Description of the Black Riders

For the activity we did in class on Thursday, one of the groups had the portion of the text in which Frodo uses the ring to try and hide from the Black Riders, but instead sees them in their true form.  This is a very interesting passage, because it doesn't help the plot progress and in that sense is unnecessary, but I think in terms of helping Tolkien's theme of humanity (and its corruptibility) in his works progress this is absolutely necessary.  

 As we've seen, even though these creatures that Tolkien has created for his world are very foreign at first, we soon see that they posses very human qualities that allow us to relate so closely to many characters, especially the hobbits.  But, for us to relate to, or even feel pity for these dark and evil figures called the black riders is not so easily done.  However, in order for Tolkien to keep a convincing secondary world and also continue his themes of humanity, he shows the readers, in detail, exactly who these riders are, and how the desire for power has corrupted who they once were.  Knowing what they look like certainly doesn't make them any less terrifying, it makes them more so.

I think this is very clever of Tolkien, because the riders are no longer terrifying just because of their violence and dark appearance, but because they were at one time not so different from the reader.  The corruption of Gollum is pitiful and somewhat scary as well, but this description elevates the danger of the ring to a new level, allowing Tolkien to further prove the point that this ring should be destroyed. 

The Hobbit, Chs 1-5, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Bk 1, Chs 1-12, Bk 2, Ch 1, Bilbo’s Character vs Frodo’s Character

An interesting comparison can be made between Bilbo, at the beginning of his tale in the Hobbit, and Frodo, at the beginning of his in the Lord of the Rings.  

As discussed in class, Bilbo is an unlikely Hero as he absolutely does not want the adventure presented to him, at the time it was thrust upon him. Tolkien did this to show the drastic change that comes over his main character by the end of his journey. At the beginning of the Lord of the Rings, we find Bilbo now very willing and eager to seek out adventure, even when one doesn’t present itself to him. A very different Bilbo from the one at the beginning of the Hobbit.   

In contrast to Bilbo, and probably as an effect of growing up around the adventure hungry Bilbo, Frodo is more than willing to take on his adventure, though he’s no keen on the danger the ring presents himself and those around him, and does dilly dally around before heading out on his quest. Frodo loves the shire yet admits several times, and Bilbo does too, that he’d have loved to have gone with Bilbo when he left, to have had an adventure with him.  

Frodo then acknowledges that he finds his adventure not as appealing or grand as the one Bilbo had told him, once he’d experienced the perils of adventuring, and wants it to be over and done with after reaching Rivendell. Yet when presented with the question of who’d bare the ring to Mount Doom, Frodo steps up to take the burden upon himself, something I’m not sure Bilbo would have done, if it’d have been posed to him under similar circumstances.  

Bilbo’s more than willing to take on the task when presented to him when it was, probably more from the draw of the ring, to possess it again, then for any other reason, even knowing he’s much happier without it. If he’d been in Frodo’s place, and the chance had been offered to Bilbo, for him to be done with his adventure and be able to go home, Bilbo might have taken it, given how reluctant he was to even go on his adventure and all his lamentations of wishing he was home throughout his tale.

So I Write Editorials for My Hometown's Newspaper and Was Thinking about What to Write...

A bit of backstory (without revealing anything about the person behind the pseudonym) seems appropriate. Basically, for the last 5 years I have written articles for my hometown's newspaper on a biweekly (now monthly) basis, and I had a deadline coming up without any idea of what to write. Thus, I present the following piece, and yes, it was published yesterday in the paper so either this piece was par for the course or the paper has low publishing standards...

The life, influences, and works of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien are absolutely amazing. Of course, it only took me rereading The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings thrice and taking a college course dedicated to the subject, but better late than never I suppose. Besides the massive cult following created by the two movie series adaptions of the aforementioned books, Tolkien’s lesser known works and essays have had a profound impact on how certain genres and works are viewed today. Whether it his essay defending the importance of fairy stories despite their general relegation to the children’s section, his essay tackling his contemporaries’ opinion of Beowulf, or the many literary aspects of his works concerning Middle Earth, Tolkien’s life and writings would be effectively taught in classes at a variety of scholastic levels, not just college.

