Blog thoughts aka bloghts

I like the idea of having a casual blog for people in the class to use to discuss ideas from the course outside of class. I think its a fun activity because personally I don't get a lot of opportunities to just write out mostly raw opinions. I also think its really nice to be able to determine for yourself which part of the text interests you and bring in your own analysis. I like in class discussions but they're guided by the intent of the teacher and by the consensus of the other students. I think a blog is a really good way for people to express opinions they might not share during a class. I did have some technical issues that I've seen other people bring up. It would be nice to be able to see your own posts and comments somewhere so they're easy to find and review. Or at least it would be better to be told at the beginning of the semester that we should tag all our posts. I'm pretty ambivalent on the anonymity. I think in a small class its not really that hard to puzzle out who everyone is but also I think the real relief is just not having to see people when your thinking through the books. I think being alone and having plenty of time are the factors that make the blog really productive. I think its cool to have the pseudonyms be characters from the lord of the rings. It would be interesting to try to incorporate the identities into the blog posts but I just don't see a practical way to do that.

Thoughts on the Blog and Pseudonyms

I think that the blog is a wonderful way for all of us to interact as students.  Especially with the changes due to COVID-19, it was a good way for us to share our ideas and see what fellow students are thinking about.  I think that the one post and one comment system worked well, since it helps us all interact with each others' posts.  The posts made all of us reflect on what stood out to us during the week or what sparked a reaction to part of the story.  Concerning pseudonyms, I think that they are a great idea.  I think it makes everyone much more comfortable with sharing their own thoughts and critiquing others' posts.  This class in particular may have not needed the pseudonyms since we all got along so well, but I think that we still heard ideas that we would not have heard otherwise.  Overall the blog functions great and I would not add much.  It would be nice to have a function of the blog that allows you to search by keyword, so that you don't have to remember to add labels or tags. 

Favorite or Least Helpful Works

If you had to pick one text from our syllabus this term as your favorite, what would it be and why did you pick that one? What does it mean to you? How will you carry that text with you beyond this course?

In a different vein, what text did you find the most thought-provoking and enlightening about our topic, whether or not it was your favorite? Why this text?

Conversely, which text did you find least helpful or interesting in thinking about Tolkien's work? What forms the basis for your reaction to this text? Personal analysis or bias, lack of time spent on it in class or in your own study, difficulty of text?

Recovery After the Story

Calista brought up an interesting point in class the other day about how most times in books we don’t get a “recovery period” at the end of the book where we see the aftermath of the big battle.

We don’t usually get to see how the characters we followed through their story mentally or physically deal with the aftermath of their quest. Like in superhero movies - we see them save the day (woohoo!) but we also see that they’ve destroyed half the city. Then, in the next scene, or the after-credits scene, or the beginning of the next movie, everything has miraculously gone back to where it was before. New York is rebuilt, people have moved on with their lives, and the scene is set for the next adventure to begin.

If we do get a “what happens later”, it is usually in the form of an epilogue – glossing over the recovery period to tell us what happened later. We see that they’ve recovered, but not how. (See Harry Potter: “Nineteen years later…”)

It could be that authors feel the recovery period might be boring. The story was about the quest at large after all, not about the therapy sessions that should probably be necessary afterwards, or the long and arduous rebuilding of the city. Authors could want us to imagine how things go from here back to normal, giving us the space to make up our own ending. Or they may just not want to dig into the difficulties of portraying the aftermath of the battle.

Tolkien, however, gives us not only the aftermath of the Fellowship’s quest but also the “what has been happening at home,” and “what is the overall impact on the characters of the quest”. We talked in class a bit about what this gives us as readers, so I don’t need to rehash that here, but honestly, I’d enjoy seeing that kind of attention to detail in more of the fiction that I read. It could serve as a reminder that even happy endings are not fully happy, or not fully happy to begin with (we must work our way to happiness).

My Thoughts on the Blog and Pseudonyms

Personally, this blog has been one of my favorite parts of this course. Although there were some weeks where I had a more difficult time coming up with an idea for a post, in general, I really enjoyed writing and reading posts during the week. I think this blog was a really useful space for continuing discussions from class or sharing ideas, thoughts, and opinions that people had about each week's reading or anything else Tolkien-related. I especially appreciated this blog when we transitioned from live class to Zoom meetings because I know, at least for me, inserting your own thoughts into class discussion over a virtual platform is a bit more difficult. Thus, this blog provided me with an outlet to mention whatever ideas occurred to me in class (or after class).

My only gripe with this blog would be in regard to the mechanics of Blogger itself, more specifically how you can't tag (or "label") your own comments and whenever you click on a Blogger profile, it doesn't show all posts/comments from that specific person. Perhaps using a different blogging platform would solve this issue since Blogger doesn't seem to be in any hurry to fix this issue.

As for the anonymity, I think this was another great aspect of the blog because it allowed people to share thoughts and opinions without fear of being judged (although everyone in this class has proven to be very cordial and open to new ideas).

