Kate ([info]kate_nepveu) wrote,
@ 2006-06-07 22:01:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:books, lotr

LotR re-read: FotR I.2, "The Shadow of the Past"

Trying to be a bit more expeditious this time, but man, there's a lot of information here.

Once again, spoilers for anything Middle-earth might be found here.

What Happens: Frodo goes on with his life, with late-growing restlessness, for sixteen years. He's forty-nine, Gandalf hasn't been seen for nine years, and there are strange rumours about; so he starts collecting bad news of a dark power growing in Mordor after being driven out of Mirkwood.

Sam and Ted Sandyman (the miller's son) talk in an inn (a different inn) about the strange rumours; Ted doesn't believe them and doesn't see the relevance regardless, while Sam is thoughtful and concerned.

Gandalf re-appears, reveals the fiery letters on the Ring, and provides an enormous info-dump. He was concerned about it from the start, but since he couldn't take it from Bilbo and Saruman's general information about rings was reassuring, he left it. After the party, he determined to figure things out. Aragorn finally found Gollum, and between his information and the lore of the Wise, Gandalf tells the Ring's history: the forging; Sauron's defeat; Isildur's death at the river; Sméagol's murder of Déagol, transformation into Gollum, attempt to track Bilbo and capture by Mordor; and the resulting danger to the Shire.

Frodo chooses to take the Ring out of the Shire to save it. Sam has been eavesdropping, Gandalf catches him, and tells him to go with Frodo, to Sam's joy.

Comments

The opening parallels the first chapter, opening with the town's general opinion of Bilbo and then moving to a conversation at an inn.

In the inn conversation, the Gaffer's son and the miller's son occupy their fathers' narrative positions, but aren't the same; Sam is more open-minded, Ted is less nasty (though just as close-minded). This is the conversation that hints at strange things coming up against small-town complacency, not the one in the first chapter, but they're so similar that it's no surprise that people mistake them.

* * * *

As Frodo becomes more restless, we're told, "He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams." The Valar taking a subtle hand?

Anyone here seen Grosse Pointe Blank? When I got to the timeline here, I hear Jeremy Piven in my head going "Ten years!" Only, you know, sixteen years instead. I know this gets the times all symbolic and aligned and stuff, but it really strains my suspension of disbelief.

* * * *

I tend to notice the rhythmic reversals pointed out by LeGuin most at the start of things, before I fall into the story, so Gandalf's opening lines when he starts info-dumping stood out:

In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles — yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous.

Also, setting the conversation during the bright day provides handy built-in opportunities for release of stress.

* * * *

Does Gandalf touch the Ring to throw it into the fire?

Frodo took it from his breeches-pocket, where it was clasped to a chain that hung from his belt. He unfastened it and handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.

Gandalf held it up. It looked to be made of pure and solid gold. . . . To Frodo's astonishment and distress the wizard threw it suddenly into the middle of a glowing corner of the fire.

He's probably holding it up by the chain, but it's surprising that it is ambiguious.

* * * *

Smeagol & Gollum:

The characterization of Smeagol pre-Ring caught my attention; it starts out positive or at least neutral, and then progresses, well, downward:

He was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed under trees and growing plants; he tunnelled into green mounds; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the leaves on trees, or the flowers opening in the air: his head and his eyes were downward.

I think I need to flag "pursuit of knowledge" as well as a theme to look for.

The power Gollum was given by the Ring: "He was very pleased with his discovery and he concealed it; and he used it to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The ring had given him power according to his stature." I heard it suggested at a Boskone that later, the power he was given was secrecy, which maybe explains how he stayed hidden for so long even with all those goblins around and Sauron in Dol Goldur.

* * * *

The other significant conversations:

"Meant":

"What, just in time to meet Bilbo?" said Frodo. "Wouldn't an Orc have suited it better?"

"It is no laughing matter," said Gandalf. "Not for you. It was the strangest event in the whole history of the Ring so far: Bilbo's arrival just at that time, and putting his hand on it, blindly, in the dark.

"There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying to get back to its master. It had slipped from Isildur's hand and betrayed him; then when a chance came it caught poor Déagol, and he was murdered; and after that Gollum, and it had devoured him. It could make no further use of him: he was too small and mean; and as long as it stayed with him he would never leave his deep pool again. So now, when its master was awake once more and sending out his dark thought from Mirkwood, it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most unlikely person imaginable: Bilbo from the Shire!

"Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that maybe an encouraging thought."

