A hundredth re-read of the LotR

[skip spence]

May remind you of this earlier statement of yours, Nogrod.

(my bolding)

Originally Posted by Nogrod

PS. I will not post like this further on. It's just that the Concerning Hobbits is a general description of a folk bringing forwards an social and political ideal and thence it requires a social-political thought to try and understand it - in my opinion.

I´d like to make a few comments on this before I go to bed:

I have indeed been too busy to read all of it yet (believe it or not) but there is a classic in the beginning I'd like to make an observation on to get this running.

It's the row between Sam and Ted Sandyman of course.

It's a great example of a traditionalistic & conservative society facing news / ideas they're not too keen to take in as those things could imbalance the beliefs of the group and their basic security on their shared worldview.

I don't find it too far-fetched to compare the discussion between Sam and Ted to one that could take place in RL in some rural community today.

While I agree with some of what you´re saying I don´t think the points you are making are the main points Tolkien was trying to make. Actually, I don´t think he was trying make a point at all here, no, he was trying to set up a good story and succeeding well I may add.

What Ted and Sam are discussing here is of course Elves, Dragons and Giants, things Ted deems as belonging in bed-time stories for children, not under the sun in the real world. Much like we would had someone suggested that immortal Elves were crossing the seas on the straight path. Despite being habituated by "Hobbits", The Shire feels familiar to us since it is very much like the world we know (or at the very least, the pastoral idyll we would want it to be or have been). There is nothing magical or "unnatural" in the Shire. Therefore the perspective of the Hobbits easily becomes a natural perspective for us too. The things that happens later on is just as amazing to the Hobbits as it would be for us. Although Frodo knows of the Elves he doesn´t think the trees in the old Forest would actually attack him any more than we would fear to be possessed by evil spirits after having heard stories about from it some "native people" somewhere. He also has a very hard time grasping that wraiths of the Dark Lord Sauron could come after him in the Shire. Things like this only happens in the fairy-tales.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Actually, I don´t think he was trying make a point at all here, no, he was trying to set up a good story and succeeding well I may add.

I'm indeed agreeing with you here. I'm not saying Tolkien tried to make a point or another there, but he was probably mainly just laying a nice groundwork to the situation the main characters were in - and what they needed to face in the future while not knowing it themselves as yet to be sure. I mean it was a good point you made about the "adventurous hobbits", even if they were ready or readier to see the larger possibilities of the world (and sure Bilbo and even Frodo had first hand experience of elves and so on), they were still not in the end quite ready for it when it actually came upon them.

But what I was pointing at was merely that the discussion between Ted and Sam reminds one strongly of certain debates people go through in RL and of those I think the prof was not ignorant of - none the less as the first thing coming to one's mind reading the passage is the question regarding the existence of God which Tolkien clearly had faith in.

Like the naïve atheist who says: "you say there is a God, then prove it, show it/her/him to us!" (sounds so like Ted Sandyman!). And that is an easy one, as no one can prove as non-existent anything that is claimed to be immaterial. No one can prove that ösaodjhvöwoefdbh doesn't exist if I say ösaodjhvöwoefdbh is an immaterial being who can't be perceived but manages the whole universe - no more can you prove there is no Spaghetti-Monster behind all of creation (if you've heard of that).

So here: Tolkien - Naïve atheists 1-0

But what caught my mind was that the similar situation arises within "faith-communities" which deny the existence of certain non-seen entities like atoms or quarks - or the non-plain empirical principles of evolution (things that have such a wide scope in time human memory alone can't tell us of it). And looking at the way Tolkien presents the scorn of Ted and the other hobbits supporting him just led me to try a different angle on the whole thing.

And everyone ever lived or visited a traditional community knows full well what Tolkien is at there even if we're not talking about faith or science. Anything new or odd is wrong and only the things the communities are used to are right. In that I think Tolkien might have even tried to "prove a point" but that probably wasn't anything very important - merely a scholarly joke stemming fgrom his own experiences...? Who knows?

But really it was just a trial to look at a thing from a different angle and to arouse new thoughts and not so much trying to prove a point or saying Tolkien tried to prove a point there, or anything like it.


---
Maybe this is a good place for a general declaration of principle just to avoid any future misunderstandings (and I'm not saying skip especially misunderstood me as I think he was right in his criticism by way of pointing at another very plausible intepretation indeed): I'm not writing these things as if I'm trying to uncover what Tolkien "really meant". I don't believe I - or anyone else - has access to that. But I'd love to explore different ways in which one might see things written in the books, or whether there are unexplored perspectives to them we might gain if we looked into them. So I'm only after more fruitful perspectives. If anyone - myself included - gets a new perspective from these then it is a good thing and we have succeeded.

