I like the way the stories have been divided in this way, and possibly one of the reasons why is that the division serves to underline the true nature of the peril all our heroes are in. Aragorn and the others have absolutely no idea what Frodo and Sam are up to and vice versa. Yet Aragorn and co. get on with the tasks which come their way just as do Frodo and Sam, despite never knowing if the risks they are taking will all turn out in vain.
If Frodo fails, then they might as well not have bothered with the Battle of Helm's Deep, and if Sauron succeeds in annihilating Gondor then Frodo's mission will not save it. Yet there is a message in this, and I think it is that despite what we know or do not know, there are always things which must be done in order to do the right thing. The division of the two main story threads only underlines the fact that each group knows nothing of the other yet still has the courage to continue and not lose faith.
Another reason that I like the division is that in Book 3 we see the more epic side to the struggle and learn of the great deeds of nation states and various races within the war, while in Book 4 we learn of the great deeds of individuals. Of course, it is not as quite as clearly cut as that, but the broad approach of each book follows this pattern; Book 3 is epic and Book 4 is intimate.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|