            Though a tad meandering in a way that tempts you to reread the entire last page to see if you missed something, Tolkien’s essays are fascinating, especially since many of them have left a remarkable impact on the academic world. “On Fairy Stories” is no exception, especially given the context for the essay. Tolkien had originally written it to present to a lecture concerning Andrew Lang and his published collections of fairy tales. Tolkien’s speech critiqued Lang’s inclusion of certain stories as fairy stories, and he equally criticized the idea that fairy stories can only be purely enjoyed by children. On the contrary, Tolkien’s analysis seems quite right – fairy stories are a genre only a portion of the population can enjoy, whether child or adult. In addition, the mythic portions of fairy stories, the stuff that most modern adaptions attempt to remove for the sake of children, are essential to the essence of the fairy story. Case in point, Tolkien’s favorite fairy story, The Juniper Tree, is about how a boy is killed by his stepmother and is served as food to the rest of the family. The boy is reincarnated as a bird, and through a series of events he kills the stepmother and transforms back into a boy. Truly, anyone who says fairy stories are purely for children has never read the Grimm’s fairy story collection.

            Another one of Tolkien’s essays, “Beowulf: Monsters and Critics”, may perhaps be the primary reason why Beowulf is even taught in schools at all. Before Tolkien’s influential essay of 1936, most of the readership of Beowulf consisted of history scholars, who critiqued the work based on its historical merit. In fact, so much criticism had been written on how poor of a source of historical information Beowulf was that Tolkien claimed that the story had been buried beneath it. Thus, Tolkien expounded on the importance of the poem as a work of literature, pointing out that the story was created on the cusp of great cultural change, as tales associated with the old gods become mixed with the Old Testament via the introduction of Christianity. Contrary to critics, having two monsters at the beginning and end is not problematic for the story, as it emphasizes the theme of man’s inevitable mortality in the struggle against chaos and its agents, a struggle that inevitably ends in defeat. So for anyone in high school who complains about having to read Beowulf, you have no one to blame except Tolkien (and yourself).

            Finally, besides Tolkien’s numerous essays, one can hardly promote the study of Tolkien’s works if they do not discuss his larger, more famous works – that is, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings. While teaching all three of the aforementioned works would be nigh impossible to do in a semester or academic year, the masterful writing of Tolkien means at least one them deserves to be read and studied at some point in one’s academic career. For there are so many things to glean from the books, regardless of one’s religious beliefs or prior knowledge of history. However, given that the author of this column is both a Catholic (who may possibly be bemoaning the fact he gave up multiple things this Lenten season) and an avid fan of history and the life of Tolkien, analyzing the literature from a Christian mindset and historical context is currently a blast.

            Take The Silmarillion for example, in particular” Ainulindalë” and “Valaquenta”. The story of the creation of Middle Earth not only shows the depth of Tolkien’s dedication to the world-building of his story, but it also demonstrates an appreciation for the historical religions he studied. Reading between the lines of the story of the Valar, Maiar, and forces of Melkor, one can find numerous influences from Greek, Roman, Germanic, and Norse mythology. Through all these pantheons, however, one also sees a skillful entangling of Catholic tradition. For example, the choir of Ainur, the Valar, and the Maiar almost tie in perfectly with traditional angelology, with the aforementioned groups possibly representing the first, second, and third spheres of angelic hosts.  

            In the end, one could go on for ages – the theme of the significance of the seemingly insignificant, the effect of friendship and tragedy during the Great War on Tolkien’s writing, how Tolkien’s time helping compile the Oxford English Dictionary shaped his writing of Farmer Giles of Ham – but that is quite enough. In short, even if Tolkien’s works do not become standard public school curriculum, one should still make the effort to read his major works at least once in their life. The road goes ever on and on…

Darkness Sees Darkness

I wanted to talk here a little more about how putting on the Ring allows you to see the servants of evil and them see you. I found it interesting that the Ring is a door of sorts between the dark and light sides of Middle Earth.

Frodo lives on the light side and cannot be seen by the wraiths. While the Ringwraiths live on the dark side and can only be seen because they wear black cloaks. The Ring acts as a connection between the two sides, allowing Frodo to see what he is up against and, as a consequence, allowing the wraiths to see exactly where Frodo is.

I'm intrigued that the servants of evil can only see people through an evil conduit. It reminds me of how people will oftentimes look for evidence to back up their own ideas instead of opening their minds to other ideas, something social media algorithms are good at supporting. The Ringwraiths can only see darkness because they are darkness and they refuse to open their minds to the light.

It is incredible how novels written more than twenty years ago can still have an impact on the world today.

The Introduction of Arwen in the Fellowship of the Ring

One of the aspects of the film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings series that has always stood out to me was their enhancement of Arwen's involvement in the main events of the story. Given that I just read the books for the first time this year and am currently reading them for a second time, I was far more familiar with how the story and characters were presented in the films. That being said, when I read through the series, I was pretty surprised at how little Arwen appears in the story (and how her and Aragorn's relationship is merely implied until The Return of the King). Since this week's readings covered "Many Meetings", the first and only chapter that Arwen actively appears in until The Return of the King, I thought I would dedicate a post to where the Lady of Rivendell falls in line of important characters in the history of Middle-Earth.

