The Structure of The Lord of the Rings

[littlemanpoet]

So, Hobbits live in harmony, without much knowledge of the outside world. It's a paradise like state. When Frodo embarks on his quest, he gradually learns more of the world and thereby of himself. He becomes self-conscious, as we see at the end of the Fellowship when he gets the clear insight that he has to fulfill this task alone.

- Ivo

I think that was the sole purpose of Tom Bombadil.

- Boromir88

Ah, words fraught with peril, Boromir88. There have been enough threads explicating enough other purposes for Tom Bombadil that any such claim is greeted with a knowing smile. For example:

The wrong kinds of details

Another one is "It feels different in the Shire", which I can't seem to find with a search. Maybe someone else can help find it?

That said, I think your main point of the Hobbits' growth from dependency to capability is quite apt. I find it interesting that Tolkien only puts juvenilian satire in the mouth of the arrogant Boromir, while he puts much horatian satire in everything having to do with Hobbits.

I wonder if Tolkien was a satiric writer.

In a word, Yes. Check out Farmer Giles of Ham. You will be convinced just what a rip-roaring satirist Tokien can be, poking fun at Oxford philologists, no less (in other words, at himself), the noble class, and much else. Smith of Wootton Major has a certain degree of satire, as does Leaf by Niggle. If you have not read these works, you have new treasures to discover among Tolkien's short(ish) stories.

Ivo:

(plotwise it sucks)

What!?!



Wanna explain your thinking? It's one of my favorite sections.

[ivo]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

- [

What!?!



Wanna explain your thinking? It's one of my favorite sections.

I totally agree, I think it's a necessary and crucial part of the story, as I tried to explain in my post. I just meant that plotwise it's terrible, because it's an anticlimax, it's a 'new' part of the story after the main story is told (that of the Ring). No wonder PJ left it out of the movie.
That is also the reason why I like to think more of LOTR as a chronicle than as a literary story.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by ivo

I just meant that plotwise it's terrible, because it's an anticlimax, it's a 'new' part of the story after the main story is told (that of the Ring). No wonder PJ left it out of the movie.

Although it is not, perhaps, consistent with traditional plot structure, an "anticlimax" (or perhaps "sub-climax" is a better word) like the Scouring is not necessarily at odds with the structure of a story such as LotR. As you have suggested, there is more going on here than simply the Quest to destroy the Ring (although that is, of course, the central plot around which everything else revolves). The individual journies of the main characters need resolution, and the Scouring provides this for Sam, Merry and Pippin by showing how they have grown and developed by their experiences. It also provides a valuable insight into the development of Frodo's character and, of course, brings Saruman and Wormtongue's parts in the tale to an end.

Also, it is unlikely to bother the reader who become engrossed in the book. Having possibly devoted some weeks or even longer to reading it, he or she will generally be left with that feeling of wanting more (of Hobbits especially), and the Scouring provides this to a degree.

I agree, however, that it would not have worked at all in the film. One of the main criticisms by traditional (non-Tolkien devotee) critics is that the ending was too long. While a book can be picked up and put down at leisure, a film is an "all in one sitting" experience, and cinema audiences generally tend to get pretty restless after about 3 hours. To give the Scouring the justice it deserved would have taken too long (or required the main climax to occur far too early).

[littlemanpoet]

I've always felt that LotR could not be complete without the Scouring of the Shire and the chapters that follow. Here's where I get to defend the "MICE" thesis, I suppose.

::first looks both directions for Mr. Underhill the Fearless Feline::

Okay, it's safe.

If you posit that LotR is a Milieu story, its subject, as it were, is Middle Earth at the End of the Third Age. All loose strings of MEatEotTA must be tied before the story can be called complete.

