Classics for Beginners discussion
This topic is about
The Fellowship of the Ring
Old Monthly Group Reads
>
The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
'Allegory: (noun) a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one'(from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definit...)
I don't deny that there's bound to be Christian imagery, references, allusions and limited (in scope that is) symbolism in it, nor that it might add up to a significant part of all such that appears in the work, but it's still not allegory in the 'whole' sense above in that there's no conscious design there (which is in contrast to the case of Plato's parable of the cave or Abbott's Flatland or Everyman). I don't think a connection of references alone suffices, no matter how copious.
It can be tentatively interpreted to be allegorical, but there the trouble is that standard collections of tropes that happen to appear both in a Biblical context and in The Chronicles of Narnia can be strung together loosely and declared causal when in fact both trace their origin to some earlier or more primeval story structure that many world mythologies share (like the idea of the 'monomyth'). The connection might also be more readily made because ones as strong, as in the case of Norse mythology in Narnia, are overlooked.
But I guess it can be regarded an almost peevish distinction to draw. I may read the series sometime and see if I can spot the unified character of allegory.
@Jonathan- I thought Tom was well loved, apparently not!
There are of course Christian References, but I always thought, if there was anything allegorical in the Lord of the Rings it was a lesson about how we all have to come together to defeat evil in the world and generally linked to WWII and the defeat of Hitler. Not so much symbol-player as a phylisophical allagory. Sort of "Every body has to help, or evil wins," and, "even the smallest of us have a role to play." I've seen some that liken Gondor to England, the Shire to the Netherlands, Switzerland to Rivendell, Hitler and Sauron, and the Rohrim to the US.
I've seen other variations of that as well so I'm not sure it's a role-role correlation. It is more of a phylisophical argument about humanity banding together for survival against a great evil.
And of course, Eowen was a disappointment to some, because they think she was not a complete 3 dimensional character. Hence, sexism, her role was to support, though she did strike a blow for good against one of the Nazgul.
It's easier to see an alegory in the Hobbit than the Lord of the Rings, though, it's a bit more direct in that. Phylisophical arguments aren't always clear when they rely on players to define it.
That's assuming that Tolkien intended LoTR to be an allegory of anything.
For the Record, I liked Eowen as a character. I'm not one of "them."
I think Tolkien denied that tLotR was an allegory, especially of the world wars. Of course, as was said, one can interpret allegory in a lot of things.The discussion though was about Narnia. Bit of a sidetrack.
Yasiru wrote: "I think Tolkien denied that tLotR was an allegory, especially of the world wars. Of course, as was said, one can interpret allegory in a lot of things.The discussion though was about Narnia. Bit o..."
Oh, I'm sorry. And I'm not surprised he said that, but I'd be equally surprised if there isn't some theme (allegorical) that he organized around. Maybe it's not Allegorical by intent, but, it does have a good message.
Band together... even the smallest of us have something to contribute... even the worst of us have a role to play yet (Gollum).
But, that does seem like "armchair quarterbacking" and projecting current values on work that existed before the celebrated themes were considered valuable.
Sorry to jump in half cocked, ...(sigh) again....
Curmudgeon wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "I think Tolkien denied that tLotR was an allegory, especially of the world wars. Of course, as was said, one can interpret allegory in a lot of things.The discussion though was abou..."
No worries. Just providing some context. There's definitely a Christian influence in both works, despite my pedanticism about what constitutes 'allegory'. Much less so of course with Tolkien, in whose case I think it serves only to simplify the story with a kind of ready-made moral bearing (which makes it easier to divert attention constructing the elaborate mythical/anthropological playground of his universe).
Jonathan wrote: "Elise wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Louise wrote: "Cecily wrote: i>1. i just had to add to the "he said, she said"
2. I think you have to distinguish between influences and allegories or direct representations of stuff. I mentioned this earlier but I'll mention it again, Tolkien explicitly said there are no allegories to anything. (not world wars, religions, etc.) It's just a story.
3. That being said, there might be some Christian influence as well as world war influence since it was happening in the middle of him writing it. but mostly, he says directly, that he was just trying to create a good story.