As is stated in "Many Meetings", Arwen is the youngest of Elrond and Celebrían's children and their only daughter. Her paternal grandparents were Eärendil and Elwing. It is through her grandmother than she is a descendent of Beren and Lúthien, to whom she is said to have a strong likeness to in appearance. She is also the granddaughter of Galadriel and Celeborn through her mother Celebrían. However, despite her mother being Elven, Arwen is of the Half-Elven since her grandfather is Eärendil, the second of the Half-Elven. Her marriage to Aragorn, whose ancestor is Elros, brother of Elrond and Half-Elven, would reunite the lineage of the Half-Eleven.

Also a fun note about her name(s): One of the names she is known by is Undómiel, which is the Quenyan (High-Eleven) word for Evenstar: Undómë meaning "evening twilight" and el meaning "star". The name Arwen is in Sindarian (the common Elvish language) and translates to "royal, noble" and "maiden".

Concerning Hobbits

Tolkien's choice of the race of hobbits as the main protagonist of both The Hobbit and LOTR has always interested me. They are obviously designed to be the most relatable characters in  the books, which is ironic because Man is literally a race in the books, and a race which I personally consider myself to be a part of. But in regards to Men, I can't personally relate to the ideas of kings, nobility, and great and victorious battles. I far prefer the quaint and peaceful life of the Shire, although I couldn't bear to be cooped up in Hobbiton my whole life. I'd be more of a Took probably.

I also feel that the Shire most closely resembles a realm that might have actually existed at some point on Earth, if you substitute the quirks of hobbits for more human features. There is little to no use of magic and other "unearthly" things in the Shire, and you could easily picture it existing somewhere in medieval Europe. The exception is that the hobbits are not ruled by a king or some form of feudal lord. Instead, they institute some form of democracy, which isn't really demonstrated anywhere else in Middle-Earth, where power is gained either through kinship or violence.

Sam is the most relatable character to me. He is seemingly the most normal, and unaccustomed to grandiose adventures and even grander mischief. Throughout the entire trilogy, Sam thoughts keep returning to his garden and his father, much like Bilbo's thoughts would keep returning to his armchair in The Hobbit. Despite this, Sam repeatedly becomes the underappreciated savior of the books, much like R2D2 in many ways. Not too much attention is paid to him, but in the end when he is needed, he is there.

Oliphaunts and why they are important

The Two Towers has this interesting foreshadowing of the oliphaunts where Sam recites a peculiar rhyme about them while Smeagol guides the two hobbits to the gates of Mordor. after this passage Sam concludes that he will never see an oliphaunt and decides that they are but a myth. 

Later, after being discovered by the men of Gondor, the hobbits see a real life oliphaunt being used in battle by the Haradrim.

I felt like this was a good example of how both Tolkien often foreshadows events in his writing as well as how even though a passage is not critical to the advancement of the plot it was left intentionally. The first rhyme about the oliphaunts spoken by Sam could have been left out completely and nothing would have changed.

The Sams reaction to seeing an oliphaunt just days after giving up hope that he will ever see one is priceless. I beleive that it adds to his character development and reminds the reader that Sam enjoys seeing new things and overall retains a positive outlook.     

Language Choices and Real Names

I was reminded today of a very interesting fact about Tolkien’s world that I’d somehow managed to forget recently, but that I feel everyone should know! If you are interested in reading a bit more about this, the appendices in the back of The Return of the King (or the back of a combined LOTR book) have much more information than I’ll be able to explain here.

You might all know how The Hobbit is meant, in universe, to be the Red Book of Westmarch/the Thain’s Book/There and Back Again, Bilbo’s original tale, expanded to include the LOTR events, transcribed and eventually translated for our [English] reading pleasure. So, in other words, these books are originally (in universe) written in Westron, and then translated for English. I assume you all know that there are a few Elvish languages that Tolkien created and used in universe, as well as parts of Black Speech and Khuzdul (Dwarvish). 

I’d always assumed that Westron was just English (with a few more words added in), but Westron (or Adûni, with Westron being the English translation) is actually its own language, although not as fully created as Quenyan or Sindarin.

