Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitchwife
Sorry, Alfirin, but I think you missed the point - the villains didn't escape, they were destroyed and then resurrected by the Gods at the request of the heroes, who, being victorious, found that their existence lacked purpose without villains to fight. It's almost a satire on heroism as an end in itself, if only Eddison didn't seem to endorse that absurd heroism - allegedly he was a big fan of Nietzsche, and the end seems to represent his version of the myth of Eternal Return (cf the book's title!).
Tolkien knew The Worm Ouroboros, and I think LotR can to some extent be read as a critique of Eddisonian heroism, starring a reluctant hero who is driven to heroism by fate and love for his home rather than chosing it as a way of life; and cf also Faramir's words in Ithilien: "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend".
- That said, I quite like TWO for its vivid descriptions and some unforgettable characters on the villains' side (Gro!); but I'll gladly admit it comes nowhere close to Tolkien in depth.
|
Yeah, you're right. In my defense It's really been a long long time since I read the book, and my memory is far from perfect. I sort of remembered that things were as you said, but that ending seemed so momumentally absurd to me that I was sure I had remember it wrong. I stand corrected on my error (though that doesn't meant I suddenly like the book). I understand that on a certain level, the "life is a chess game" concept may have some appeal to some, but taking it to the level of, at the end of the game, putting all the same pieces back on the board and starting the game all over again leaves me flat. For the hero to desire to seek new challanges I understand, for him to desire to seek the exact same challenge as soon as he has won does not.