The Structure of The Lord of the Rings

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Hello Ivo, and welcome to the Downs.

I like your take on this, but I think I will resist the desire to render the complexity of the story in such comparatively ‘simple’ (but certainly not simplistic) terms. It seems to me that this Hegelian idea as you are presenting it is another version of the old Romance ideal of Middle English – something that Tolkien was more than familiar with. In Romance, we have a form of narrative that is akin to allegory insofar as the characters are presented as ‘types’ but these types work together to form some kind of corporate representation of the human mind/soul. In this schema, I wonder what ‘part’ of humanity Frodo represents? Or Aragorn? Or Sauron? I have no doubt that such a schema is possible, but like I said, I resist this as I don’t think that assigning these characters to ‘types’ does them or the story a service, in that the complexity of the whole would seem to slip past such categories. As your own post makes clear, you also want to look at how Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo all pass through death: which would seem to indicate that you are considering the story as being governed by twinning and repetition at least as much as by some form of progressive schema of evolutionary growth. I’d like to think that story can be apprehended in both ways (that is, as progressive and repetitive) but if we want to do that we have to acknowledge that at some level these two modes of structuring the tale are not entirely compatible (you can’t go forward and back at the same time – at least not easily or comfortably).

Another aspect of your idea I that I very much like is the emphasis that you seem to be giving to what I’ve called above a ‘moral’ structure, in that the shape of LotR cannot be understood in terms of its events (which are disconnected) or even its characters (which are not three dimensional on their own, and need to be related to each other) but that it must be understood in terms of the larger ‘moral framework’ that it is both constructing and dramatizing. In this respect, I suppose that the Ring would be the central structural device insofar as it symbolises the morally bad that the Good is trying to destroy or overcome.

Littlemanpoet, some of the points you raise here about the archaic language of LotR were recently discussed here, if you’d like to take a look.

[Aiwendil]

Fordim wrote:

In Romance, we have a form of narrative that is akin to allegory insofar as the characters are presented as ‘types’ but these types work together to form some kind of corporate representation of the human mind/soul. In this schema, I wonder what ‘part’ of humanity Frodo represents? Or Aragorn? Or Sauron? I have no doubt that such a schema is possible, but like I said, I resist this as I don’t think that assigning these characters to ‘types’ does them or the story a service, in that the complexity of the whole would seem to slip past such categories.

This discussion calls to mind one of the few things any of my English teachers has ever said that I found genuinely insightful. We were discussing Moby Dick (never mind that we hadn't actually read it . . .) and she said that the white whale is a complex symbol.

Now I'm not entirely sure what she meant by that, but it did make sense to me in its own way, and I think that it can be useful to think about "complex symbols". What is a complex symbol? Well, it's a symbol that isn't simple. It's a symbol that doesn't map directly and uniquely onto a single "signified". It's a symbol that can simultaneously represent more than one thing. The white whale, for example, simultaneously symbolizes nature, obsession, purity, the sea, and so forth.

I've found this concept useful in thinking about other works that might be classed as "semi-allegorical". It never occurred to me think if LotR in this way, since it was not written with the intent of allegory. But now it strikes me that there may be a great deal of similarity between Tolkien's "applicability" and the idea of a complex symbol.

Take the Ring. It is not a simple symbol, certainly. It does not represent nuclear power or drug addiction or anything else. Nor is it quite right to say that it represents power. In the context of the story, it is merely an example (if an incredibly potent one) of power. One is tempted to show that it is not a symbol by asking, rhetorically, what exactly it symbolizes: Power? Evil? Temptation? Addiction? Artifice?

This is where the complex symbol language becomes useful. We can say that the Ring is a complex symbol that simultaneously represents all those things. Moreover, in the very fact that it simultaneously represents different concepts, it also represents a certain set of relations among those concepts. It represents not only power and temptation separately; it also represents the tendency of power to tempt.

It is as though, rather than simply taking the fundamental "signified"s and fashioning a symbol for each one (as is done in a simple allegory), the artist has taken those fundamental concepts and fashioned his symbols by fusing certain of them together.

In this way, it does make sense to say that, for example, the characters in LotR represent aspects of the human mind - the catch is that they don't each represent only one aspect.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm not familiar with the work of Joseph Campbell, please tell me why I should be.

Should be? That may be saying too much. My question to you was engendered by this:

The mind becomes conscious as it travels to Mordor. There it faces its ultimate negation, death. But in order to become selfconscious it has to return to where it came from. Only then it is Geist.

Joseph Campbell wrote a book entitled Hero With a Thousand Faces. In it, he described how all myths can be boiled down to a few psychological types with which humans deal. His theories have been exploded lately, but that does not lessen his impact on the educated public during his lifetime.

Tolkien considered Campbell's idea frankly spurious. Humbug, even. His thought was that though many mythic stories had similar ingredients, the specifics in each one were at least as important as the similarities between them.

I'm not saying that you think like Campbell. I just noticed your psychological reading into LotR, and wondered if you were familiar with the most famous pyschological reader-into-myth. I would guess that Campbell was well versed in Hegel. You see, consciousness and death were two of Campbell's key "types" in myth.

[Lalwendë]

I intended just to have a quick read as I must away to bed, but what the heck...