And "pity":

"What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!"

"Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity."

"I am sorry," said Frodo. "But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum."

"You have not seen him," Gandalf broke in.

"No, and I don't want to," said Frodo. "I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death."

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many — yours not least."

* * * *

I didn't talk much about my personal emotional reaction to the first chapter, mostly because I don't have much of one. Here, my predominant reaction is, during the info-dump, getting a bit annoyed at Frodo's reactions before deciding to leave—perfectly understandable reactions, of course, but still. I can't remember now if I was ever surprised that Frodo chooses to take the Ring out of the Shire (just as Bilbo chose to leave it behind).

* * * *

Some miscellanous things about the big info-dump conversation:

  • Foreshadowing/repeated image: "Fear seemed to stretch out a vast hand, like a dark cloud rising in the East and looming up to engulf him."
  • Frodo calls the Ring precious twice in this chapter, once out loud and once in his thoughts (and once characterizing Golllum's thoughts).
  • Chad once met a waitress who had the Elvish Ring verse tattooed on her shoulderblade.
  • Okay, one movie thing: sometimes it puts more emphasis on lines that I wouldn't otherwise have noticed. The "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" conversation doesn't even get a separate paragraph in the text.

* * * *

The ending fails for me: "'Me, sir!' cried Sam, springing up like a dog invited for a walk. 'Me go and see Elves and all! Hooray!' he shouted, and then burst into tears."

I can see bursting into tears of shock and joy immediately; I can see bouncing around in joy; I can't see doing them in this order. Also, while the dog simile is vivid (having acquired a dog since the last time I read this), I do find the overall effect unfortunate.

[Edit: I realized last night just before bed that I wanted to talk about the structure and mechanics of the info-dump conversation more, but that I also needed to sleep, eat, and work. So that post will come tonight.]

[ more LotR re-read posts ]



(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2006-06-08 03:59 am UTC (link)
I've always had a fondness for this chapter, which along with "The Council of Elrond", really sucked me in when I first read it. The first chapter does well enough at transitioning one into the story (I forgot to mention that I was one of those who read LotR first, before the Hobbit), but this is the one that first hits you with that tremendous impression of depth and the history that's in play here.

I'm with you on at least two points: I always found the point that Frodo sat around for so long to be strange and hard to believe; I often puzzled on what Gandalf was puttering around at, even though he sketches it, briefly (I guess it's his brevity that has led me to speculate and not be entirely satisfied with the speculation). And, the reaction of Sam at the end is pretty silly--it takes a lot of good will and a charitable reading not to find it demeaning. The narrative tone in various descriptions of Sam, and in conveying various 'Sam-isms', has come to grate more over the years, and this is one of the early examples. But this is a theme that will no doubt be developed at much greater length as we go along....

As you note, the info-dump contains a lot of meat, not just in information, but also foreshadowing. I loved the "deserves death? I dare say he deserves death. Many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" line from the very first, and recall quoting it to one of my grade school teachers.

The "seek after (forbidden, dangerous) knowledge" is indeed, I think, one of Tolkien's bugaboos (or, more charitably, one of the themes he is at pains to develop at some length)...related to his distrust of technology, or perhaps more accurately, his dismay at tinkering at the expense of other things just as important. Maybe we could call it a warning about knowledge without wisdom, cf. Saruman and Gandalf. I wonder to what extent this is informed by his Catholicism--not being intimately familiar with Catholic doctrine, I don't want to go astray, but it seems in some way perhaps an echo of the fall from grace through pursuit of forbidden knowledge--things that Man was not meant to know, etc. Again, a theme that will provide much more to say later.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 01:22 pm UTC (link)
As for the time: I can't make what Gandalf says he did come up to sixteen years, and I don't know what else he'd have been doing--the history is stuff he knew already, all the new stuff, as far as I can tell, was the tracking down Gollum.

I do wish people with more theological knowledge were commenting (that is, had the time, energy, and/or inclination to comment), but I have some scholarly essays queued up that will probably shed light.

(PS: people without LJ accounts, either sign in through OpenID or leave a name/handle/signature, please, for the sake of continuity of conversation. Thanks.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jsbowden
2006-06-08 01:52 pm UTC (link)
The whole timeline between the end of the Hobbit and when Frodo finally leaves the Shire has always just seemed weirdly off to me.

Gandalf has this feeling like he should be something, and maybe even with some urgency, but he lets the Ring languish in the Shire for some 50 odd years, and then takes another decade and a half to get around to maybe doing something about it when he finally decides to act on his suspicions.