Yasiru wrote: "Curmudgeon wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "I think Tolkien denied that tLotR was an allegory, especially of the world wars. Of course, as was said, one can interpret allegory in a lot of things.The discuss..."
The Christian influence is of course why I read it so early on but that said I still view both those books as more containing allegorical ideas that are Christian rather than being pure allegory. Middle Earth is very much less allegorical (even Gandalf is meant to be more like a guiding angelic spirit than anything else). And as far as the Last Battle goes I don't see that much of Revelation in it. Where are the angels pouring out their bowls on the Earth for instance? It's more an apocalypse story told from his Christian point of view and told to fit into his universe he made.
i guess it depends on what's in their bowls...cereal? captain crunch? tomato soup? i could have sworn i read about tomato soup and grilled cheese in revelations...
janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "i guess it depends on what's in their bowls...cereal? captain crunch? tomato soup? i could have sworn i read about tomato soup and grilled cheese in revelations..."You may be on to something, since I distinctly remember cases in the news lately of people seeing Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches. :D
Just an opinion about Narnia. I found that the Witch, Lion, etc was a replica of the life and dead of Jesus, I mean: the poor inocent children who wander on an unknown land and who are free to chose. One chose to betray them, so he is captured by the evil witch and so the good lion take the blame for him and is killed (almost crucified, btw) for the sin of other. Then he revived and save the land from the evil witch.Now, dont let me be misunderstood, I absolutely loooove the Narnia book, and I will read them to every child I have access. But for me, the 1st book isnt an allegory, is a replica of the bible but for little children. Anyway, about LoTR...
As I said before, I read the books for the 1st time when I was 20 and although I liked them, I found them a little... slow or with too much descriptions (especially of the cities). And in particularly in the Two Towers and The Return of the King the endless battles were too much for me. But The fellowship of the ring was my favorite one(probably because of the lack of battles haha). Then the movies came out (one by one) and specially the 1st one, I loved it. I didnt even mind that Jackson supplanted Glorfindel for Arwen (I heard then that Tolkien fans were pretty mad about that). I loved the scenes of this breathtaking elf being chased by the Nazgul and finally crossing the river. Actually, that suspence was exactly as the one I felt while reading the book on that part. The only thing that I reproach the movie is that there is no sense of time, everything happens too fast. In the book it takes weeks to get to Bree, and weeks to get to Rivendel and so on. Even after Frodo is wounded by the knife, 4 days passes before Glorfindel arrives to them.
In another note, now that I have re-read the books on my 30´s :O ,I confess that I forgot all about Tom Bombadil in this past decade ha ha. Actually I dont dislike him at all. It is suggested that he is the oldest "being" in middle earth (even older that some elves or than the ents), and he is untouched by the magic of the ring. About this, I think the ring can lure to beings with some ambition for power or glory, the humans are thirsty for power so they are corrupted by the ring absolutely in a short period of time. The hobbits have little ambition and are so endurable that the rings alures them very slowly. I think that Tom Bombadil doesnt have any ambition for power or glory, so the ring cannot corrupt him.I even like his verses, I found them cute and tender. =D Although I agree with those who said that he is completely aside of the main story.
I'm curious to know about how others see the power of the ring. (view spoiler) However, throughout the books there are lots of suggestions that the ring acts for itself (e.g. early on Gandalf says he believes that the ring chose to leave Gollum when it did etc.) So is the ring intrinsically an evil sentient/semi-sentient object, acting for itself, or is it's evil done "through it" by the will of Sauron? I ask, because although I think the main implication seems to be for the former, it does seem possible for there to be some doubt (i.e. it could be the latter, or it could be a mixture of the two).Of course, it is 20 years since I read the whole book/books and I may be just a chapter away from where this is made completely, transparently explicit and I just don't remember.
Well what I notice throughout the books is that the power of will is often referred to. For instance the 'magic' that wizards like Gandalf use is not specifically magic but more like power because of the strength of who they are in a way. He has power because he has a strong and pure will (view spoiler). For me I think that the ring represents a kind of subjugation of will. That it is a temptation for those who see it. They want to wear it, to feel powerful but ultimately the ring does work for itself (and by working for itself I think it works for Sauron as it's all his malice poured into one specific item). So when people put it on I see it as them succumbing to the temptation of what seems to be power but ultimately becoming enslaved to the ring's power. It's like the idea of sin or hamartia.