Originally Posted by skip

May remind you of this earlier statement of yours, Nogrod.

Yes you may indeed. And I promise to hold that social-injustice perspective down in the (near) future... maybe when we get to know the elven or dwarven societies - or the orc-ones - I might be tempted to come back to them...

[skip spence]

Yes Nogrod, that dialogue/situation between Sam and Ted is very universal and one that we all can recognise in various situations and contexts. It ain't easy coming with a new idea not established and accepted by the majority, whether this idea is revolutionary and grand dealing with the existence or non-existance of God, atoms or microscopic germs or mundane like how to grow tomatoes or eat a candybar.

Another thing that popped up in my head regarding Chapter Two is that famous verse about the One Ring "One ring to find them and in the darkness bind them..." etc.

Who wrote that verse? It must've been Sauron, no? Wasn't it said that Celebrimbor first perceived that he and the Elves had been betrayed when Sauron first took up the ring and uttered those words? Is this a often forgotten, more sensitive side to the Dark Lord? He isn't all about war, terror and mental domination, he's also a talented writer and poet, isn't he? One wonders if he spent many sleepless hours alone in the top-most turret of Barad Dur, anguishing over the wordings of his poem (One ring to govern them all and in the darkness coerce them! No, it's not good! *The Orcs quiver in fear as the earth trembles with rolling thunder*).

Edit: And yeah, I've also come across the mighty Spaghetti-monster. It's kinda funny ;-)

[Groin Redbeard]

This is one of my favorite chapters in the entire book. Gandalf does an excellent job with recanting his findings to Frodo, it just keeps you on the edge of your seat for the entire time.

I'm probably not going to say anything that hasn't already been said about the conversation between Ted and Sam. Sam is obviously the more "queer" out of the two and this sets up the belief int the readers mind that Sam isn't all that different from Frodo or Bilbo, when it comes to adventure and such. I think this kind of lessens the shock of Sam being "forced" into the journey with Frodo.

Sam I think represents the ordinary man in all of us. He fantisizes about meeting elves and going off on adventures like Mr. Bilbo and doing brave things, but when the time comes Sam finds remourse and excitement. I think we see as the book progresses that Sam's attitude changes towards one of loyalty to Frodo. Of course it was always there in the beginning, but I think that it becomes stronger their adventures become more dangerous and he forgets all the silly notions about meeting elves and trolls and becomes more about protecting his master. I hope I made sense with this.

We see here Gandalf's first visible doubt of Saruman's council. Gandalf talks about for years how he, and the entire White Council, trusted Saruman and his ring lore, but when Saruman basically refuses to let any helpful knowledge be given to the council Gandalf is wary of him. I think that it was even stated that he was misguided and fooled by the councils of Saruman and in the end Gandalf had to go find things himself. Perhaps if Gandalf had known a little bit more he would not be so anxious to answer Saruman's summons to Orthanc. Than again I'm just speculating.

I can't say much for Frodo in this chapter other than he's acting very Bilboish in his stalling to get out of town. Very lucky for him that there was a need to graduily dissapear instead of dissapearing all at once.

As for Sauron being a poet, I'm pretty sure that pretty flowers and lolly-pops were not what he had in mind when creating that poem. Infact it still fills me with dread of what might have happened everytime that I read it. *shudders*

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Is this a often forgotten, more sensitive side to the Dark Lord? He isn't all about war, terror and mental domination, he's also a talented writer and poet, isn't he? One wonders if he spent many sleepless hours alone in the top-most turret of Barad Dur, anguishing over the wordings of his poem (One ring to govern them all and in the darkness coerce them! No, it's not good! *The Orcs quiver in fear as the earth trembles with rolling thunder*).

That was indeed a hilarious idea! Kind of reminded me of the Monty Python sketch where Beethoven tries to come up with how the fifth symphony should begin...


Yes, I agree with Groin that Gandalf's stories are masterfully made in both that they glue the reader's eyes to the pages and kind of prepare things to come while at the same time lifting off the veil of secrecy bit by bit letting the reader into the background story. I remember that when I was younger all these parts where people told these stories that brought some pieces together (like Gandalf here, or like different people in Rivendell) were my favourites. And I enjoyed it once again...

Although I must say that Gandalf's "recitation" is a bit too literal - like a rehearsed and planned lecture which surely is something the prof. was at home with. But surely it is not written in a way anyone would actually talk, not even a wizard...


One more thing before I go to sleep (I'll have a few things to say tomorrow when I have more time in my hands).