I haven't read anything other than the Hobbit and LoTR proper, so there's probably a lot of background that I'm missing, but I shouldn't have to go digging for it either.

It rankles almost as much as Tolkien's overly dense and gratuitous prose that infests so many pages. As much as I love the story, that man needed an editor.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 03:39 pm UTC (link)
I can buy the waiting around until Bilbo leaves with the explanation given, but the sixteen years thing really does puzzle me.

So far the prose hasn't been a problem for me, but again, familiarity may be at work here. I'd like to hear what passages you have in mind, perhaps when we get there.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-06-08 03:28 pm UTC (link)
Sorry, that was me, and I didn't realize I'd forgotten to add the name manually until after I posted it.

At any rate, one further thought on the time lag: the one that always bothered me, even more than whatever it was Gandalf was about for so long (he's one of the Wise, after all, and presumably the Wise can fudge on time insofar as they're off getting Wisdom, or doing whatever other miscellaneous tasks the Wise get up to now and anon), was Gollum. I could just never reconcile that it took him around *eighty years* from the loss of the Ring to striking the Fellowship's trail. Either he was in Sauron's dungeons for decades (which is not the impression I was left with from the description, but who knows), or he was a truly incompetent sneak/spy, which is certainly not the impression we get from the text. Or, he sat around in his cave for decades, while the loss of the Ring "tormented" him, enough to get him off his ass and out, eventually. I could never piece it together satisfactorily.

--Trent

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 03:37 pm UTC (link)
I happened to have an HTML copy of the text on a USB key (regarding which my conscience is clear, since I've bought at least two different editions of the text new during my life). Loading up the appendices, this is what they say:

2941 Bilbo meets Gollum, takes the Ring.

2944  Gollum leaves the Mountains.

2951  Gollum turns toward Mordor.

~2980 Gollum reaches Mordor and meets Shelob.

~3009 Gollum captured.

3017  Gollum released from Mordor and captured by Aragorn.

3018  Chapter 2.

The journey to Mordor is the chunk that jumps out at me; that's a long time, even for someone sneaking at night.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]silmaril
2006-06-08 04:39 pm UTC (link)
Don't have the books with me, so I can't look it up---for how long did Gollum possess the ring and hide under the Mountains?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 04:42 pm UTC (link)
~2463 Smeagol murders Deagol

~2470 Smeagol hides in the Mountains.

So, something approaching five hundred years.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-06-08 05:16 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I knew I'd gone to the appendices previously to puzzle on this one, but I didn't recall the precise chronology off the top of my head. That's a lot of aimless futzing in the wilderness for someone being "tormented."

--Trent

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rushthatspeaks
2006-06-08 09:09 pm UTC (link)
I guess that's when he learned the ins and outs of the Dead Marshes so very thoroughly-- they actually seem like a place that one could spend a great deal of time trying to find out WTF, especially if one were a little round the bend to begin with.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 10:36 pm UTC (link)
Oh, that's a very good point about the Dead Marshes; and also, he might've found it useful to spend time there to learn about them, just beyond the trying to get through, perhaps?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 01:24 pm UTC (link)
Did I not quote the "deserves death" bit? I didn't. Huh. Yes, that was one that struck me from very early on as well. I'll edit the post to remedy that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mmcirvin
2006-06-08 01:31 pm UTC (link)
It's been a very, very long time since I read LotR, but of course I've seen the Peter Jackson movies more recently. It's interesting that the movie of "Fellowship", as far as I remember, simply omitted any mention of the length of time Gandalf was away, and gives the impression that it was only a few months at the most (Ralph Bakshi, though, conveyed the passing years with an irritating strobing effect). And the "pity" and "many deserve to live" lines get in the movie, but are transplanted to later in the narrative, when they're in Moria.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 01:39 pm UTC (link)
[info]tightropegirl, aka Doris Egan, aka novelist and (presently) executive producer on _House_, had a post recently calling "time" one of the three big cheats when it came to research & storytelling on screen.

The ability of film to be vague about time works well here, I would say. (The inverse is that when it's possible for people to count days, those days had been match up--as they fail to do in the third movie.)

I do love the Appendices and seeing how everything fits together--especially the stuff that was happening off-screen. But the timing of the opening is very strange, and it's about to get stranger, as I recall.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]leighdb
2006-06-08 06:45 pm UTC (link)
"time" one of the three big cheats when it came to research & storytelling on screen.