I agree with Jonathan. I've always thought the One Ring as corrupting through temptation, while also channelling the malevolent will of Sauron during the events of LotR because Sauron was the last powerful enough bearer still able to reclaim it (the Hobbits have a 'problem of scale' as it were), and in having imbued it with his own power knew the character of it (since if he had a continued hold on it just because he gave it his own power, he'd not have been weakened on losing it).I'm certain that had Galadriel or Gandalf given in and taken the Ring for themselves, they'd be able to be rid quite easily of Sauron's influence but would in time be corrupted by the power itself.
Yes, I understand that - it's not exactly what I was asking. Is the ring an entity (as I said sentient or semi-sentient) or is it just a tool (i.e. an inanimate object) which Sauron uses to "channel" his own power through - the point about will and power is well made, but is it Sauron's or the ring's. So in other words, every time the ring acts upon the bearer or those close to him is it acting of its own volition or is Sauron consciously involved in that each time - at this point in my re-reading I just can't decide (or remember).
Have just had a lightbulb over the head moment. All of my feelings of violence towards Tom Bombadil and his tarradiddle are simply caused by him being very very drunk all of the time - or even more likely stoned as well. He and Goldberry are growing some interesting "herbs" round the back of his little house in the woods - and they have a still in a shed out back too. Of course! It all makes sense now!
Elise wrote: "Yes, I understand that - it's not exactly what I was asking. Is the ring an entity (as I said sentient or semi-sentient) or is it just a tool (i.e. an inanimate object) which Sauron uses to "chann..."I don't think Tolkien ever explicitly addressed it (though I too will now keep an eye out for any hint). My own impression is that Sauron is aware of the Ring because he put his own power into its making, but isn't otherwise granted control over it that can't be struck off by someone powerful enough. However, as I said, there is no one powerful enough willing to use it in LotR, so he retains an influence or affinity over it as a previous master (and perhaps also as maker).
Another closely-related possibility I'm not decided on is that the Ring has a kind of sentience (perhaps endowed by Sauron's power in it) that also seeks out power able and willing to wield it (its past master) and so 'opens up' to allow Sauron's will to be imposed on the punier bearer. As though, when a lesser bearer wears it, it sends out a kind of signal that alerts other possible bearers and gives them a chance to procure it for themselves. Or maybe it needn't be 'conscious' at all, and when active (somewhat like a networked computer) simply has a certain signature that Sauron (having made it and worn it) knows and also has certain vulnerabilities which, with the bearer not able to address them, allows Sauron to extend his influence through it.
Elise wrote: "Have just had a lightbulb over the head moment. All of my feelings of violence towards Tom Bombadil and his tarradiddle are simply caused by him being very very drunk all of the time - or even mor..."Ha ha, well, I can only wish fervently for a Harold and Kumar film featuring Tom.
My understanding is that the ring is a semi-sentient being. I like to think of it as a kind of parasitic organism though. It was formed from the malice of Sauron and ultimately only Sauron can wield it to fulfil its purpose. The ring is sentient in a way in that it escaped Gollum of its own will and seeks to return to its true master. It cannot be worn by others like Frodo because they don't have the nature it desires and simply turns them to wraith form. So I would say that yes it is sentient but at the same time it needs a symbiosis with Sauron so that's why it seeks to return to him.
Jonathan wrote: "My understanding is that the ring is a semi-sentient being. I like to think of it as a kind of parasitic organism though. It was formed from the malice of Sauron and ultimately only Sauron can wiel..."So a bit of both, basically, though leaning more towards the sentient, corrupting ring. Sort of what I had assumed.
I know I've droned on and on about this, but it is actually an important point (to me, anyway). I suppose I see it as a question of people having responsibility for their "evil deeds". The complexity of the story and the characters is much higher if the ring is not intrinsically an evil entity forcing corruption on its bearer, but if it merely a powerful inanimate object that helps to bring out the bearer's own "dark side".
