|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 207 responses total. |
davel
|
|
response 182 of 207:
| 
Oct 21 14:53 UTC 2002 |
There's no arguing with gus.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 183 of 207:
|
Oct 21 17:09 UTC 2002 |
It's like climbing a mountain: if you have to ask, "Why?", you aren't going
to do it.
It's likely you could suggest a 'must-read' which would arouse in me exactly
the same response that _Lord of the Rings_ rouses in you.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 184 of 207:
|
Oct 21 19:15 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
glenda
|
|
response 185 of 207:
|
Oct 21 19:30 UTC 2002 |
I have tried to read it several times and never got past the middle of chapter
two before getting bored to death. I did enjoy "The Hobbit". STeve and the
kids keep telling me that it is a wonderful series and I should really read
it. I tell them that I tried, more than once, and there are so many books
out there that I will enjoy without having to fight to stay awake that it
isn't worth it to me personally.
I found the movie ok, not the great cinema that everyone else thought it was.
I found myself paying more attention to my homework than to the move and
enjoyed the beautiful scenery than I did the action/dialog. I'm glad I did
pay to see it in the theater and waited to rent the DVD. Won't go out of my
way to see the rest of the movies either.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 186 of 207:
|
Oct 21 19:58 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 187 of 207:
|
Oct 21 22:17 UTC 2002 |
There probably is something you are missing, but I can't describe it, and I
wouldn't worry about.
|
jazz
|
|
response 188 of 207:
|
Oct 23 13:58 UTC 2002 |
I can't agree with the sentiment that LotR is something that Tolkien
"assembled", though it's clearly syncretic mythology. There's a lot of
mythology out there, and mythology tends to follow certain forms, and have
certain common elements, and wouldn't have the same feel even as fiction
without them.
I'm really wondering what the Christian elements in LotR are. I don't
recall any, though I can clearly identify several elements similar to Norse
or Irish-Celtic beliefs.
|
davel
|
|
response 189 of 207:
|
Oct 23 17:47 UTC 2002 |
The very specifically Christian elements are barely visible, in passing
references, in LotR, though they're there; and certainly there's plenty more
that's Christian, though not uniquely so, once you start looking. (One
example, a pretty major theme, is the corrupting temptation of power.) For
more specifically Christian themes in the mythology, you want to look at
places where the mythology is the focus - the Silmarillion, e.g. Even there,
many of the superficial elements aren't specifically Christian; that wasn't
Tolkien's intention, I think.
|
jazz
|
|
response 190 of 207:
|
Oct 23 18:53 UTC 2002 |
I suppose I wasn't considering the corrupting temptation of power to
be a Christian theme ...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 191 of 207:
|
Oct 24 00:00 UTC 2002 |
The corrupting temptation of power is not a Chritian element in origin:
it is Greek (or earlier?). For example, "In ancient Greek poetry and
drama, Ate is the goddess of foolish or ruinous impulse. When a powerful
person is loaded to the gills with hubris, Ate blinds his judgment. His
bad judgment then leads him to an action that brings about his downfall."
(http://www.odessa.edu/dept/english/dlane/eng2332/Pages/Hubris.html). The
particular wording of the popular adage is from Lord Acton, but the
concept is ancient.
|
davel
|
|
response 192 of 207:
|
Oct 24 12:19 UTC 2002 |
I said it wasn't uniquely Christian. The way Tolkien used it is quite
specifically a result of his particular, Christian viewpoint, but even so it's
not something uniquely Christian.
(The Greek idea of hubris has almost nothing to do with it, in this case,
though.)
(As I said, it's one of the main themes of the work, and turns up throughout,
but one place it is explicitly developed, in things characters say, is in
speeches by Elrond and Gandalf during the Council of Elrond. There are a few
other such places; but it's illustrated, rather than said, over and over.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 193 of 207:
|
Oct 24 22:29 UTC 2002 |
Boromir and Deneathor, for instance. Bilbo, Frodo and Smeagol more obviously.