Although, the LOTR movie version of that period was not so much a cheat as it was a plain old revision of the story. As far as the film is concerned, it was only a couple of months, tops, between the time Gandalf left the Shire and the time he returned.

Which makes SO much more sense, IMO. Both from a timeline sense and from a storytelling/pacing sense.

Also, re: the info-dump, you'll notice how the film (brilliantly) spread all that exposition out over practically the length of the movie, and even beyond. The "pity" conversation about Gollum, for instance, doesn't happen until the Fellowship is in Moria; and we don't get the full treatment on the Deagol/Smeagol story until all the way to ROTK. Fabulous adaptation work.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rachelmanija
2006-06-08 04:41 am UTC (link)
Isn't the Sam and Sandyman conversation the one where Sam mentions a walking elm tree? I always wondered, in retrospect, if that had been an ent. Or an ent-wife.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 01:12 pm UTC (link)
Yes, his cousin Hal reported seeing one.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]nancylebov
2006-06-08 05:43 am UTC (link)
Here's another theme the high value of ordinary life. It's symbolized mostly by the hobbits, but it also shows up in that description of Gollum. The point isn't just that he loves the pursuit of knowledge, it's that he doesn't care about anything else.

On the other hand, it seems to me that there isn't much pure love of knowledge in LOTR. Most research (by Aragorn, Gandalf, and Saruman) seems to be for specific goals. I'm guessing that Aragorn studied languages, history, and geography because he would need them as King.

There are some exceptions Gandalf seems to have spent time on hobbits because he liked them. There might have been as much divine guidance in that as in Bilbo finding the Ring.

Frodo and Sam's fascination with Elves seems to have been good.

Sam's general interest in the world (rope, oliphants) also seems to be a virtue.

I have a notion that the narrator underestimates Sam, but I have no idea whether that's an intentional effect.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]helen_keeble
2006-06-08 08:15 am UTC (link)
On the other hand, it seems to me that there isn't much pure love of knowledge in LOTR.

Bilbo seemed scholarly in his later years (isn't there something at the end of The Hobbit about him being a patron of the local museaum?), with the study of Elvish language and literature. The films certainly play up this angle, with the paper/book-strewn Bag End.

Is Radakast an example of a "good" character with a pure love of knowledge? Arguably Tolkein presents this as a flaw, though, since (IIRC) Radakast's all-consuming study of nature prevents him from becoming involved in Gandalf's investigations of Saruman.

I think Tolkein universally presents the love of literature and languages as unambiguously good; most of the virtuous characters (Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo, Bilbo) are scholars of Elvish lore. I can't recall Boromir, Saruman, Denethor, etc. breaking into recital mode, or discussing a point of ancient literature.

Hmmm. Are humanity studies (literature, linguistics) presented as positive in LotR, while the sciences (engineering, metallurgy) are presented as negative?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]texas_tiger
2006-06-08 11:51 am UTC (link)
According to a bit from Unfinished Tales, Radagast was seen as failing his mission, presumably because he got so interested in animals and birds that he forgot that his mission was to help Elves and Men defeat Sauron.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]helen_keeble
2006-06-08 08:29 am UTC (link)
One further thought - an interest in a culture other than your own appears to be presented as good, or virtuous, or at least very helpful, throughout LotR. Various characters study Elvish culture; Gandalf is a scholar of hobbits and Eagles; someone (and I don't remember if it was Theoden or Aragorn) knows more-than-average about the mountain-dwelling wild men, which comes in very useful; Aragorn (and Faramir?) seem to know enough about the Southerners to be able to negotiate properly with them after the defeat of Sauron.

In contrast, Boromir and Denethor seem exclusively concerned with their own culture; Saruman explicitly dismisses Gandalf's studies of hobbits; Sauron doesn't seem to be presented as a scholar of anything except metallurgy (and arguably genetic engineering). The orcs may have some sort of rudimentary culture of their own, but neither Saruman nor Sauron appear interested in it - they are only concerned with obedience to orders.

Gimli, Legolas, Merry, Pippin and Theoden aren't initially scholars of other cultures, but end up taking an interest in them over the course of the book.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 01:17 pm UTC (link)
I'll be looking for this, as I said, but my initial reaction is that this is, first, accurate, and second, kind of weird. I mean, yes, on the one hand, not being insular; but it strikes me as an unnecesary polarity, that if being interested in other cultures is good, being interested in your own is bad.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nancylebov
2006-06-08 01:40 pm UTC (link)
Hobbits are generally interested in their own geneologies and maps of the Shire. This is portrayed as limited but not at all bad in itself.