As far as I recall, Sauron has no knowledge of the ring, or Gollum, while Gollum has it (and he just thinks it's his pretty "precious" that can make him invisible), which suggests that it does have a malevolent sentience of its own and that it isn't just the owner's perception of the power it represents that corrupts (though Gollum wasn't the nicest of hobbity-things to begin with, by the sound of it, so it had a base to work from).
Still, an evil sentient ring is sort of disappointing in a way, removing, as it does, most of the responsibility for any evil deeds from the shoulders of the ring bearer, but after all this IS fantasy land.
Elise wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "My understanding is that the ring is a semi-sentient being. I like to think of it as a kind of parasitic organism though. It was formed from the malice of Sauron and ultimately onl..."Maybe for having been reading The Selfish Gene, I'm partial to the idea of a mechanism that gives the impression of sentience, like the 'seeking out (possibly willing) power' theory I suggested, which doesn't need sentience- only to be noticeable when it detects better prospects. (The case is comparable also to the impression of malevolent will associated to the behelit in Kentaro Miura's Berserk, where ideas and imagery of destiny and causality make the possibility superfluous.)
About Sauron not being aware of Gollum and later Bilbo having possession of and using the Ring, it may simply be a convenient contrivance of the story- in that Sauron may not have gathered enough power to detect the One Ring till it came to Frodo and he set out of the Shire (also indicating a possible geographical advantage).
Rather than the Ring's possession of a will (or some trace of a will conferred by Sauron) as a way to relieve blame, I fully agree that the idea of corruption being inevitable adds to the story, particularly since it melds well with other themes (like the Ents and Elves essentially departing). But as it stands, this not being explored doesn't preclude the possibility.
Actually I think the ring as a sentient force still causes others to be highly responsible for their actions. I like to think of it as the metaphoric devil on the shoulder of the characters, a kind of creature that tempts rather than forcefully takes control. As such the real moral power lies in the hands of the characters to choose to give into that temptation or to fight it.
Jonathan wrote: "Actually I think the ring as a sentient force still causes others to be highly responsible for their actions. I like to think of it as the metaphoric devil on the shoulder of the characters, a kind..."I suppose what's unfortunate is that, while this take on it is appealing, Tolkien doesn't seem much interested in following through on either it or an alternative. But on the other hand, there's much he does get into about personal ordeal by way of it.
I do think that for Tolkien the ring represents the idea of free will and sin or hamartia as I mentioned before. I think you have to approach Tolkien from the perspective that he was a Catholic and as such his beliefs still permeate through the story in subtle ways. His characters I do find are still morally responsible for their own actions. But perhaps I'll see more when I give it another re-read.
i soooooo wonder what tolkien would be thinking about this conversation...i love talking about this stuff and debating...but i almost wonder if he'd be like "it's a story about elves people!" :)
Jonathan wrote: "I do think that for Tolkien the ring represents the idea of free will and sin or hamartia as I mentioned before. I think you have to approach Tolkien from the perspective that he was a Catholic and..."janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "i soooooo wonder what tolkien would be thinking about this conversation...i love talking about this stuff and debating...but i almost wonder if he'd be like "it's a story about elves people!" :)"
If the Ring did have a sentience, Frodo's ordeal would have become more like that of Jordan's Rand al'Thor (which at least seems that way except no object is involved, and shows that it can be done satisfactorily). Will against will or staving off temptation, there's still some sense of struggle and I don't mind the lack of elaboration in that department given all the rest.
At least we have that Tolkien said his work was 'fundamentally Catholic' (something to that effect at least, from what I remember) Janine. But it does hark back to me T S Eliot's (?) idea that essentially, what an author intended doesn't matter. I guess Tolkien's work is already primed for such interpretations in that they construct self-contained histories, but on the other hand knowing about the author might reveal something about the choice of themes used.
janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "i soooooo wonder what tolkien would be thinking about this conversation...i love talking about this stuff and debating...but i almost wonder if he'd be like "it's a story about elves people!" :)"Tolkein was, I understand, a philologist of some standing - The Lord of the Rings (etc.) was essentially conceived as a vehicle for elvish and dwarfish - before I get lynched, let me say that it grew massively from that intial conception, of course, but basically it wasn't so much a story about elves as elvish!