On the Blog

I personally really loved the blog and the pseudonymity. For someone who is more shy, this felt like a really safe space for me to share my ideas.

This blog, I think we can all agree, has lead to some really interesting discussions that I'm so glad I could be a part of. I loved that we had prompts we could speak to but also we could talk about something that interested us from the reading. That kind of freedom is a big reason why I like taking honors courses. I think this blog format was the best way to hold these kinds of discussions because it makes it easy to comment on someone's thoughts.

The pseudonymity was really beneficial to me because it gave me the freedom to share my ideas without my social anxiety creeping in. I felt that I could be more open and honest about what I thought than if I had to post under my own name.

Pseudonymity and Blogging

Now that our semester is almost over, I'd like to ask what you thought of working on the Blog for our class. What did you like most about the Blog discussions? What did you like least? Would you have preferred a regular threaded discussion list forum or simply an email listserv instead of the Blog? What did you think about the use of pseudonyms on the Blog? Did you enjoy the pseudonymity or would you prefer to have used your real name?

Movie Vs. Books endings

So I know we have talked a lot about this, but I wanted to go into it a little bit more. Last class we talked about how books tend to have more wrap up at the end, like Tolkien, he ties up all the lose ends to his book, telling us what happense to all his charcters after the quest is complete. Obviously, the movie does not do that as much, taking away some of the end material, such as the scourging of the Shire. And while we all like to complain about that, I do think it was a smart part for the movies. With a book, it is easy to see how much is left, and we can alwasy go back to a specific page and pick it up from there. With books, you are spending a lot more time in them, so you want to know everything that happens. But it is really different with movies. Basically, you only have the audience for 2-3 hours (yes I know that LotR movies are longer, but humor my point) and they are only devoting that amount of time, so they want to see the resoultion at the end of it. When you have a visual story that keeps going after the climax, the audience rapidly loses interest, which is something that can happen in both film and plays. By making the decision to not keep going, I think the movies are doing a good job of keeping the audience in mind.
Movies overall, tend to be a bit more accessable to people, people dont really want to devote too much time to reading books now (this is a broad statement). It is a lot easier to sit down and watch a movie and learn the story than it is to read +1000 pages of a book. However, because the movies hit all the big plot points and does so fairly well, it sparks interest in the story, and would direct more people to then go and read the books. Its a good starting point, especially when considering how overwhelming the books might be at a glace. I know we all like to talk about what the movies did wrong and how they should be better, but not everyone is taking a class on Tolkien and movies are an easier way to consume media.

Thoughts on Niggle's leaf

This short story is really rife with themes. There are sections about Morality, sections about being a creator in the modern world, and sections about peace and death. I think Tolkien must have projected a lot of his frustrations about creating into Niggle and his painting. It's really interesting how the different conversations about his worth play out. The voices say he is useful once he demonstrates that he can complete tasks and that given time he actually will create and finish something. However some of the townspeople say that his fascination with natural things makes his paintings useless. But the one who picks up the corner of his painting becomes fascinated with it even though its incomplete. Maybe this is how Tolkien thinks of people reading his books. People picking up the shreds of all his thoughts and labor and still appreciating them. Next to these thoughts about contribution to society through work the story also explores how people interact individually. The relationship between Niggle and Parish is very important for the progress of Niggle's world. While in the beginning none of them are perfect neighbors to each other, Niggle stands up for parish when hes talking to the voices and this allows Parish to join him. Together in Niggle's world they grow closer and become functional and cooperative with each other. Then Niggle has to move on. As if to show that you cant just stop in your journey at some point you will always have to move on. Tolkien has a very gentle addressing death as moving on. He does the same thing with Frodo at the end of return of the king. I definitely wasn't expecting a short story about a character named Niggle to deal with so many complicated themes. Tolkien's decision to make Niggle a "small man" just like he did with the hobbits shows that even those of whose lives seem inconsequential have responsibilities to society and have an ability to instigate change. Niggle starts as a painter who cant finish anything but by the end he is almost a god. He is a creator of worlds. Tolkien devoted his life to creating a fantasy world, so this story kind of demonstrates what his justification for his passion must be. And also the things he worries about as a creator.

Romantic Love in LOTR

It is only near the end of The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien chooses to include any developed presentation of romantic love.  The rest of the series deals with love between friends and comrades, but not between potential spouses. The entire story could have easily omitted any full discussion

of romantic love between men and women.  So why does Tolkien choose to include it in this last book of the series?  What is his purpose in presenting this kind of love at all?  Of what importance is this kind of love in Tolkien's moral schema?

Revisiting Heroism

How do you think Tolkien means his readers to define heroism within his created world of Middle-earth? Are his definitions of heroism multiple? Does he have a preference between the epic hero and the folktale hero? Are his definitions of a hero different from or similar to those of medieval authors such as the Beowulf-poet? Who is the MOST heroic character in Tolkien's works? Why that hero? Some argue that Sam is the real hero of The Lord of the Rings, and one of Tolkien's letters supports that definition. However, readers don't always have to agree with writers. What do you think?

