Aragorn's assertiveness

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Leaf

I disagree. What you are describing is more fitting to the character of movie-Aragorn. Book-Aragorn's duty is entirely his own doing. He wanted to become King Elessar from the start and did everything in his power to accomplish this.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your point, why do you think he had such a drive to become King of Gondor? He had many ancestors that had the same claim as he did but none of them made any attempt to make it good. Was it love of Arwen? Could be, but honestly the reason why the opportunity arose was because of the War of the Ring. Given the circumstances surrounding the situation and the opportunity the war provided, it could be argued that it was his destiny.

Originally Posted by Leaf

Note the enumeration of his titles and family relations and the claim on Minas Arnor. It sure doesn't seem to me that this could be attributed to a character that is torn between his duty and his own true desires. They really are one and the same.

If anything Aragorn is torn because of his duty towards the ring's fate and his own political agenda. Annoyingly, he has to take Gandalf's place and this is getting in the way of his original plans.

However, I do disagree with your interpretation of Aragorn's motives in this. I do not think he was annoyed or put out by his duty to the Ring quest any more than Frodo or Sam, who also frequently wanted to return to the Shire. Of course they all wanted to be off doing something else that they wanted to do. The quest was a miserable experience. But the fate of the world was literally hanging in the balance. I have no doubt that had circumstances been different, Aragorn would have gone up Mount Doom with Frodo on his back if need be.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

While I don't necessarily disagree with your point, why do you think he had such a drive to become King of Gondor? He had many ancestors that had the same claim as he did but none of them made any attempt to make it good. Was it love of Arwen? Could be, but honestly the reason why the opportunity arose was because of the War of the Ring. Given the circumstances surrounding the situation and the opportunity the war provided, it could be argued that it was his destiny.

I could never find a satisfactory answer to your question. As you say, theoretically every forefather could have tried to claim their right to the throne of Gondor. Your proposal makes sense since we know that appareantly there's a prophecy about the Return of the King:

'...for it was spoken of old among us that it [Narsil] should be made again when the Ring, Isildur’s Bane, was found.'

I think it's fair to extrapolate from the re-forging of Narsil to the re-taking of the arnorian/gondorian throne. But I really don't like the implications of this. This would imply that the believe in this prophecy was so strong that every prospective pretender to the throne would act accordingly and sit tight, giving up their chance to power because the time hasn't come yet. Given all the generations of potential claimants this seems too idealistic to me. It also seems strange to me that there was an expectation that Sauron's Ring will (with absolute certainty) be found again. This makes Gandalf's blunder regarding Bilbos magic ring even more surprising.

I think that the conjunction of the ring-story and the king-story is one of Tolkiens weaker designs.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

However, I do disagree with your interpretation of Aragorn's motives in this. I do not think he was annoyed or put out by his duty to the Ring quest any more than Frodo or Sam, who also frequently wanted to return to the Shire. Of course they all wanted to be off doing something else that they wanted to do. The quest was a miserable experience. But the fate of the world was literally hanging in the balance. I have no doubt that had circumstances been different, Aragorn would have gone up Mount Doom with Frodo on his back if need be.

I do agree with you and I apologize for the lax wording. I just wanted to point out that Gandalf's death was a drawback to Aragorn's initial planning.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Leaf

I could never find a satisfactory answer to your question. As you say, theoretically every forefather could have tried to claim their right to the throne of Gondor. Your proposal makes sense since we know that appareantly there's a prophecy about the Return of the King:

'...for it was spoken of old among us that it [Narsil] should be made again when the Ring, Isildur’s Bane, was found.'

I think it's fair to extrapolate from the re-forging of Narsil to the re-taking of the arnorian/gondorian throne. But I really don't like the implications of this. This would imply that the believe in this prophecy was so strong that every prospective pretender to the throne would act accordingly and sit tight, giving up their chance to power because the time hasn't come yet. Given all the generations of potential claimants this seems too idealistic to me.

Personally I do find it plausible that successive generations of Chieftains of the Dunedain did feel constrained by the prophecy. I think that would be in keeping with the setting that Tolkien intended to create.

From a practical standpoint, there were a number of considerations against it. Politically, Gondor was too stable until the time of the War of the Ring for the prospect of an unknown rustic from the North to come in and claim the throne to have any appeal for the Gondorians themselves. The issue of a Northern claimant to the throne of Gondor had been decisively defeated for that epoch with the rejection of Arvedui. It is noteworthy that Aragorn emphasized being Elendil's heir rather than just Isildur's, probably to avoid the problem Arvedui experienced.

Also, for the most part the Chieftains of the Dunedain were concerned with the survival of their small people and had little time to spare for larger ambitions.

It also seems strange to me that there was an expectation that Sauron's Ring will (with absolute certainty) be found again. This makes Gandalf's blunder regarding Bilbos magic ring even more surprising.

Can't argue too much with that. Sometimes we just have to recall that Tolkien hadn't figured out everything by the time he wrote the books.

I think that the conjunction of the ring-story and the king-story is one of Tolkiens weaker designs.