(This also begs the question of whether that is really an incredible academic achievement (the invention of two new languages), or whether it's almost as incredibly geeky as those who learn Clingon perfectly when they can barely speak a word of any REAL language but their mother tongue - or (and this one has my vote) that it's a bit of both!)
Elise wrote: "janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "i soooooo wonder what tolkien would be thinking about this conversation...i love talking about this stuff and debating...but i almost wonder if he'd be like..."The stories were not exactly vehicles for his languages alone. Rather, I think his linguistic interests helped bring about his mythical universe, which has its own histories and myths and cultural identities revolving around his constructions so that the scope wasn't confined to language alone, but extended to all the anthropological relations it had- from poetry and myth to geography. It's important to note also that existing languages and the myths and fairy tales told in them were as much if not very likely more important than the advertisement of his own constructions (which in turn took cues from certain languages he had come across).
The narrative structure probably came last, but he was inspired by the stories of people like Lord Dunsany and Eddison and MacDonald already.
Be honest, who reads and digests every last word of the songs and poems? (Except for the short important ones - "One ring to rule them all" etc.)I'm having a bad day with my CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which I suffer from) today and hence my concentration is all to hell. Therefore, today I'm listening to an audiobook of The Fellowship (just can't concentrate on the written word on a bad day, listening, for some reason is easier) and we're heading into Lothlorien. Legolas has just said he's going to sing of Nimrodel and I've just fast-forwarded for a couple of minutes - part of this is that the narrator isn't the most melodic of blokes, but the bigger part is I just REALLY have to be in the mood for the songs and today (like most days) I just want to get on with the story.
So go on - who else skips, or at best skims the songs? I know I can't be the only one.
Elise wrote: "Be honest, who reads and digests every last word of the songs and poems? (Except for the short important ones - "One ring to rule them all" etc.)I'm having a bad day with my CFS (Chronic Fatigue..."
*raises hand* As much as I enjoy Tolkien, I consistently skip the songs. I think I've only read through a couple of them. Shocking, I know.
Kim wrote: "*raises hand* As much as I enjoy Tolkien, I consistently skip the songs. I think I've only read through a couple of them. Shocking, I know."This is one of the reasons I got on so much better with LotR than I did The Hobbit, you can skip over pretty much all the songs and poetry without missing anything much of the story.
Unless the poetry is very short or damn good (eg. The Walrus and the Carpenter and Jaberwocky from the Alice books) I can't be dealing with it when I'm trying to read a story. The LotR stuff I can cope with by skipping over as it's mostly characters recounting old poems and of no relevence to me at all. The apparently spontaneously improvised ones in The Hobbit however break my suspension of disbelief entirely.
Well, finally finished it and I have to admit to having found it half-enjoyable and half-hard work (my 3* rating will stand). I understand that as the progenitor of epic high-fantasy it must certainly have a place as a classic, but as for the writing I can't say it impresses - not that it isn't well crafted, lyrical English prose, but it is just far too wordy. A little less description and a lot fewer songs and poems, coupled with a bit more characterisation and plot driven narrative and this would, I think, have been a truly great book. I'll finish the "trilogy" but only to satisfy the completist in me - I also remember liking the other two more than this one - hope I'm remembering correctly. As long as they don't have Tom Bombadil and his drug-crazed ramblings, I surely have to like them better, right?
Edit: Please can we have a novella as the next group read?
I suppose I am the odd one out. I read and enjoyed each and every song and poem and I don't think the work would have the same appeal without them. It goes back to what I was saying about Tolkien's preoccupation with language being a stepping stone to the intricate world-building effort that follows. A world as we know it is about history and geography and culture and songs and such (sometimes even irrelevant mysteries, like Bombadil), which is why LotR is impressive.The characters (in the sense of relatability), narrative and all those things people usually expect from a novel and might find left wanting are really irrelevant in light of this effort.
I think there are (broadly speaking) three readings of the work which are possible- the 'naive' one, which most come to first if they read the series young, appreciating the simple story, archetypal characters and kind mood; 'the book club reading', which is trying to appreciate the tome or one of the volumes as any other novel (easy because it's not subversive in form, unlike say, modernist literature), and likely finding what appealed to the naive reader failing to suit their criteria of judgement; and finally the 'mythopoeia read', which you come to only with an appreciation for world-building, usually through former exposure to speculative fiction and a leaning to it so that you're fully able to appreciate the undertaking and the result.
