply shifted when he saw the Ring in Rivendell was not the true Bilbo Baggins. The temptation of the Ring drew out the worst in both, illustrated excellently by the corruption of Gollum.
Boromir's failure should not define him. Just as Sir Gawain made a mistake in withholding the girdle from the lord of the castle, so too did Boromir gravely err in trying to steal the Ring. Boromir's actions are not admirable and should not be treated thus, but his mistake breaks "the mathematical perfection of an ideal creature, inhuman in flawlessness" by presenting him as a tragic archetype of the consequences of falling into temptation. Still, Boromir after his great mistake demonstrates heroism by recognizing his errors, seeking forgiveness--tragically Frodo is not there to hear Boromir's sorrowful pleas, and ultimately sacrifices his life in defense of Merry and Pippin. Through his struggles, Boromir, like Sir Gawain, "becomes a real man," imperfect, flawed and not always admirable but still with such qualities that cause us to mourn his departure. As a result, Boromir exists as a form of tragic hero, one who deserves both sympathy and rebuke.
I'm curious, though. How do you view Boromir? Was Peter Jackson perhaps too forgiving in his portrayal of him in the movie adaptations?
Saturday, March 28, 2020
Types of Heroism
I hadn't thought about this as clearly before reading Gawain and the green knight, but there are really two different main types of heroes in stories.
There are heroes who slay evil creatures with great prowess in battle. Here the hero is often someone on a long path of ambition or vengeance, and they need to become stronger in order to overcome their enemies. This puts the focus on training, learning new skills and gaining experience in combat.
In other stories, heroes may do battle from time to time, but that is not what makes them heroic. They are heroic because they do the right thing where others don't, and because they have the courage to face evil not in a contest of swords, but in a contest of will.
Both types of heroes can make for good stories, but the former leads to a world in which the better killer is right. This means that if you want to convey some clear moral message through a story, the hero's ability to kill his enemies must somehow derive from his morals, which is somewhat hard to do convincingly. The latter allows the hero to triumph through pure strength of will, which allows the story to be a clear case of good morals triumphing over evil ones, rather than a fighter triumphing over a weaker fighter.
There are heroes who slay evil creatures with great prowess in battle. Here the hero is often someone on a long path of ambition or vengeance, and they need to become stronger in order to overcome their enemies. This puts the focus on training, learning new skills and gaining experience in combat.
In other stories, heroes may do battle from time to time, but that is not what makes them heroic. They are heroic because they do the right thing where others don't, and because they have the courage to face evil not in a contest of swords, but in a contest of will.
Both types of heroes can make for good stories, but the former leads to a world in which the better killer is right. This means that if you want to convey some clear moral message through a story, the hero's ability to kill his enemies must somehow derive from his morals, which is somewhat hard to do convincingly. The latter allows the hero to triumph through pure strength of will, which allows the story to be a clear case of good morals triumphing over evil ones, rather than a fighter triumphing over a weaker fighter.
Tolkien as a Nature Writer
One of my favorite genres is nature writing. Edward Abbey is my favorite author, and he is among a rank of other favorites like Thoreau, Wallace Stegner, and Aldo Leopold among others. The more that I read Tolkien, the more similarities between Tolkien and these other authors. Particularly within the universe of Middle-Earth, natural themes and forces play strong roles. A great example of this is the power of Fangorn Forest in The Two Towers. It is a classic man-versus-nature story, except in this one, nature is capable of literally fighting back. Tolkien draws focus on the damage that man can do to the surrounding ecosystems, and how it isn't a "victimless crime." With deforestation, pollution, and other forms of environmental degredation, there are organisms being harmed. The behaviors of man undermine the integrity of these ecosystems.
Years ago, someone proposed a thought experiment to me (to be honest I can't remember if it was in a conversation with someone, or I read it somewhere) which I found to be profound. If trees could scream, would we still cut them down? While this seems like a childish example, if you think about it, the "screaming" is less important than the concept that nature can feel pain. If we could see this pain, would we still be inflicting it? Now of course, even if we could, this would not be an end-all to our problems with environmental harm, but it would at least make us think twice about the effects that we are having on the natural world around us.
Now I don't know enough about Tolkien to know his history with nature, but the way he writes demonstrates that he obviously holds a respect for the power of nature. The power and beauty of trees is a particular recurrence in his works. The Hobbits have to escape Old Man Willow with the help of Tom Bombadil in The Fellowship of the Ring, and Fangorn Forest are both instances of more-personified power held by trees and tree-ish organisms. The two trees of Valinor in The Silmarillion are essentially the epitome of nature anywhere, and possess a light which was duplicated in the Silmarils. The White Tree of Gondor, which was created in image of one of the trees of Valinor, is another tree which reflects beauty and power.
Another important aspect of nature writing is the documentation of the beauty in even the small things (the significance of the insignificant). Thoreau's Walden Pond wasn't some remote body of water in the New England wilderness (if that ever even existed), but instead a pond in the forest a few miles from civilization. Ralph Waldo Emerson lived in this town, and Thoreau would occasionally stop by for a meal. This proximity to the comforts of society did not stop Thoreau from noticing and appreciating the profound natural beauty of Walden Pond. He loved the changing of the seasons, the birds, and his bean-fields. Although I don't know if Tolkien was familiar with Thoreau (personally I would doubt if an Oxford professor would trouble themselves with American transcendental literature), but Thoreau's appreciation of the beauty of his surroundings reminds me of hobbits. They love the growing grass, the leaves of the trees, and the green gardens outside of their hobbit holes. Maybe there is space for a naturalist like Thoreau in the Shire.
Years ago, someone proposed a thought experiment to me (to be honest I can't remember if it was in a conversation with someone, or I read it somewhere) which I found to be profound. If trees could scream, would we still cut them down? While this seems like a childish example, if you think about it, the "screaming" is less important than the concept that nature can feel pain. If we could see this pain, would we still be inflicting it? Now of course, even if we could, this would not be an end-all to our problems with environmental harm, but it would at least make us think twice about the effects that we are having on the natural world around us.
Now I don't know enough about Tolkien to know his history with nature, but the way he writes demonstrates that he obviously holds a respect for the power of nature. The power and beauty of trees is a particular recurrence in his works. The Hobbits have to escape Old Man Willow with the help of Tom Bombadil in The Fellowship of the Ring, and Fangorn Forest are both instances of more-personified power held by trees and tree-ish organisms. The two trees of Valinor in The Silmarillion are essentially the epitome of nature anywhere, and possess a light which was duplicated in the Silmarils. The White Tree of Gondor, which was created in image of one of the trees of Valinor, is another tree which reflects beauty and power.
Another important aspect of nature writing is the documentation of the beauty in even the small things (the significance of the insignificant). Thoreau's Walden Pond wasn't some remote body of water in the New England wilderness (if that ever even existed), but instead a pond in the forest a few miles from civilization. Ralph Waldo Emerson lived in this town, and Thoreau would occasionally stop by for a meal. This proximity to the comforts of society did not stop Thoreau from noticing and appreciating the profound natural beauty of Walden Pond. He loved the changing of the seasons, the birds, and his bean-fields. Although I don't know if Tolkien was familiar with Thoreau (personally I would doubt if an Oxford professor would trouble themselves with American transcendental literature), but Thoreau's appreciation of the beauty of his surroundings reminds me of hobbits. They love the growing grass, the leaves of the trees, and the green gardens outside of their hobbit holes. Maybe there is space for a naturalist like Thoreau in the Shire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)