I just hadn't thought of that as "Christian" theme. Gandalf, Aragorn and
Faramir avoiding the corruption are other examples.
|
md
|
|
response 194 of 207:
|
Oct 31 14:25 UTC 2002 |
Why isn't Tom Bombadil corrupted by the ring? He isn't affected by it
in any way at all: e.g., when he puts it on his finger he doesn't go
invisible. Either he already has more power than the ring can give, or
he isn't human or elf or dwarf or hobbit any of the other corruptible
creatures. But why? I remember somebody (Frodo?) suggesting that they
give the ring to Bombadil, and someone else (Elrond?) says, no, he'd
just lose it. If Lord of the Rings is some sort of allegory about how
power corrupts, which I doubt, what does Bombadil stand for?
|
davel
|
|
response 195 of 207:
|
Nov 1 18:51 UTC 2002 |
Well, the standard answer to pretty much all questions about Bombadil is that
he doesn't really fit in at all, in any way. He came into existence in some
verse Tolkien wrote ("The Adventures of Tom Bombadil"), which weren't exactly
part of Tolkien's evolving mythology. Then, when the sequel to _The_Hobbit_
was being developed, Tolkien was thrashing around a bit as to where it was
going (very early), and "visit Bombadil" was one idea. _The_Hobbit_ had some
ideas from the developing mythology sticking out of it, but really wasn't
designed to fit with it at all - wasn't in Tolkien's mind related. So the
sequel (LotR) wasn't either, initially. But as it developed, more and more
of the mythology came to be incorporated - as background, but the background
made a difference, all over the place.
(No, BTW, it wasn't Frodo who suggested giving Bombadil the ring. IIRC, it
was one of the other elves at the council.)
LotR is not "some sort of allegory about how power corrupts", in any case.
Tolkien was, very prominently, on record as entirely hating allegory as such,
and denying that this work was one. The particular allegories being suggested
were of the WWII-Sauron-is-Hitler variety, but now that we have in published
form the history of its writing I'd say we can see clearly that no allegorical
interpretation of it as a whole will ever be any more than someone's reading
something into it that's not there. That just wasn't the way Tolkien worked.
(Tolkien's statement on allegory referred to one exception among his writings,
commenting that the one time he did one no one came forward with allegorical
explanations. But I take it to be "Leaf By Niggle", & I think I'm not the
only one.)
But I was the one who raised the issue of the corrupting nature of power in
this work, & maybe I need to say some more. It's not the issue of hubris Rane
mentioned - though that in a way comes into it. And it's not so simply that
power corrupts, but the way it can. To put it pretty broadly, the issue is
one of goals and choices. The difference between the three rings and the one
ring isn't that they're not powerful, but the goals toward which that power
was designed. The makers of the 3 wanted to make things grow, flourish, and
be healed; to them, *that* was power. But what Sauron wanted was domination.
This made a difference to who could use these rings, and to what they could
be used for.
But secondly, each choice one makes has a kind of power over one's later
choices, and even in some cases over the later choices of others. It makes
a difference to their later choices that Gollum's acquiring of the ring
began with an act of murder, whereas Bilbo's began with an act of pity.
(This example is given in so many words; no chance of my imagining it or
reading it in.)
This is a good example of what I mean by saying that this theme is
Christian, but not uniquely so. Tolkien thought this way because of his
beliefs about sin (and about original sin in particular), and it's pretty
clear to see in many places; but one wouldn't have to be a Christian to
find all the places that exhibit this theme plausible and compelling.
You have to understand, at least to some degree, how Tolkien wrote. Some
writers would have as one of their motives, quite consciously, to show
something they believe to be true. Some of them do it badly, some well. But
that doesn't seem at all to be how Tolkien approached it.
|
md
|
|
response 196 of 207:
|
Nov 1 19:18 UTC 2002 |
I dunno. Even a writer as thorough and meticulous as Tolkien can't
help but leave some loose ends in a work the size of Lord of the Rings,
but Bombadil isn't just a loose end. He's an entire chapter. If he
doesn't belong, Tolkien could have removed him. Take out his chapter
and Old Man Willow and a reference or two elsewhere and he's gone.
|
davel
|
|
response 197 of 207:
|
Nov 2 02:23 UTC 2002 |
My guess would be that that particular kind of consistency was not the goal.
|
i
|
|
response 198 of 207:
|
Nov 16 14:02 UTC 2002 |
I think Bombadil is a "loose end" only if you subscribe to the rather
limiting philosophy that all substantial characters and action in a
story must tie into a compact little all-things-brought-together-and-
explained-in-the-end bundle. That's not how the real world works, and
Bobadil is an un-ignorable reminder that Middle Earth is bigger and
deeper than just the story of the Eldar, Enemies, Rings, & Wizards. If
that message does not sink in at first, it's reinforced both at the
Council of Elrond and when Gandolf leaves the hobbits to visit Bombadil
near the end of the book. In a sense, Bombadil is the true unchanging
immortality of the good natural earth - existing before the memory of
the most ancient of the immortal actors on the stage, and (implicitly)
long after those actors are gone & faded from memory.
|
davel
|
|
response 199 of 207:
|
Nov 18 01:04 UTC 2002 |
Well, that's not what I had in mind. He doesn't fit into the cosmology as
developed elsewhere.