Perhaps, but it is very much in keeping with the heroic mode that was Tolkien's inspiration. Great peril arises -> hero arises to vanquish the peril -> hero sets world to rights

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Personally I do find it plausible that successive generations of Chieftains of the Dunedain did feel constrained by the prophecy. I think that would be in keeping with the setting that Tolkien intended to create.

From a practical standpoint, there were a number of considerations against it. Politically, Gondor was too stable until the time of the War of the Ring for the prospect of an unknown rustic from the North to come in and claim the throne to have any appeal for the Gondorians themselves. The issue of a Northern claimant to the throne of Gondor had been decisively defeated for that epoch with the rejection of Arvedui. It is noteworthy that Aragorn emphasized being Elendil's heir rather than just Isildur's, probably to avoid the problem Arvedui experienced.

Also, for the most part the Chieftains of the Dunedain were concerned with the survival of their small people and had little time to spare for larger ambitions.

Those practical objections all seem reasonable to me. They are (within the context of Middle-Earth) understandable answers to the posed question. My problem is that Tolkien didn't include them in the text of Fellowship. Instead, he simply threw in a few vague lines about a prophecy that supposedly prevented a premature Return of the King.

I don't find this solution to be very elegant. On the contrary, it's kind of hamfisted.


It would be illuminating if someone took their time to trace this problem back to the HoME.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Leaf

My problem is that Tolkien didn't include them in the text of Fellowship. Instead, he simply threw in a few vague lines about a prophecy that supposedly prevented a premature Return of the King.

I don't find this solution to be very elegant. On the contrary, it's kind of hamfisted.

This probably boils down to stylistic preferences in the end. I don't find these resolutions to be hamfisted, but rather add texture to the setting.

Originally Posted by Leaf

It would be illuminating if someone took their time to trace this problem back to the HoME.

Part of the problem may arise in that Strider did not start off as Strider at all.

Anyway, I will actually be home this evening so I will take some time to thumb through the last part of Fellowship and see if anything additional catches my eye beyond what has been mentioned already.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

This probably boils down to stylistic preferences in the end. I don't find these resolutions to be hamfisted, but rather add texture to the setting.

An afterthought:

I suspect that this problem (if you are inclined to view it as such) stems from Tolkien's method or style of writing. He really excels when it comes to the reinterpretation of mythical motives and their expression in his own world. But there are certain aspects of story-telling that seem to be, let's say, of less importance to him, to be a little more diplomatic about it. The numerous cases of deus ex machina (Oh, those eagles) may be fitting examples for this feature.

And I really don't want to be too harsh. The general embedding of the King-story into the Ring-story was accomplished with great success. I really like how it drives the narrative foward and how it connects the past with the present. I'm just being a little bit nit-picky about it because I want to get to the bottom of this.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Part of the problem may arise in that Strider did not start off as Strider at all.

Anyway, I will actually be home this evening so I will take some time to thumb through the last part of Fellowship and see if anything additional catches my eye beyond what has been mentioned already.

Thanks, that would be great.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Leaf

An afterthought:

I suspect that this problem (if you are inclined to view it as such) stems from Tolkien's method or style of writing. He really excels when it comes to the reinterpretation of mythical motives and their expression in his own world. But there are certain aspects of story-telling that seem to be, let's say, of less importance to him, to be a little more diplomatic about it. The numerous cases of deus ex machina (Oh, those eagles) may be fitting examples for this feature.

And I really don't want to be too harsh. The general embedding of the King-story into the Ring-story was accomplished with great success. I really like how it drives the narrative foward and how it connects the past with the present. I'm just being a little bit nit-picky about it because I want to get to the bottom of this.




Thanks, that would be great.

The intersection of the Ring/King-Stories is pure Mythological Archetypal Narrative, as well.

We see similar features in Myths ranging from the Cradle of Civilization, all the way to Native Americans in the 1800s (although the Native American Myths are much older in origin than the 19th Century).

The Kalevala is the most obvious, being a nearly direct inspiration for much of Middle-earth.

And the Nibelungenlied has similar archetypes. Obviously not identical, but carrying many of the same narrative structures.

Tolkien does a much better job in his myths than do the actual myths because Tolkien set out to Consciously construct these stories, rather than arising out of Social Constructs from the Legends and Mythic Persons within a Culture - which can lead to a great many contradictions and conflicts that remain very difficult to satisfy or resolve.

MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Those practical objections all seem reasonable to me. They are (within the context of Middle-Earth) understandable answers to the posed question. My problem is that Tolkien didn't include them in the text of Fellowship. Instead, he simply threw in a few vague lines about a prophecy that supposedly prevented a premature Return of the King.

I don't find this solution to be very elegant. On the contrary, it's kind of hamfisted.

I agree about the prophecy- it's almost the literary version of a "kludge". However, purely by coincidence, I happened to be puzzling over this question of, "well, but couldn't the king really have "returned" any time? Why the wait?", and it was those "practical objections" that came to mind, not the prophecy, (about which I had actually forgotten). What I'm saying is that I think these things can be inferred from the text of the whole novel, even if not from "Fellowship" alone.