LoTR-The Two Towers: Book discussion (The Green Dragon Inn) III

[DonnerT]

Why not? Most have been ther and back, at leat secretly.

[DonnerT]

That should read been there privately.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Well, it's kind of easy to see things in the world that seem to fit into great literature (because of its universal scope, LOTR is very easy to apply to many situations that occur in the world at large), sort of like how people make varied and personal interpretations of songs that they like.

I have no idea what Tolkien was actually thinking of when he created Orcs (other than that they started as "Goblins" in The Hobbit), and my interpretation of their characteristics will probably be "personal". So I hesitate to make a connection like that.

But perhaps those, like Overtaxed, with access to those fancy reference books can enlighten us on if there are any ideas like that in Tolkien's writings???

[Overtaxed]

I don't have that in my new version..

That note is both in my Ballantine paperback (printed in 1978) and in my hardback Houghton Mifflin (copywrite 1982). I haven't found anything that says explicitly who wrote it.

[Overtaxed]

Ummmm....okay...Orc research. I'll see what I can find out from those fancy reference books I mooched...er...borrowed from my siblings! :)

[Sam Cree]

Isn't Orc a word from the ancient Norse legends (on which LOTR is based) that means roughly the same thing as it does in LOTR?

[Tuor]

And perhaps *except* Frodo's mission (and its outcome?) would have been altered.

I wasn't really addressing the effect of adding Aragorn to Frodo's quest so much as the results on the West -- on Gondor and Rohan.

Adding Aragorn would have doomed the Quest, as you have said. That seems almost certain. Aragorn wouldn't have done the things Frodo did and wouldn't have made Frodo's 'mistakes' (such as going to Shelob's Lair and taming/trusting Smeagol). These apparent mistakes ended up being vital to getting the Ring to Mount Doom.

Tuor

[Tuor]

Don't you think, that like Boromir, relying on strength can sometimes be a problem when confronting the purposes of God??

This is really a question of faith. Faith in yourself versus faith in something more-or-less unseen. Denethor and Boromir both made the same mistake: they both assumed that *they* were of central importance, and that their strength of will (Denethor) or body (Boromir) were necessary ingredients to saving the West. Both realized that they were overmatched, and so desired something that would give them the power to match the strength of their enemy: the Ring.

Both were wrong. The difference between Boromir and Denethor is that Boromir realized his mistake in the end, and sacrificed himself (whether consciously or not) as atonement. Denethor, OTOH, rejected faith and so came to utter dispair.

Against these examples, we have the examples of Aragorn, Frodo, and especially Gandalf, who showed more faith than anyone and, due to his deeper wisdom and understanding, had more reason for despair than anyone else, but repeatly rejected it and rejected the idea that he himself had to deal with Sauron directly; that was the path Saruman took.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to go on so long about this. It's an interesting topic that can be discussed at any point in the story.

Tuor

[Tuor]

I agree with you. I do not draw direct lines to Christian theology either.

The work is not supposed to be directly associated with Christianity. OTOH, it needs to be said that Tolkien's aim in creating M-e (other than linguistic) is that he believed that it was possible to create what he called a 'Secondary World' -- one based on the Primary Reality, but seperate from it. He believed that Men could Sub-Create, and that if the sub-creation was consistant enough, God might give it its own reality. He talks about this extensively in 'Essay of Faery Stories' and the story 'Leaf by Niggle' (which together form 'Tree and Leaf') provides an a written illustration of the idea. If any of you haven't yet read Leaf, I highly recommend it.

Tuor

[LinnieBeth]

Tuor, I love your analysis. I have only read TTT once, and had forgotten about the father, Denethor. I suppose this could bring in the (arrogance) "sins of the father.." aspect too?
Your other point about Aragorn/Gandalf- having more insight could have been a cause for more dispair - was very good. Addressing only Aragorn, what I saw in him was that - knowing what his "call" was, he didn't grasp at it, but was willing to let it unfold, and to serve the best interests of others in the meanwhile.

Can't wait to see you weigh in on the "Orc" question.

Lin

[Varda]

Wow! Interesting thread. I just finished ROTK so TTT seems like a long time ago. It's great to look back and consider what might have been.

[Overtaxed]

Isn't Orc a word from the ancient Norse legends (on which LOTR is based) that means roughly the same thing as it does in LOTR?

I know that one!


From Letter 144:

Orcs (the word is as far as I am concerned actually derived from Old English orc 'demon', but only because of its phonetic suitability) are nowhere clearly stated to be of any particular origin. But since they are servants of the Dark Power, and later of Sauron, neither of whom could, or would, produce living things, they must be 'corruptions'. They are not based on direct experience of mine; but owe, I suppose, a good deal to the goblin tradition (goblin is used as a translation in The Hobbit, where orc only occurs once, I think), especially as it appears in George MacDonald, except for the soft feet which I never believed in.

[HairOfTheDog]

Welcome! you could always read it again with us! Many of us have read it a few times ourselves!

I can put you on the ping list if you like...

[Varda]

Yes I'd like that. This looks like fun.

[HairOfTheDog]

Good then! New chapter posts will usually be posted on Fridays.

Sometimes the thread will die off between chapters if we get talked-out on a topic too soon, but that is OK... I will wake it back up again with the new chapter... same thread.

[Varda]

I 've seen several commentaries on the Christian themes in LOTR. I think we all carry our personal notions onto this subject so I'll throw mine in.

IMO LOTR is intensely immersed in and flows from Catholic theology but it's not allegorical. (This is fresh in my mind since I've just finished a couple of theology courses) The theology seemed to get more intense deeper into the book. One book reviewer stated that the book was so Catholic only a Catholic could have written it. I tend to agree.

The theology is of the ancient variety (naturally) and expresses themes of "homo viator" (life as a journey toward perfect freedom) and the decisions of intellect and will that lead us home or to tragedy. It is about the virtue of Hope that allows us to live in this drama and the vice of despair that would lead us astray. We are cooperators in our own salvation and we are inclined to the good but our natural virtues and those we acquire by grace are assailed by our fallen nature. This is certanly a tale of good versus evil but this is not dualism in any way. Evil is not the opposite of good; it is the distortion of it. Vice and virtue oppose each other but the greater power is virtue and that is the path where freedom is found.

LOTR is , I believe, your basic evangelization literature. I've read that Tolkein believed that "Beowolf" was an example of this. The idea is to get your audience to agree to some basic truths and use that as the ground from which to spread the rest of the story (i.e. Christianity). And so Tolkien wrote with the purpose of expressing "the inner consistency of reality" (truth) for the purpose of commanding or inducing "secondary belief" (faith).

[HairOfTheDog]

I think it is wonderful that Tolkien gave us this rich story, full of characters that are so true, and ideas that are so true, that all who read it, no matter what their particular brand of faith, can become part of it, and afterwards become stronger in their own creed through it.

It is wonderfully inspiring to me.

[Overtaxed]

IMO LOTR is intensely immersed in and flows from Catholic theology

Just as an aside, I wonder how (or if) the story would differ if it had been written after Vatican II.

[Varda]

Yes I really agree. It's really not neccessary to know any theology at all but it's also easy to fit nearly every Christian theology into it somehow. The themes are very basic. I have to admit it's been a really fun read for me this time. I've read the whole thing several times many years ago as a kid. Adding the theology has made it more fun for me as an adult.

[Varda]

I kinda think that it wouldn't have been different. Tolkien is taking his theological cues from pre Council of Trent! Wouldn't you know JRRT would love that "olde" time religion...