LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 10 - Strider

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Interesting thoughts on Merry, and I'm enjoying davem's humorous hobbitish take on the issue! I looked back at the last chapter, where he decides not to join them in the common room, to see if there's a clue to his reason. I read:

Merry said it would be too stuffy.

Now that sounds just like a reason I'd have for going out to walk instead of joining a bunch of strangers in a smoky barroom! He must have been used to a life in the fresh air and just might have needed some oxygen. He didn't necessarily intend to go outside at first, saying:

I shall sit here quietly by the fire for a bit, and perhaps go out later for a sniff of the air.

As a matter of fact, when he came back he said that he'd stayed indoors for an hour, going out only after realizing that his friends were't coming back to the room soon. That sounds more like a contemplative personality, needing a little time to himself after being surrounded by his (talkative?) friends all day. Someone who can think and plan as he has shown himself able to needs time to settle and organise his thoughts.

What does make me pause to think is when he says that he was "drawn" to follow the Wraith. We've only heard of the terror they inspire - what could have drawn him to them? The terror came later.

[mark12_30]

Wasn't Frodo also drawn to them despite his terror? And also, tempted to put on the Ring. I get the impression that their powers of suggestion/ temptation were significant.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Yes, but I thought Frodo was drawn by the Ring. Merry didn't have that object to channel any attraction.

[mark12_30]

Well, I always thought so too, but now I'm having some second thoughts. Maybe what Frodo experienced was partially, or mostly, the Ring's effect.

Perhaps as we read, we can keep an eye out for non-Ring-bearer types being drawn to evil, and any evidence of Frodo's being drawn by something other than the Ring.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Esty

Interesting thoughts on Merry, and I'm enjoying davem's humorous hobbitish take on the issue!

What can I say - I am in fact a hobbit (how many other pipe smokers do we have on the Downs?)

It is quite strange that the Nazgul have both the power to repel & to attract those (supposedly) opposed to them. What exactly draws Merry to them? He is clearly a quiet, thoughtful type - I can't see Pippin getting involved without Merry's influence. I wonder how much of Tolkien there is in Merry - as I said earlier, he is the closest thing we have to a philologist - how many of us could imagine a hobbit writing a treatise on Old Words & Names in the Shire, & more to the point, how many hobbits would be interested in reading it? He seems drawn to the Nazgul (or the Ulairi - I love that word, one of my favourite of Tolkien's words!) almost from the first, & he also seems to have been destined to encounter the Rohirrim - an encounter with 'Anglo-Saxon' which insprired him to become a philologist in the way it inspired Tolkien. What does this say about Tolkien's concept of 'fate'?

So, why is Merry the 'forgotten' hobbit? The more attention we pay to him the more complex he becomes. He seems to be on a quest of his own, one he seeks out - I can't help wondering whether if Frodo hadn't given him the excuse to go off travelling he wouldn't have found some other reason to go off exploring the wide world. Maybe it wasn't just Frodo & Sam who were inspired by Mr Bilbo's tales of high adventure.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

The more attention we pay to him the more complex he becomes.

Agreed, davem! This chapter-by-chapter discussion has gotten me thinking more deeply about Merry for the first time! I'm beginning to admire his qualities and am looking forward to finding out more about him in the coming discussions.

Isn't the depth of various characters, not just the heroic few, what makes the book so rich?!

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Isn't the depth of various characters, not just the heroic few, what makes the book so rich?!

I agree with Estelyn on that one.

Originally Posted by davem

It is quite strange that the Nazgul have both the power to repel & to attract those (supposedly) opposed to them.

We forget the whole concept that the 9 aslo hold rings. Perhaps the rings they hold give them this kind of power? afterall, they are supposed to be the "9 Kings of mortal men" dont you think the rings they hold on to would give them the power to attract or repel any mortal? Its just my opinion

Originally Posted by davem

What exactly draws Merry to them? He is clearly a quiet, thoughtful type - I can't see Pippin getting involved without Merry's influence. I wonder how much of Tolkien there is in Merry

That proves again, Hobbits are not as we understand them to be, all hobbits are more complex than they seem

[HerenIstarion]

Just a minor point, concerning hobbits and civilization:

It seems that hobbits are indeed uncivilized - meaning they do not live in big cities, rather townships, and the main population is rustic. As civilization is based on stem civis, they must be uncivilized. That does not mean they are uncultured, ultimately based on the same root as 'cultivate', meaning they have worked out how to till , and hobbits are farmers.