The prose can be clumsy from time to time with redundant descriptions and whatnot, but it sets a certain tone which facilitates the myth-making and makes mundane (and that much more intriguing with this air of established fact or quandary) aspects of a fledgling, alien world, and leads sometimes to some truly beautiful descriptions and quotations in climax (partly why the concluding volume, tRotK is the strongest entry of the series).
No I enjoyed the songs too. I had a mock argument with a friend (who also loves the book but skips the poems and songs) about how you had to read them all.I wouldn't call it the naive reading though I agree with your idea there. I would call it an entertainment interpretation - the appreciation of the work as a form of relaxation and escapism. I do appreciate the entire book (it is one book and not three) by all those elements by the way.
I didn't mean 'naive' in any belittling sense- but it's as you say, an 'entertainment read' if you prefer.Of course, for those who didn't enjoy the lyrical diversions, this might interest you-
http://www.amazon.com/The-Lord-Rings-...
A taste- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ42cb...
(Far better, I imagine, than the audiobook versions, though to be fair I'm no fan of audiobooks and haven't listened to the LotR.)
And Tom and Goldberry's song (not sure if from the same collection)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRVIVJ...
Since epic poetry and other forms of verse have been so important to so many diverse cultures through history, missing out on the poems and songs would be a shame. Done well, as these are in my opinion, the immersion in Tolkien's world is absolute.
The first time I read the books (including the Silmarilion and Hobbit) I found the vocabulary too extense for me at the time. I pass the book with a dictionary beside; but this second time, that wasnt an issue at all (thank god that my vocabulary has been extended since then haha) Oh, and I skip the poems too in this re-read, I feel guilty about it still.About the ring and Sauron, here is my theory: Sauron put in the ring (during its making) his "soul" (sort of speak), so Sauron cannot be destroy if the ring endures, and cannot live if the ring is destroyed. Also, Sauron ´s fisical form depends on the ring. Isildul cuts Sauron´s finger and his fisical form vanishes and travel and installs in the dark forest. Then Sauron is expelled by the wizards from the forest and returns to Mordor (this is from the hobbit). But in all this time, he cannot take a fisical form because he depends on the ring.
But although the ring and Sauron are tied to each other, Sauron cannot "see" through the ring. He cannot know through the ring who is the actual bearer or if it is far or close. And he will never think that anyone will want to destroy it due to the gigantic atraction that it represents to the bearers. That for Sauron´s part, but for the ring I truly believe it has an awareness of it´s own. He abadoned (that means made itself biggers so it will be dropped) Isildur when he was being ambushed by enemies, so he was visible again and was killed.
He stays with Gollum who will never (voluntarily at least) give it away. When Sauron is expelled from the dark forrest and establish in Mordor, the ring abandoned Gollum so it will be found by a goblin (they were surrounded by them). But instead, it is found by Bilbo, haha. (all this is from The Hobbit)
This means to me that the ring has a consience of the surroundings and a will of getting bigger or smaller, lighter or heavier.
Karel wrote: "But although the ring and Sauron are tied to each other, Sauron cannot "see" through the ring. He cannot know through the ring who is the actual bearer or if it is far or close. And he will never..."I guess the way to put it is that Sauron is dependent on the Ring for having transferred much of his own power to it, but the Ring isn't necessarily tied to Sauron (this reminds me of the first volume of Neil Gaiman's Sandman graphic novels, where the titular character also imbues an object with his own power and is diminished on losing it), though it seems to retain a kind of loyalty in trying to return to him. But what I'm wondering is whether this is an actual independent will, perhaps a vestige of Sauron's transferral of power to it, or if it's a kind of programmed function that can be gotten rid of by someone powerful enough (view spoiler), which would mean that temptation alone, and not battling another will for dominance would be what is said to corrupt the wielders.
Maybe it's too subtle a distinction to be demanding...
I read the trilogy in 1973, when I was in the tenth grade. I will only tell you that,for six months, I carried around a rubber knife and called it Sting.