Now correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it that the original story of Robin Hood was a story about a hooded robber ("robbing hood" ) which the upper classes sanctified with the "right moral connotations" by changing the lower class unknown hero into Sir Robin of Locksley? Somehow that came into my mind while reading the introduction to Sméagol's family: "There was among them a family of high repute, for it was large and wealthier than most". So to be a main character in a story you have to be upper class? *running out of smilies* Like the poor young boy (yes, normally a boy indeed) has to be revealed to be the rightful prince or nobler than his assumed birth would let one to believe?

Okay. Gollum's story about how the Ring came to him uses that fact as he claims first that his wealthy matriarchical grandmother had given the Ring to him as a birthday present. Sure. But had the initial setting been otherwise Tolkien could have come up with another "lie" for Gollum.

It may be a question of intuition - or maybe Tolkien has somewhere discussed this openly - but I kind of sense it the way that Gollum had to be from a family of stature as he was to be a central character in a mythological story, because in mythological stories the central characters are "noble-born". Here Tolkien would then stick to the exact letter of myths. And so the possibility of writing the first lie about his grandma giving it to him as a present arose.

It may sure be the other way around: desperate to come up with a lie Gollum might use, Tolkien thought of Gollum being from a wealthiest family around and thence be able to say it was a gift...

Hah. Lots of words for something at least I have nothing to "prove it" the way or another...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Perhaps Gollum's upper-class roots (if it could even be called such, given the state of the hobbitish civilization at that point) was intended as a sort of dark reflection of Frodo. Both came from better-off families and became caught up in the history of the Ring, but because of their differences of personality were very differently affected by it. There's the saying that if you can't be a good example, you may wind up being a horrible warning, and the image of Gollum -- what Frodo himself could become if he slipped down the path of selfishness and greed -- was, I suspect, a factor in keeping Frodo true to his mission, until the very end. In this chapter, Gandalf tells Frodo of Gollum's history and the fact that Bilbo's mercy toward him may one day rule all their fates. Frodo may not take to these things readily, but the seeds are planted here, and I think it is important that they have nearly the entire length of the book to take root and grow. I believe he needs to be able to see something of himself in Gollum in order to feel real pity toward him, the kind of compassion that will allow him to forgive Gollum at the end. And that depth of feeling does not come quickly or easily when one is considering a creature they have long regarded as an enemy.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Perhaps Gollum's upper-class roots (if it could even be called such, given the state of the hobbitish civilization at that point) was intended as a sort of dark reflection of Frodo. Both came from better-off families and became caught up in the history of the Ring, but because of their differences of personality were very differently affected by it.
......
I believe he needs to be able to see something of himself in Gollum in order to feel real pity toward him, the kind of compassion that will allow him to forgive Gollum at the end. And that depth of feeling does not come quickly or easily when one is considering a creature they have long regarded as an enemy.

That's a good point indeed! It's interesting to note on this that in Gandalf's story Sméagol is first described as "the most inquisitive and curious minded of that family" also "interested in roots and beginnings" and loving the nature. But on the next note of him (after requiring the Ring) he is already described as using the Ring "to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses... The Ring had given him power according to his stature"! So his inquisitiveness had turned into malice - but to say "according to his stature" is not to say according to his "newly found" or "changed" stature... So is his stature already crooked without the effect of the Ring even if it's first described pretty innocentishly? Or is it just the possibility rooted in the inquisitiveness or something? This I kind of wonder.

And still there is something like a general pity on his character in Gandalf's telling of the story all the time it goes on...

Interesting indeed.

[Nogrod]

So much for having more time today... but I'd like to say one thing which at the moment quite intrigues me.

For the story this really is quite an important chapter as it lays the ground for the story to take place but I'm beginning to wonder whether Tolkien also laid the basis of his metaphysical unverse here as well.

In the beginning of the chapter where Frodo asks why would Sauron wish for such slaves as Hobbits Gandalf tries to explain that terrible idea of someone just wishing harm to someone else with: "there is such a thing as malice and revenge".

So we have the evil principles of malice and revenge brought forth.

In the end of the chapter, after learning all the harm Gollum had caused and about the dire threat to himself Frodo curses why Bilbo didn't "stab the vile creature when he had a chance". And Gandalf answers with the two other basic principles of pity and mercy.

So: pity vs. malice and mercy vs. revenge.

Quite neat pairs indeed to run a universe.


And to top that we can find Gandalf telling Frodo how Bilbo was meant to have it and he succeeded with it, and so by that also Frodo was meant to have it and so on. So there is a benevolent whatever helping things turn out for the good - even if the living beings need to make their best effort and make the right choices if they are to succeed - "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us".

These principles indeed form the backbone of the whole story one might say and the universe in which all our heroes (not just Frodo and Sam) have their trials and tribulations and in where they have to make their choises.