Minor point over.

Not to stray overly off topic - the given chapter provides interesing fact: the safety of the Shire, the thing considered as built-in, given, 'as it must be' by the inhabitants themselves (and by yours truly after reading the Hobbit but before LoTR and this chapter in particular) is revealed to be no more than 'watchful peace', kept by same much rebuked and scorned at rangers as Aragorn/Strider is:

I have often kept watch on the borders of the Shire in the last few years, when he was busy elsewhere. He seldom left it unguarded

Implication is that in recent years Aragorn kept the watch, but there were others, and before recent years too, as we know that Gandalf grew fond of the Shire almost at its foundation time

cheers

[Evisse the Blue]

Merry saying that he felt as if he drowned in deep water is one of the very few instances in the book which brings chills of terror down my spine. Deep water (especially deep muddy water) means death or the foreshadowing of death, take for instance --don't laugh now-- Anna Karenina's similar vision before she takes her own life.

But I did not bring this thread up just to say this, (that would have been really flippant of me ) but to ask about this fragment:

Merry and Frodo are talking about Frodo's little 'accident':

"But I wish I had been thee to see. The worthies of Bree will be discussing it a hundred years hence."
"I hope so" said Strider.

Maybe a silly question, but why exactly does Aragorn say that? Why would he 'hope' that, when it would have been in their best interest that this incident be forgotten as soon as possible?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Evisse the Blue

Maybe a silly question, but why exactly does Aragorn say that? Why would he 'hope' that, when it would have been in their best interest that this incident be forgotten as soon as possible?

I assume he means that he hopes that there will still be a Bree in a hundred years -- that is, that Sauron will not have wiped it out. So right from the get-go it would seem that Aragorn has a full and deep sense of what is at stake in this journey: much more so than the hobbits.

Also interesting that he is hoping for the continued existence, in all of its triviality (i.e. gossip) of a place in which he is regarded as little better than an outlaw!

[Aldarion Elf-Friend]

Firing up an old thread, are we?

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder how much of Tolkien there is in Merry - as I said earlier, he is the closest thing we have to a philologist - how many of us could imagine a hobbit writing a treatise on Old Words & Names in the Shire, & more to the point, how many hobbits would be interested in reading it?

I think that given that "...hobbits delighted in (elaborate family trees with innumerable branches)..." (Prologue) indicates that this sort of thing might not be so far fetched for them. We have this image of hobbits as a sort of rustic, almost serf-like culture. I think that in truth they are much more sophisticated than that. Let's not let a single example of several "working-class" hobbits talking in a tavern (Chapter 1) influence our image of the entire culture.

Originally Posted by Mark

We forget the whole concept that the 9 aslo hold rings.

Not too fast, there. Don't forget that Sauron held the rings of the nine - not the nine.

[alatar]

In the first billion or so readings of this chapter I just glossed over the following, but subsequent readings/listenings (via audio CD) and the PJ movies made the part about Narsil stick out like the proverbial oliphaunt in the room. In this chapter Aragorn shows the hobbits the shards of Narsil which, obviously, he is carrying around with him. This begs the questions:

• Does Aragorn carry another sword with which he fights, or prior to the reforging of Anduril did he rush into battle, yelling, "Stubby! Stubby for Elendil!"

• Why did Aragorn need or desire to carry this heirloom, presumably useless but extremely valuable (saved at large cost when other heirlooms weren't), while walking the wdith and breadth of Wilderland? Was there some benefit that I'm not seeing, or didn't he trust leaving it behind with Elrond, who may have sent it to Gondor just the get the Dúnedain out of his house and away from Arwen ? Did Strider think that the broken sword would be recognized as verification of his identity? was he commanded or honor bound to do so?

• Did he have any weapon, save fire, at the Fords?

• Is not then PJ's version of event slightly more logical (did I just write that? ) ?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by alatar

• Is not then PJ's version of event slightly more logical (did I just write that? ) ?

You did, and may God have mercy on your soul....for you agree with me.

[symestreem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Does Aragorn carry another sword with which he fights, or prior to the reforging of Anduril did he rush into battle, yelling, "Stubby! Stubby for Elendil!"

Originally Posted by Evisse the Blue

Merry saying that he felt as if he drowned in deep water is one of the very few instances in the book which brings chills of terror down my spine. Deep water (especially deep muddy water) means death or the foreshadowing of death, take for instance --don't laugh now-- Anna Karenina's similar vision before she takes her own life.