One of the primary loose strings is the Shire itself. There have been warnings by means of news (Farmer Maggot as well as in Bree), dreams (at the house of Tom Bombadil), and the Mirror of Galaldriel, that things were not all as they should be in the Shire. When we learn that the Rangers have given up their watch of the Shire in order to fight the War of the Ring, we have been given our most critical piece of information, even if it does seem rather insigificant when mentioned. Every reader knows that when the Hobbits return to the Shire, they are going to find things not to their liking, and not as it should be.

So it is essential to the story, as Tolkien chose (and presumably had) to write it.

[Boromir88]

I've always felt that LotR could not be complete without the Scouring of the Shire and the chapters that follow.

I agree 100%, The Scouring ties up all the loose ends that we had in the beginning. Which, I think is why most people are ok with The Scouring being left out of the movies, because we don't have the foreboding warnings from Maggot, Butterbur, or Bombadil. The destruction of the Ring was a fitting end for the movies, but the Scouring is the fitting end for books. It shows that the Hobbits have grown up, what they weren't able to handle in the beginning of the story (by themselves), they are able to defeat by the end.

[Mister Underhill]

::first looks both directions for Mr. Underhill the Fearless Feline::

littlemanpoet, surely you know that the MICE never see the cat coming before he pounces...

I'm away from home on a visit so I'll have to make this quick, but I want to toss out the idea that the reason why the book ending works and the movie ending doesn't (or at least feels too long) is exactly the reason why I disagree with the idea that LotR is primarily a milieu story.

The movie version returns to the Shire -- milieu -- but strips the events of the ending of all their narrative significance and complexity -- story, or plot if you prefer. The ending of the movie is boring precisely because milieu is not story. Simply being in the Shire, or Middle-earth for that matter, is not enough. What's the story?

The Scouring works because the story isn't over when the Ring is destroyed. Evil has been defeated -- but only for now. Tolkien has much more to say on the subject, not the least of which is that evil can never be finally, utterly defeated. Here I could go on, but since I'm pressed for time I'll leave you to imagine in the meanwhile much of what I might say about the significance of the final chapters. To end the story after the destruction of the Ring by simply writing that "Frodo returned to the Shire and lived happily ever after to the end of his days" would contradict much of what the story is about.

[Boromir88]

Good thoughts Mr. Underhill. I would say for movie purposes, leaving out the Scouring was necessary, the movies never went into too much depth suggesting that there was still a threat of evil around in the Shire, plus they killed the two people who started the corruption.

The Scouring works because the story isn't over when the Ring is destroyed. Evil has been defeated -- but only for now. Tolkien has much more to say on the subject, not the least of which is that evil can never be finally, utterly defeated.

An excellent point, there will always be someone else who will rise up and desire more power/wealth...etc. I've been wondering which idea was Tolkien shooting for, if he even intended it to be an idea. One literary age is the reformation, these thinkers believed that people are born with the intent of doing evil, but it's society and government/rules, that keep us in line. Then Renaissance thinkers believed that people are born fully good, and it's society/government/rules that cause us to become evil. I think there are good parts to the government, and bad parts, it's a flawed system, but I think one cannot live peacefully without a form of government (example Shire). A place that seemed so good, and peaceful in the beginning, where there is really no government set up (besides the Mayor), well I should say no laws, and it still becomes corrupted. The hobbits kept to themselves, and were oblivious (and quite frankly did not care) what was happening outside the Shire). Reformation and Renaissance thinkers were complete opposites in their views, but maybe there is this middle-ground between them, if there even can be a middle-ground. I would say government is necessary, and in some aspects does keep us in line, to a "moral" person, if they get ticked and want to commit a crime, they think ahh, I will go to jail, how will people view me, it's not worth it. I also think, that as people, we have an intent to "do evil." Not that we are evil, but we have the capability to become evil.

This is something I've been pondering for a while, and can't seem to figure out yet. Which one was Tolkien shooting for, Reformation, Renaissance, both? If he was shooting for one.

If anyone wishes to look more into the reformation/renaissance, here is a good website on it.