Tolkien's View of Good vs. Evil

We've seen a recurring theme in Tolkien's writing of evil being a corrupted and fallen good.  This view of evil is definitely cemented in the final chapters of The Lord of The Rings.   Though Gandalf is not perfect and all knowing, having him undergo a 'resurrection' and transformation into a white wizard gives him an almost god-like characterization.  In addition, the fact that he is dressed in white contrasts him with the darkness caused by forces of evil automatically points to him being a symbol of purity and goodness.  In the opening of The Field of Cormallen, it is mentioned that "Upon the hill-top stood Gandalf, and he was white and cold and no shadow fell on him"(948).  The image of a white figure high up, untouched by shadows is a complete contrast from those under the rule f Sauron, who dwell on or underground and in constant shadows.  I think this definitely solidifies Gandalf a symbol of pure goodness, while Sauron is pure, corrupted evil.

Then, as the ring is destroyed, Sauron's final moments are revealed: "there rose a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning-crowned, filling all the sky.  Enormous it reared above the world, and stretched out towards them a vast threatening hand, terrible but imponent: for even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it, and it was all blown away"(949).  Evil is consuming, scary, and dark.  But it is also temporary, and not as powerful as it might seem to be.  Having the 'hand' of Sauron  blown away like nothing more than a cloud really drives home Tolkien's view of evil.  It is never enough to consume good forever, and when evil falls, goodness remains strong.  The shadow passes and the sky becomes bright again.

We see this same theme with the death of Saruman.  "about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a shrouded figure it looked over the Hill.  For a moment it wavered, looking to the west; but out of the west came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing"(1020).  Not only is there a parallel between the wind blowing away a shadow, but also the mention of the hilltop.  Gandalf stands his ground upon the hill, while the mist from Saruman is blown away forever as he attempts to do so. Evil and those who let it consume them cannot outlast the goodness of the world, and their rise of power will not be permanent.   Wind is enough to take them away forever.

This imagery that Tolkien uses to communicate his personal views of good vs. evil are extremely compelling.  These scenes are easy to visualize, and really drive home the delicacy of the illusion of a lasting evil, vs a solid, bright influence of good.

Another thought about Endings

I realized something right after class, which is there is something really paradoxical about the endings of LoTR. That is, Tolkien relentlessly emphasizes THIS IS NOT THE END.

Every "ending" for a character is really Tolkien showing us the road that the character has reached a turning in, but not the end.

All too many stories end with some variation "and then he lived happily ever after" that tends to imply that these characters can go back to their old lives. And certainly for some stories and some characters that is true, like for Sam. But it is still vastly better to show the reader what happens than just to tell them everything is good. For other characters like Frodo they cannot go back to normal because they are no longer normal people. 

Stories that have a heavy aspect of psychological and emotional component for the characters triumphing over evil but then that ends instantly when the evil is vanquished, just feel really fake. If a character is capable of going back to a normal life after going to war and seeing their friends die, then that is an unusually strong character, and it makes the story more full to explore that strength and see what makes it tick.

I have to imagine that this ending was inspired by Tolkien's experience in WW I. For those of us who weren't there the story ends in 1918, but for Tolkien and his fellow veterans the story went on for the rest of their lives. I think that Tolkien wanted to communicate that feeling to us, and he did a great job.

Frodo's Mission

Personally, I feel that Frodo's mission was successful, but ultimately it wasn't because of him, at least at the end. He choked at the end. It is certainly reminiscent to Isildur. He had the opportunity to destroy the ring, but he just couldn't do it. To me, especially in the books, Frodo doesn't really seem like the hero of the books. He is definitely a necessary character, but if anything he is more of a martyr. We watch the ring destroy Frodo. All of the other protagonists seem to grow throughout the books,  but Frodo is torn down. He is not the same Hobbit on the return journey. It seems that Frodo's personality is as much of a casualty of the books as other characters who actually die, like Theoden or Boromir.

It truly is a disappointment at the end when Frodo comes up short, but it certainly reaffirms the importance of Sam. It also shows that even the Hobbits are not immune to the corruption of the ring. I would doubt many other people would be able to bear the ring in Mordor itself without being torn apart from the inside out though. It is amazing that Frodo was able to deal with it as long as he did, and we are just lucky the he finally cracked at the very end. If he caved any sooner, the mission would have almost certainly been a failure, and the realm of Middle-earth would be destroyed by Sauron and his forces.

Frodo's Success

Hey everyone!

Unfortunately I was not able to be in class the day we had the debate on whether or not Frodo was successful so I thought I would add in my opinion. I believe Frodo was successful because even though stuff didn't necessarily go according to plan the end goal was accomplished and the ring was put into Mount Doom. Even though Gollum did get the ring and Frodo had a moment of weakness it all ended up working out and the goal of getting rid of the ring was accomplished. To me this means that Frodo was successful.

-Frodo