The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Fordim Hedgethistle · 12-15-2004, 08:21 AM

Hello Ivo, and welcome to the Downs.

I like your take on this, but I think I will resist the desire to render the complexity of the story in such comparatively ‘simple’ (but certainly not simplistic) terms. It seems to me that this Hegelian idea as you are presenting it is another version of the old Romance ideal of Middle English – something that Tolkien was more than familiar with. In Romance, we have a form of narrative that is akin to allegory insofar as the characters are presented as ‘types’ but these types work together to form some kind of corporate representation of the human mind/soul. In this schema, I wonder what ‘part’ of humanity Frodo represents? Or Aragorn? Or Sauron? I have no doubt that such a schema is possible, but like I said, I resist this as I don’t think that assigning these characters to ‘types’ does them or the story a service, in that the complexity of the whole would seem to slip past such categories. As your own post makes clear, you also want to look at how Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo all pass through death: which would seem to indicate that you are considering the story as being governed by twinning and repetition at least as much as by some form of progressive schema of evolutionary growth. I’d like to think that story can be apprehended in both ways (that is, as progressive and repetitive) but if we want to do that we have to acknowledge that at some level these two modes of structuring the tale are not entirely compatible (you can’t go forward and back at the same time – at least not easily or comfortably).

Another aspect of your idea I that I very much like is the emphasis that you seem to be giving to what I’ve called above a ‘moral’ structure, in that the shape of LotR cannot be understood in terms of its events (which are disconnected) or even its characters (which are not three dimensional on their own, and need to be related to each other) but that it must be understood in terms of the larger ‘moral framework’ that it is both constructing and dramatizing. In this respect, I suppose that the Ring would be the central structural device insofar as it symbolises the morally bad that the Good is trying to destroy or overcome.

Littlemanpoet, some of the points you raise here about the archaic language of LotR were recently discussed here, if you’d like to take a look.

12-15-2004, 08:21 AM	#20
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	Hello Ivo, and welcome to the Downs. I like your take on this, but I think I will resist the desire to render the complexity of the story in such comparatively ‘simple’ (but certainly not simplistic) terms. It seems to me that this Hegelian idea as you are presenting it is another version of the old Romance ideal of Middle English – something that Tolkien was more than familiar with. In Romance, we have a form of narrative that is akin to allegory insofar as the characters are presented as ‘types’ but these types work together to form some kind of corporate representation of the human mind/soul. In this schema, I wonder what ‘part’ of humanity Frodo represents? Or Aragorn? Or Sauron? I have no doubt that such a schema is possible, but like I said, I resist this as I don’t think that assigning these characters to ‘types’ does them or the story a service, in that the complexity of the whole would seem to slip past such categories. As your own post makes clear, you also want to look at how Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo all pass through death: which would seem to indicate that you are considering the story as being governed by twinning and repetition at least as much as by some form of progressive schema of evolutionary growth. I’d like to think that story can be apprehended in both ways (that is, as progressive and repetitive) but if we want to do that we have to acknowledge that at some level these two modes of structuring the tale are not entirely compatible (you can’t go forward and back at the same time – at least not easily or comfortably). Another aspect of your idea I that I very much like is the emphasis that you seem to be giving to what I’ve called above a ‘moral’ structure, in that the shape of LotR cannot be understood in terms of its events (which are disconnected) or even its characters (which are not three dimensional on their own, and need to be related to each other) but that it must be understood in terms of the larger ‘moral framework’ that it is both constructing and dramatizing. In this respect, I suppose that the Ring would be the central structural device insofar as it symbolises the morally bad that the Good is trying to destroy or overcome. Littlemanpoet, some of the points you raise here about the archaic language of LotR were recently discussed here, if you’d like to take a look. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.