FarFromHome
Valinor
Jun 24 2009, 8:57am
Views: 2698
|
|
A light from the shadows shall spring
|
|
|
How about the tone of this chapter? Doesn't it differ remarkably from the comic tone found in most of the book? Bard is known as a grim and gloomy man -- did Tolkien do that on purpose to contrast him with the comic characters in the book?
We're in the world of men now. Here's where the fairytale dragon emerges into the "real world" of disasters and loss of life.
Having read LotR first, Bard's grimness has always reminded me of Strider, "strange, and grim at times". His grimness even sets him apart from his own countrymen, who discount his gloomy warnings at first. I'm not sure he's meant as a contrast to the "comic characters", who after all have their own grim moments. But he's introduced as a misfit in his own society, I think.
Why didn't Bard ever consider going after the dragon before he was forced to do so? How does the heir to the king of Dale, Bard, compare and contrast to the heir of the king under the Mountain, Thorin?
It seems that he never tried to pursue his inherited right to leadership. In the world of men, leadership has passed to the town, and commercial world of self-interest and short-term profit. The old kingship, based on the kingdom of Dale that is no more, has faded away. That is, men have lost touch with Faerie, with tradition. Thorin and his Dwarves, on the other hand, are part of Faerie, and for them the importance of kingship is still clear.
Is there any touch of moral ambiguity when Bard's thoughts turn to Smaug's treasure?
I don't think there's meant to be.
What would have happened if Bard had nothing to do with Smaug's death? Would he have been shut out of the treasure? Would he have become king?
I assume that if he had not been the conqueror of the dragon, he would not have been recognized as a hero, and would not have been hailed king. I don't think he would have any claim on the treasure either. But as king of Dale he has a claim since it was the dragon that destroyed Dale in the first place, and the treasure could be seen as reparation.
Is it his Destiny to restore Dale, and is part of that Destiny slaying Smaug?
He seized the day, and made it his destiny.
If so, is a Higher Power involved? Or just Fate?
Fate is just the Higher Power of a different mythology. Any such explanation works, or none. That's the paradox of time's arrow.
How does Tolkien set the scene for this tale, introduce characters we have never met, make us care what happens to them, make us cheer for Bard and boo the Master, and help us visualize a dramatic battle and the traumatic aftermath, all in a short chapter? Setting aside the question of whether introducing Bard at this late stage is a wise or fair move on Tolkien's part, would you agree with me that Tolkien does a masterful job within the chapter?
Yes, I think the change of tone and scene works wonderfully well. I like the way Bard is introduced as an anonymous doom-sayer at the start, while the Master is comfortable and complacent.
It does seem odd to have a "hero" introduced so suddenly and late in the tale, but it works for this one, I think. Because he's not the hero of the story itself - he's a traditional, kingly hero in sharp contrast to our "real hero", Bilbo. (That's another thing he has in common with Aragorn, I guess.)
Aren't you eager to see this on the movie screen?
Strangely enough, I never find myself wanting to watch a movie of whatever I'm reading. I prefer my own imagination when I'm interacting with the written story. That doesn't mean I don't look forward to seeing the movie, though - I just won't be waiting to have it show me things that I have already imagined for myself. I'll be hoping for something unexpected, something different from what I imagined. I guess we'll just have to wait and see!
Was Tolkien saying something about monarchy versus democracy when he made Bard the hero and the Master a scheming coward? If so, what? Or am I reading too much into it? Are there any fairy tales in which democracies look good?
I think he was saying something about the commercialism and self-interest that go along with modern democracy. He's contrasting the "town" (Esgaroth), with its businesses and money concerns, from the "country" (Dale) and the old traditions. I think he probably has in mind the rise of the town as a commercial centre in the late Middle Ages, accompanied, as here, by elected representatives and the end of the feudal system that was based on a "landed gentry". It's the same contrast that we get in Don Quixote - the townspeople have become hard-headed and literal, while Don Quixote himself harks back to that earlier romantic time that no-one else now believes in, when knights and kings served those in need, out of a sense of honour and the desire to be remembered for their great deeds. Now it's all about money and convenience. What's romantic about that?
Is there some reason fairy tales and democracies don't seem to mix?
I think the US has some founding legends that might be seen as democratic fairy tales.
Okay, maybe I'll think of more later, but that's enough for now.
Enough indeed! Thanks for a generous helping of questions, Curious.
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled, the sigh and murmur of the Sea
upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Jun 24 2009, 9:01am)
|