The poetry is another vital component in the structure of LotR. Tolkien clearly loved epic verse and he worked it into LotR, yet he did not do it to such an extent that it alienated the reader. He could quite easily have written the whole tale in epic verse, as he was certainly knowledgeable enough about the requirements, but he did not; in many instances we are presented with 'fragments' of longer verses. This not only has the effect of wondering what the rest of the verse is like, but it also presents us with only what we need to know - and it often comes across as though the characters themselves know these verses very well and are giving us an insight into their favourite passages.

I have come across many people who cannot cope with LotR because of the poetry, and one oft heard piece of advice given is that they should 'skip' the poetry. But I think to do such a thing is to miss half of the essence of the story. The inclusion of poetry in the structure adds richness, and not only that, vital detail. Imagine if this detail was not presented in the format of verse - it could quite easily come across as something merely dull than as magical.

I can think of another novel where verse is vital to the tale and that is Possession by AS Byatt - if the reader were to 'skip' the poetry in that novel, then they would miss out most of the meaning and all the secret narrative about the poets' affair, and nobody would argue that to miss out the verse in that novel would be acceptable. So why should it be so for readers of LotR? I find it is vital to the structure - at least if you want to truly begin to understand Middle Earth and those who roam there.

[ivo]

Thanks Fordim and littlemanpoet for your comments.

First of all, I didn't mean to reduce the rich and complex tale of LOTR to a (simple)schema. I'm pretty sure that Tolkien didn't construct his tale on Hegelian dialectics. My philosophy prof always came up with Hobbits when discussing Hegel. I just elaborated on that thought and took it a bit further (maybe a little too far).

Hegel describes the way of the Geist as an odyssey, with the Geist finally returning home, to itself, but know complete selfconscious and embodied. That's what Hegel defines as freedom.

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.
Gradually he learns that the quest will claim his life, and that he has to face Sauron, death itself. Thus the self is confronted with its own negation. Frodo goes on. Why? Because he knows that if he doesn't he loses his freedom.
Frodo destroys the ring, but still has to return home. But of course home isn't there anymore. When selfconsciousness is realised, you can't go back to a state of unconsciousness (paradise). The negation of the self cannot be undone. Instead, it is uplifted in a new state of being, which unites both self and not self, thus becoming Geist, thus realising freedom.

So for me the true and saddest lesson (if you want to call it like that) is that freedom is only realised at a terrible cost, that is you lose your (old) self. It's even worse, the whole world changes. Not only the Shire, but whole Middle Earth, because the power of the One was bond to the power of Three. So there's no living happily ever after. No, actually Frodo died, and we see him literally departing to heaven, like Christ at Ascension Day.

This all got me started because of some remark on the scouring of the Shire. My point is that it is a necessary ending, not plotwise (plotwise it sucks), but because of the logic of freedom. So I agree with Fordim that the LOTR has a moral framework, if not to say evangelical framework (like many people pointed out before). Funny detail is that people claim that Hegels Geist is actually the Holy Ghost. (now where getting close to the eucatastrophe theme, which is also very interesting)

[Boromir88]

ivo,

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.

I think that was the sole purpose of Tom Bombadil. If you think of Tom, many people aren't "distraught" on why he was left out of the movies, they find him just as some jolly man that hops around and sings (to some point I agree). I think Bombadil helped the Hobbits realize their's more to the World then the Shire, that people lived in the Shire before Hobbits, and people will live there after Hobbits. We see this same device also from Farmer Maggot, who spent time with Bombadil. We also can see a bit of it from Treebeard, to Merry and Pippin. Treebeard is like that historian, full of stories from the old days, where forests were plentiful, the Entwives, Celeborn's youth, Saruman....etc.

These three characters all help the Hobbits grow, and mature, into the type of characters they become by the end of the book. I love the symbolism behind the entdraught, not only did Merry and Pippin grow physically, but they grew mature wise. We can also see in the beginning chapters, Frodo (and the hobbits) can't face the evils of the world, they must seek help from other sources. Gandalf, Aragorn, Maggot, Bombadil, Rivendell, Lorien. Then as Frodo matures, his "help" from other people decreases, basically after Rivendell, the only person other then Sam that helps Frodo is Faramir. By the end of the story, Gandalf leaves the Hobbits, saying his time is over. And the hobbits are able to overcome the Evil of the Shire, and Saruman, because they have matured, and now learned about the World, it's not just about Hobbits.

I wonder if Tolkien was a satiric writer. If anything I imagine he is a horation satirist, not juvenilian like Jonathan Swift, or George Orwell. Chaucer in his Canterberry Tales, uses both Horation and Juvenilian. Satire gets confused with sarcasm, they are much different. Just for general knowledge, to make sure everyone understands my point . Satire draws an attention to a problem using wit or humor. There's horation satire, which is more gentle, "Good toned" satire, and then there's juvenilian which is more spiteful, and hateful. Sarcasm is intended as a personal attack against someone(s), you may get a laugh at it, but you were intentionally trying to hurt somebody else.

There are some cases where Boromir seems like a juvenilian satirist. When the company faces problems, its Boromir who adds in the wittiness, to adress the problems.

The Great river.
And Even if you pass the Gates of Argonath and come unmolested to the Tindrock, what will you do then? Leap down the falls and land in the marshes?"

The problem is where this journey down the Anduin is leading them. And Boromir attacks it with his wittiness. This seems to me as more Juvenilian then Horation.

Another example-

A Journey in the Dark
"We do not know what he expects," said Boromir. "He may watch all roads, likely and unlikely. In that case to enter Moria would be to walk into a trap, hardly better then knocking at the gates of the Dark Tower itself....

[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.