Of course, the same can be said of hobbits and ents, but with them a plausible
case can be made for viewing hobbits as just a variety of men (though the
hobbits wouldn't agree, perhaps), and for the ents really being trees that
have been awakened. That latter is iffy, but not totally unreasonable, I
think. (My son, reading over my shoulder, in fact said that it's what
Treebeard said. I don't think so, but there you are.)
|
i
|
|
response 200 of 207:
|
Nov 18 02:18 UTC 2002 |
In Book 3, Chapter 4, Treebeard pretty much implies that the race of ents
started with the elves woking trees & taught them language, but the remark
is in passing and never made explicit. Treebeard does explicitly compare
ents to both elves and men, finding ents more like each in various ways.
Yes, both hobbits & ents are relatively removed from the central Eldar,
Enemies, Rings, & Wizards story, but both are races of mortal individuals
moving & changing over time, especially in response to the central saga,
and both move from the shadows to center stage in the final act. Bombadil
neither is nor does any of these things.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 201 of 207:
|
Nov 18 02:47 UTC 2002 |
Note that Dwarves were also separately created, before all others (of
Middle Earth), in fact. They were then put to sleep until the rest had been
created. The Wizards (Saruman, Gandalf and company) are not of any of the
other races. Is Bombadil of their blood, or is he of another class? Or is
The One Incarnate? (I doubt the last; it just doesn't fit Middle Earth.)
|
md
|
|
response 202 of 207:
|
Nov 18 02:56 UTC 2002 |
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm includes a lengthy discussion
of Tom Bombadil's place in Lord of the Rings. A couple of exceprts:
"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always
are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954 ...
and...
Though Tom's insertion into the nascent Lord of the Rings might be
viewed (at least in a sense) as 'accidental', it is certainly no
accident that he remained there. Tolkien reviewed and revised the book
with his customary meticulousness - it is inconceivable that the
character of Tom Bombadil would have stayed in place if Tolkien didn't
see him, in some sense, 'fitting' with the rest of the story. In
Tolkien's own words:
"...I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain
things otherwise left out."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 153, dated 1954
In the same letter, he goes on to summarise what these 'certain things'
are. It is difficult to paraphrase his statements here: the suggestion
is that while all sides in the War of the Ring seek, in their different
ways, some sort of political power, Tom is immune from this in the same
way that he is immune from the Ring. He only wishes to understand
things for what they are, and desires no control over them.
|
md
|
|
response 203 of 207:
|
Nov 18 03:01 UTC 2002 |
[Reminds me of the answer Krug gives to the police in Nabokov's Bend
Sinister, when asked why he -- a great philosopher -- would prefer to
associate with his academic colleagues than with the country's
dictator: "Because they delight in specific knowledge and are incapable
of committing murder."]
|
davel
|
|
response 204 of 207:
|
Nov 18 13:29 UTC 2002 |
For what it's worth, #202 is mostly what I was thinking of when I originally
answered your question (it was yours, right?) about Bombadil. I didn't say
what was said in the third-to-last paragraph, but should have. Yes, Tolkien's
way of writing left no room for anything as big as the Bombadil section to
be left in anything but deliberately. My point was that Bombadil as described
does not fit with anything said (elsewhere than LotR) about the creation of
various races; any explanations are speculative to the point of
being presumptuous, & I'm uncomfortable with all of them I've heard or dreamt
up myself.
Regarding ents: what Treebeard says entails that the elves taught ents to
speak, and (I think) that they awakened them - presumably making them
conscious beings in a way they weren't previously. His comments a bit later
on trees and ents - that sometimes trees become awake and alert and entish,
while sometimes ents become almost like trees - don't quite say that trees
can develop legs, feet, eyes, mouths, etc. like ents. Even taken with the
mobility of various trees (both in _The_Two_Towers_ and in the Old Forest
episode of _Fellowship_), this seems to be a step away from saying that ents
are trees awakened by the elves, IMNVHO. But it's certainly enough to make
some kind of case on it, & people have done so.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 205 of 207:
|
Nov 18 17:42 UTC 2002 |
This is Item 1, the "Why Books" item. A Tolkien item would be very
appropriate in this conference.
|
davel
|
|
response 206 of 207:
|
Nov 19 13:28 UTC 2002 |
Sorry, Rane. This comes of not paying attention to item headers. There
already is a Tolkien item (#80), and maybe someone would like to paste this
discussion there.
|