Is Boromir interested in studying his own culture? My impression is that he's interested in what's in front of him, but not history or poetry.

Imho the creepiest thing is the bit about Saruman's rainbow colors--something about it not being wisdom to break light up.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 03:42 pm UTC (link)
I believe we're told that Faramir is the bookish one in the family, but I'll make a note of the precise language when we get there.

The rainbow thing, that I can at least search for easily:

***

'"White!" he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."

'"In which case it is no longer white," said I. "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

***

Possibly Gandalf didn't know that you could just put it back through another prism; or possibly he did and it would not have suited his rhetorical point.

Personally I think it depends on what you're breaking.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]texas_tiger
2006-06-08 11:49 am UTC (link)
Trying to be a bit more expeditious this time

*smile* I like it just the way you're doing it. This is very interesting.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-08 01:13 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, but balancing the time is an issue. I went too far in the "post quick" direction yesterday, because I didn't take the time to think about the chapter as a whole; but it really may not be sustainable to spend two days thinking about and writing up each chapter.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]culfinriel
2006-06-08 10:57 pm UTC (link)
These are awesome posts. You know, I always assumed Gandalf actually handled the ring. In hindsight, that seems incongruous, as there are plenty of implications that touching it is a bad idea and nobody gives it up once they touch it.

The pursuit of knowledge theme always struck me as an issue of thoughtfulness and judgement. Along the lines of just because we can, doesn't mean we should. I suspect some of this came from his apparent distaste for the negative and destructive effects that came with "progress", as if progress was its own justification. In his experience, progress would have involved a lot of science, mechanization, etc. so it probably informed his writing whether he intended it to or not. Knowledge is also an element of power, and aspects of power seem to be an underlying theme everywhere.

I have always wondered a little about the Istari and how Saruman put one over on most people, except Galadriel. It seems to me that he had some serious character flaw all the way back to Aman and it was just waiting for a chance to get out. So why was he the designated leader of the Istari that the Valar sent?

I can actually understand Gandalf not demanding to be in charge, even if he had doubts, because he is not power-hungry. He's content to contribute toward the team goal. However, there may be another sub-theme here. The reluctance to take power because of too great a fear of its possible abuse. I think that there is some of this in both Aragorn and Faramir's characters and this is contrasted with characters like Denethor. Even Galadriel is defined by her willingness to finally make a choice deliberately not pursuing personal power, although her problem is liking it too much, not being afraid of it.

Maybe it has to do with why you are taking or using power. That would be very consonant with Gandalf's statement about Bilbo and the ring. Had his intentions or actions at the time been motivated by cruelty and selfishness at the expense of others, this would have marked him and his association with the ring. When
Gandalf says the ring gave Gollum power according to his stature, it seems to me that it refers to magnifying character traits he already possessed - greed, selfishness, jealousy, desire for personal gain and status. The ring is inherently evil; it can't take away your good traits, but it can magnify any bad ones until they are all that's left. I've always thought Gollum was meant as a warning, as well. Along the lines of there but for the grace of god go I.

You could probably trace every theme in the book back to some aspect of power, eventually. There's certainly an opportunity here to see an impact of WWI on Tolkien and the world around him. It's all about the choices and their consequences.

Keep posting!

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-09 12:13 am UTC (link)
Thanks, and keep commenting! I'm not sure I remember so much about Saruman's character myself, to say about the extent of his flaws, but I will look for it.

The power according to stature: I also take that as refering to a slightly different axis of character, the kind of power a person is already wielding or is capable of wielding.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]calimac
2006-06-09 03:54 am UTC (link)
Some of Tolkien's posthumous writings have a little about the Wizards' origin. I should have preferred to leave them a mystery myself. In one place it says that Saruman was the "eldest," whatever that means in this context.

I think it's true enough that his flaw was in him from the beginning, but it should not be thought that his fall was inevitable. If his lust for knowledge led to his fall, great knowledge and a desire to have more can still be admirable and useful things.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]calimac
2006-06-09 03:50 am UTC (link)
Interesting that so many of your readers are irritated at the amount of time that passes before Gandalf returns to deal with the Ring. I wonder if any of these readers saw the films first.