Isn't it interesting that Merry in particular should feel like he was drowning in deep water? Hobbits are notorious for their dislike of swimming, and Merry was the only one of the four who had experience with water, except for Frodo's early and tragic encounter.

What would Pippin, or Sam, or Frodo have felt if they had gotten close to the Ringwraiths (ignoring for the moment the fact that they would have attacked Frodo and taken the Ring)? None of them would have known what it feels like to be caught in deep water. Would the instinctive hobbit fear of it have supplied the sensation anyway, or would they have felt something else that frightened them? And if the former, why did Merry feel like he was drowning-- does this indicate that the Brandybucks, despite their close proximity, have the same instinctive fear of water deep down?

[Selmo]

Originally Posted by alatar

Why did Aragorn need or desire to carry this heirloom, presumably useless but extremely valuable (saved at large cost when other heirlooms weren't), while walking the wdith and breadth of Wilderland?

Ordinary swords would not have been much use against the Nine. Maybe Aragorn felt that Narsil, as a symbol of Sauron's earlier defeat, would have a powerful effect on them, although, when it came to a fight, he decided that fire would be more useful.

I assume that he carried other weapons; there could be enemies more mortal than the Nazgul between Bree and Rivendell, who would not be awed by a broken sword.
.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Selmo

Ordinary swords would not have been much use against the Nine. Maybe Aragorn felt that Narsil, as a symbol of Sauron's earlier defeat, would have a powerful effect on them, although, when it came to a fight, he decided that fire would be more useful.

I assume that he carried other weapons; there could be enemies more mortal than the Nazgul between Bree and Rivendell, who would not be awed by a broken sword.
.

Exactly, but as far as we know, he'd spent all of those years wandering Middle Earth with the Shards and no other sword of worth. Maybe that's why he was the best warrior of the age - after fighting all of those years with a broken sword, he was deadly with a full-sized one. Anyway, isn't it fortuitous that Aragorn needs no sword until he acquires Anduril? Does he put away his other sword, trusty (rusty) and faithful all of those years in some off-stage ceremony? Or was he the master of improv, taking advantage of the environment, picking up (and making) weaponry as he went?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by alatar

Or was he the master of improv, taking advantage of the environment, picking up (and making) weaponry as he went?

McGyvagorn!!

[Selmo]

Originally Posted by Selmo

I assume that he carried other weapons.

We are not given all the details of Aragorn's life.

We're told that he ate, but we are not told that he coped with the inevitable (and smelly) consequences of eating.
We can safely assume that he did.

We're told that he was a great warrior, but we're not told that he carried weapons.
We can safely assume that he did.
.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Selmo

We are not given all the details of Aragorn's life.

We're told that he ate, but we are not told that he coped with the inevitable (and smelly) consequences of eating.
We can safely assume that he did.

We're told that he was a great warrior, but we're not told that he carried weapons.
We can safely assume that he did.

I'll give you your biological assumption, as these are purportedly humans and that's a requirement for all life. Can't agree that we can assume that he carried another weapon, as it's never mentioned (or if it is, someone will note it), and the only weapon that he displays to the Hobbits (and that they note) is the broken Narsil. He may have, when serving in Rohan, Gondor and other realms, carried weapons that completed his disguises, but when guiding the Ringbearer and company from Bree to Rivendell we know of no other weapons.

The logic of your first point applies to both Barliman and Aragorn (if human, then...), but your second point does not (the Innkeeper carried a cudgel/club methinks, and not a sword or shards of one, and even the club was only a later addition). Maybe he was a master of empty-handed combat?

Without any other evidence I would assume that Aragorn made due with what he carried or picked up when serving in whatever army. And we still haven't answered the question of why he was taking Narsil out for a walk .

Originally Posted by Guinevere

For the scene in Bree the broken Narsil was necessary for the plot to identify Aragorn, and I just guess that for once Tolkien didn't think of the consequences...

Narsil verifies Aragorn to us, the readers, but does it really convince the Hobbits? The rhyme in Gandalf's letter regarding the reforging of Narsil does not say that the broken sword shall show the real Aragorn. Sam sees the evidence and still doubts. And what if this Strider were a play-acting spy? If he carried the broken sword and a real unbroken sword, how would one know that he didn't slay the real Aragorn to steal Narsil? What better way for the enemy to infiltrate the councils of the Free Folk then for someone to get Narsil than show up looking like Aragorn? Saruman could do it.

The conspiracies grow like weeds in my yard...