Quote:
Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc
Well, we mustn't, but I think we should. It were not of that concern if we were talking about some random warrior, or Legolas, or Gimli, or even Boromir, but here is the heir of Isildur, which has its importance for the Third-Age Middle-Earth and the final conclusion of the battle with Sauron. I originally wanted to write "heir of the ancient line of Elros", however maybe the Isildur thing is more important in this particular case, although it's of far smaller importance overall. But to use very daring words, the fate of this line is so important for the fate of Arda, that it could not have gone otherwise. I.e. the line of Isildur simply could not have died out. No way. The other option would be also for Sauron to win, then it will maybe turn into a more "global" scale and you will have "dark Middle-Earth" and "bright Undying Lands", and that will be it. But the victory over Sauron (even though achieved by some Hobbits) needed the Return of the King as its part. For the tale of Arda overall on the other hand is important the line of the descendants of Lúthien and Eärendil and all these folks, simply the representatives of the Elf-Men union. In the case Aragorn died, the reunion of the two lines again as we see it in the case of Aragorn and Arwen wouldn't have been possible anymore (unless there was another heir, like I said above), so Arwen and Elrond, the last of the other descendants of Beren and Lúthien, would have left Middle-Earth and the "dark ME" scenario I outlined above would have taken place.
Or in other words: letting the descendants of Eärendil die out would be as much of a blow to the fate of Arda as if you, let's say, took away the Sun (although even that, in fact, in M-E isn't that much of a problem, as we know from the Silmarillion). Simply: Aragorn was not just "a fella like everyone else" - in a certain way. Now I am aware of the fact that this can be easily misinterpretated and I can already see someone protesting "don't let Aragorn show himself off over some 'ordinary' Boromir or whoever", but that's by no means how I meant it; rather let's say, it is similar to the tale of the Silmarils: they were also "just some stones", but the fate of Arda was bound in them. Analogically it's with the lineage of Eärendil.
I hope it's understandable what I had in mind.
|
So you managed to list the linage of Aragorn and why it is important story wise, but I am afraid it won't help your case.
It does not change the fact that you cannot read the text of LotR knowing that Aragorn cannot die, simply because it would be the death of the story it self. It was only from the Tolkiens point of view that Aragorn could not die, for everybody else it have to be a possibility. You are cannot use an argument from a writers perspective to explain why people act in sertain ways within the text, it is quite simply wrong to do so.
If we accept this kind of argument it opens up a whole lot of trouble, one is that we would have to shut down every thread about why the charachters did sertain things and seek all answers in the stor-line.
About the Silmarils: I don't know why you use them as an example, yes the fate of Arda was bound to them, just like the fate of middle-earth was bound to Aragorn. The tale of Aragorn went well, but the one of the silmarils showed that it could end up both good and bad. . .only one of them made it to the sky.