I was never irritated by this; I saw it, in fact, as enriching the book, because it demonstrates two things:
1) Gandalf (and Frodo, for that matter) have other things to do with their time than think about the ring;
2) The ring's identity as the One Ring is not so bleedin' obvious as it may seem in retrospect. If it were, Gandalf would have to have been mighty stupid not to have figured it out earlier, and he's clearly not stupid.

To me, this richness - that there must be more going on in the world than we hear about - is a large part of Tolkien's greatness. This is but one tiny example of how he does it. I loathe reductionist readings of LOTR that turn it into a giant "who's got the Ring?" game.

It is curious, and entirely unexplained, that Gandalf says to Frodo, "Give me the ring for a moment," when at all other times he's anxious to avoid being given it even symbolically. Bilbo asks him to "take it and deliver it for me," but Gandalf says, "No, don't give the ring to me." Yet on the other hand he grabs the envelope when Bilbo drops it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-09 01:23 pm UTC (link)
_I_ am, and I certainly didn't. I'd be surprised if anyone here was a film-first person, actually.

I'm good with #2 of your points, but #1 isn't really how it's portrayed; just a line or two about other things occupying his time in those 16 years, but we don't get it, and it irks me.

I put the envelope down to not physically touching the thing itself, and the movement is portrayed as very swift; but yes, even if he handles it by the chain, it is rather curious.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]calimac
2006-06-10 06:49 am UTC (link)
I trust Tolkien on #1 because he doesn't play blither games with his readers.

When Gandalf says to Bilbo, "Don't give the ring to me," it's already in its envelope, so physically touching it is not his concern.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kate_nepveu
2006-06-10 01:39 pm UTC (link)
Right, but I saw a difference between being explicitly entrusted with the Ring, even in an envelope, even temporarily, and setting it back in place very quickly for someone else.

Funny what little things strike us, I guess.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]the_red_shoes
2006-06-10 12:51 am UTC (link)
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many — yours not least."

I've read the Sam/Frodo chapters of ROTK so many times (those were my absolute favorites from the start) it's hard for me not to see this as FORESHADOWING, even tho it's rather subtle. It sounds at first as if Gandalf is maybe just mouthing some platitude, but it actually fits into the fairy-tale trope of being generous and pitying (or at least polite) to various enchanted creatures you may meet going along the road to seek your fortune, because they might help you out later.

Plus, I know Tolkien was v resistant to his work being read as a Christian allegory, but this passage also always reminds me of "And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner" (ουδε την γραφην ταυτην ανεγνωτε λιθον ον απεδοκιμασαν οι οικοδομουντες ουτος εγενηθη εις κεφαλην γωνιας). Tolkien sets up his foreshadowing v early, so when events start falling into place it feels almost like destiny. There's also a touch of Hamlet: "Use every man after his desert, and who shall 'scape whipping?" and "If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come--the readiness is all."

I don't think I really wondered about how long it took Frodo Gandalf et al to get going when I first read the books, but I was a kid. I did remember when I reread the books shortly before the movies came out how slow-moving I found the first few chapters, and how much of them I'd forgotten.

I find Early Sam (he certainly gains in stature and dignity) rather annoying, but I read his reaction like this: first he jumps up, ME! Have a grand adventure! And then he's sort of hit that he will leave his comfortable home and settled ways, and that causes the bursting into tears. I think now that is probably just my interpretation, tho.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]calimac
2006-06-13 05:53 pm UTC (link)
It damn well is foreshadowing. Those very words come back to Frodo, and are reprinted in the text in italics as he remembers them, when he actually has Gollum under his control and has to face the question of whether to live up to his earlier declaration and kill the wretched beast.

To note that Biblical parallel is not to call the work a Christian allegory. If Frodo were the Soul Seeking Heaven, and Gollum were the Voice of Evil, in a Bunyanesque way, that would be a Christian allegory. That's what Tolkien denied. He said himself that it was a work by a Christian, and thus would naturally contain a Christian cast of thought.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]anna_wing
2006-06-13 07:09 am UTC (link)
And somewhere in HoME (sorry, I haven't got access to my copies at the moment) it describes the sending of the Istari and indicates that different Istari were attached to different Valar. Radagast was Yavanna's, so it's possible that his primary responsibility was in fact animals/plants/fungi/bacteria/archaea/non-sentient life-forms generally.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]calimac
2006-06-13 05:57 pm UTC (link)
Unfinished Tales, chapter on "The Istari." Very very sketchy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]anna_wing
2006-06-14 05:53 am UTC (link)
Thanks! Yes indeed, there isn't much on the Istari at all. Even their number is uncertain.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…