HOWEVER! Tolkien’s language creation goes even further than that. What you may NOT know is that Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry are NOT the hobbits true names in universe! The hobbits real names are:

Maura Labingi (Frodo Baggins)

Banazîr/Ban Galbasi (Samwise/Sam Gamgee)

Razanur/Razar Tûc/Tûk (Peregrin/Pippin Took)

Kalimac/Kali Brandagamba (Meriadoc/Merry Brandybuck)

Even Bilbo is not the old hobbit’s “original” name in Adûni – he is actually called Bilba Labingi!

Tolkien goes as far as to explain the meanings of the names in Adûni, then how that translates to Old English and then modern English. Maur- in archaic Rohirrric meant “Wise”, so it translates to English through a Germanic name meaning the same, hence Frodo.

Ban (Sam) is often short in Adûni for Bannâtha, like Sam is usually short for Samuel, but in Sam Gamgee’s case, Ban is short for Banazîr, meaning “half-wise” or “simple”.

Kali means “merry, jolly, gay” in Adûni, while “Kalimac” is unknown in meaning (another choice by Tolkien, as Adûni is not a real language – wonder why he decided to give translations or meanings to some words but not to others? Could just be to make the languages seem more realistic – we have these types of scenarios with names today as well!), so Tolkien used Merry, making it short for Meriadoc.

And even the word Hobbit is an English-translated version of the Third Age word “KUDUK” – translated to Old English “HOLBYTLA”, meaning “hole-dweller” then into modern English as “Hobbit” – although kuduk is only used by hobbits – others would refer to hobbits as “BANAKIL” or “halfling”.

There are so many more interesting things relating to Tolkien’s use of our-world languages current and historical and creation of language current and historical for Middle Earth – and everything he chose for those languages was specifically a CHOICE as we keep talking about. This is not a real situation, but it definitely feels a bit more real, a bit more like a book translated from another world, when you realize that we’ve been following these hobbits through their entire journey as “Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry” and those aren’t even, in-universe, their real names!

Again, if you want to know more, I got most of this information from the Appendices in the back of the Return of the King, and some from https://folk.uib.no/hnohf/westron.htm

Happy Readings!

Foreshadowing in the Fellowship

While listening to each group describe what their assigned quote contributed to the chapter and to the story as a whole, I kept being reminded about how some features in these earlier chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring foreshadowed events to come.  While this, of course, is a standard tool authors use to make a well-designed story, I am surprised at how Tolkien incorporated foreshadowing in the most subtle, obscure places of his book.

One such example concerned Chapter 6, "The Old Forest."  I feel like Merry's speech concerning the history of the forest really foreshadowed events to come in both The Two Towers and The Return of the King.  First, it was interesting to see how trees could display animosity and was perhaps the first instance in The Lord of the Rings in which the reader heard of how anthropomorphic the trees in Middle-Earth could be.  After all, much of The Two Towers revolves around moving trees angry with Isengard for its treachery and destruction.  Likewise, this history of the Old Forest foreshadows the Scouring of the Shire, as was mentioned in class.  The beautiful, pastoral home of the hobbits was burned, and its trees were cut down by Saruman and his thugs.  Seeing how some of the Old Forest, being so close to the Shire, was burnt and destroyed by the hobbits could serve as a reminder of what is to come for the hobbit's own land in the future.

Finally, I also thought of how the swords the hobbits acquired on the Barrow-Downs in Chapter 8 provide some foreshadowing.  These swords, Tom Bombadil explained to them, came from the Men of Westernesse who were enemies of Angmar.  Merry received one of these swords and used it against the Witch-king of Angmar during the Battle of Pelennor Fields.  "No other blade...would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter."  Even when the hobbits were far away on the borders of the Shire, Tolkien had already foreshadowed a great event to come.  Nevertheless, he made all these foreshadowings unobvious.  Not until the story played out could they really be seen for what they might have alluded to in the first place.

Illúvatar in Middle Earth

Something that I am really curious about is The Silmarillion's implications throughout the rest of the books. Obviously, Tolkien was Catholic and this played into how he wrote his books. The Silmarillion's creation story is very similar to Christianity's. We even have Illúvatar's angels going out and doing his bidding on his world. What I am curious about is how often Illúvatar intervened in Middle Earth. This is an often debated topic in all religions. Just how often does God meddle in the affairs of humans? I want to discuss how essential Illúvatar's efforts were in LOTR and The Hobbit. Tolkien consistently mentions luck and particularly how lucky Bilbo and Frodo are. That their family tends to be very lucky. He even mentions every now and then how lucky a specific event was. Is this him alluding to Illúvatar? I am curious how active Illúvatar is in Middle Earth and how much the events in LOTR in particular, hinged on Illúvatar's will.