I honestly dont think that even Aragorn can use the ring wihouth being corrupted by it. He is a human, and like Galadriel said in the 1st movie so beautifuly: "Humans are easily corrupted". That´s just my opinion, of course. =)
Karel wrote: "I honestly dont think that even Aragorn can use the ring wihouth being corrupted by it. He is a human, and like Galadriel said in the 1st movie so beautifuly: "Humans are easily corrupted". That´s..."I was thinking more of someone in Aragorn's 'camp'- say Gandalf. Or Galadriel herself- would they always have a wily weapon partial to Sauron if they put on the Ring, or would they be able to bend it completely to their will? But then, I guess they could have vanquished Sauron with it as the first order of business and none of it would have mattered.
But Gandalf himself tells Frodo that he cannot take the ring for fear he would use its power to do good and ultimately be turned to evil. Gandalf is a spirit like Sauron so I guess the idea of doing evil for good is shown here by Tolkien as not viable. In other words using evil to do good ultimately results in evil. And Galadriel says that she would become a terrible dark queen with the ring. It is a tempting power that only results ultimately in evil.
Jonathan wrote: "But Gandalf himself tells Frodo that he cannot take the ring for fear he would use its power to do good and ultimately be turned to evil. Gandalf is a spirit like Sauron so I guess the idea of doin..."I haven't read The Silmarillion yet, but wasn't Sauron originally not corrupt?
It doesn't have to be evil that you do for the good, which brings us back to temptation I suppose. Perhaps having that much power but still being limited to a given 'good course' is a conflict. I'm content to think Tolkien was pressing the temptation aspect then.
By the way, have you seen the animated Lord of the Rings? I saw the DVD at the library here.
Yasiru wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "But Gandalf himself tells Frodo that he cannot take the ring for fear he would use its power to do good and ultimately be turned to evil. Gandalf is a spirit like Sauron so I guess..."I saw The Lord of the Rings animated version on TV as a kid - can't comment too much, it's too long ago to remember too much about it, but I do remember being a bit disoriented by it just stopping dead somewhere in The Two Towers. I was maybe 9, had read The Hobbit but not LotR and I vaguely remember being quite enchanted by it, but had no idea what was going on when the film just stopped abruptly. I believe it was originally meant to be the first part of a two-part project, but then there was a row or something like that and the second half was never made.
I believe a lot of "purists" prefer this interpretation, though, as it is supposed to be closer to the source material.
Yes The Silmarillion, particularly at the start, is very reminiscent of the Biblical story of creation actually. Hence I liked it but yes Sauron started off as a spirit who became the disciple of Tolkien's version of Satan. So what I see is that Tolkien seems to particularly draw attention to the idea of how corruption can turn good to evil.
Well, Saruman wasnt evil at first neither, he was one of the wizards of middle earth who expelled Sauron from The dark forest and for many years he was good and wise. But then, well, I think he would wanted to join the "winning team" and though that the humans didnt have a chance againts mordor. Again, just a though.
I wish I could have enjoyed these as a kid. There are so many enthusiasts here, but I think having watched (and enjoyed) the movies first helped my understanding of the books. I remember the text being very rich with detail - to the point almost of excess.
I have seen the films a million times, so I was really surprised by how much more adventure and action was in the book than in the film, I mean just chapter after chapter before they even made it to the Prancing Pony! I think that made it more fun because I thought I knew the story off by heart, but all the extra adventures kept it entertaining. I'm really looking forward to reading the next two!
Classics for Beginners
Books mentioned in this topic
Stardust (other topics)Anansi Boys (other topics)
Neverwhere (other topics)
Good Omens (other topics)
Marvel 1602 (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
China Miéville (other topics)Brandon Sanderson (other topics)
Glad he's not God - though I never imagined he was. For such a religious man, Tolkein seems to have kept Middle Earth remarkably free of religion.
Not having a religious background I failed to see any allegorical references when my dad first read me CS Lewis' books when I was 5 or 6 and probably missed it every time I re-read them as a small child too - plus I couldn't have cared less, I liked the stories. But, really, as an adult, have you read The Last Battle and compared it with the Book of Revelations? About the only thing it's missing is the Whore of Babylon!