Tolkien's "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" Free Write

Tolkien wrote how he believed the composer of "Beowulf" intended to emphasize their nobility and the desire of the good for truth." This quote relates back to Tolkien's own works in that he too emphasized honor and fairness or doing the right thing. Arguably stemming from his time and experiences in ware, Tolkien developed a sense of wanting to do the right thing at all times because of the lack thereof that he was forced to endure. In war-time, rules and morals often get thrown out of the window because winning becomes the goal that outweighs and/or trumps everything else. Wanting the opposite of what he experienced, Tolkien incorporated honor and doing the right thing in his own novels by creating characters that attempt to save the world against all odds. Also, Tolkien mentioned something to the effect that the author of Beowulf attempted to create a work representative of their culture and history, a combination of everything. Being that there is so much scholarship regarding the many potential influences in Tolkien's works, this is probably something that the two creators share.

Gods in Middle Earth

Hello all,

I have been wondering on the Valar and their titles within Middle Earth. It is very hard to not think of them as gods. Usually, gods can have a wide range of omnipresence, power, omniscience, etc. They're immortal, can remain unknown/invisible if they so wished but can also take on many forms, and some are focused in other areas of nature (the wind, the stars, etc.). In many religions they would have been thought of as gods even if they are just regents of Ilúvatar. Daniel during this last week had a specific phrasing that I think puts a pretty bow on it: "From below they appear as gods, but from above they're known not to be." I guess a question on mind regarding the Valar is, why was Tolkein so explicit that there they weren't gods?

That's all,
Elendil

Beowulf Free Write

The quote "it has been said of Beowulf itself that its weakness lies in placing the unimportant things at the center and the important on the outer edges." is important/relevant for multiple reasons. One being hat I find it interesting when authors criticize each others works and discuss its faults. It isn't something you see too often but Tolkien does this quite a bit. H does a similar thing in Fairy Stories where he criticizes stories that aren't actually fairy stories but claim to be. I also just find it interesting how authors perceive other stories as well because they have experience writing so it's always interesting what their opinions are about different works.

I also appreciate this quote because to me Tolkien does actually place seemingly unimportant things at the center of his stories and honestly a big theme in his works, which we have discussed in class at length, is the significance of the insignificant. So, for him to criticize another author for doing something similar to what he does seems hypocritical. However, Tolkien doesn't really place importance on these small details, which honestly become big details/hints once you read further, the importance of these details just becomes more apparent later on. Everything Tolkien does is intentional and not just for meaningless fluff. Due to this I think Tolkien criticizes this factor in Beowulf because it isn't done well.

Monsters of Middle Earth

I noticed something interesting when thinking about the monsters of middle earth, which is that they are more about the attributes that they represent than their actual physical forms.

I first started thinking about this with Smaug, the way that the emphasis is mostly on his greed and wrath, not his wings or his claws. The wings and the claws are mentioned sure, but the crucial points of his character are his love of gold and his hatred of thieves. This lets Thorin become a dragon after Smaug is slain, when he is overcome by his greed, and lashes out at those who he perceives at thieves.

In the case of goblins and orcs, they are characterized as creatures of wanton violence and destruction. Or the giant spiders who are essentially gluttons.

This whole idea suggested to me that the monsters of middle earth are more allegorical than I had thought, with monsters really just being men with different vices taken to the extreme, so that they become less than men.

Beowulf Freewrite

“But let us return to the dragon.”
 When Tolkien was writing this, people were mainly focused on the historical aspects of Beowulf
from the items in it to the places. But that's not really what Beowulf is about.

For anyone who has read the poem, the monsters in it are numerous and each is their own thing.
It seems almost impossible now to read this poem and not focus on the monsters.
When we return to the dragon, we are returning to the roots of the story.
The dragon is a common theme we see today, both in current works and in historical works,
as seen here. In a way it is like coming back to the heart of the story, not getting
too focused on minor details but rather seeing what the author wants us to see. 

What is also interesting about this is that Tolkien returns to the dragon a lot in his stories.
Smaug is a very large part of the hobbit, and the whole story is, in a way, about returning to the dragon,
or at least the place which the dragon resides.
As we move onto LotR, there is a significant lack of dragons. The main villain is not a dragon,
but rather an evil deity which is then defeated. But in Tolkien’s extended lore, he does return to the idea
of the dragon. While I am not able to list any names off the top of my head, there are several dragons in
Middle Earth and each play different roles. So while there may not be dragons everywhere, Tolkien
still takes the idea of “let us return to the dragon” seriously, as shown in his works. 

(edit: will fix format more, sorry all)