|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jul 12 2008, 11:15pm
Post #26 of 56
(1525 views)
Shortcut
|
The fact that the Durin's Day even happens that year is a miracle, according to the dwarves.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jul 13 2008, 6:01am
Post #27 of 56
(1574 views)
Shortcut
|
But surely you recognized that it was deus ex machina that they appeared, right?
I don't know much about Greek dramatic theory, but I always understood that deus ex machina referred to a sudden appearance of a character or device completely external to the story proper, introduced merely to resolve an otherwise unresolvable ending.
The Eagles have already appeared twice (not counting the singing Eagle at Minas Tirith), and their third appearance is no more than an extension of the previous two.
And the third appearance is not the same as the first two, in which the Eagles were sent to look for Gandalf. Who sends them to look for Gandalf at the Black Gates?
Well, in the first example, Radagast may let the Eagles know where to find Gandalf, but it appears to be their own decision to go and find him:
And the Eagles of the Mountains went far and wide, and they saw many things: the gathering of wolves and the mustering of Orcs; and the Nine Riders going hither and thither in the lands; and they heard news of the escape of Gollum. And they sent a messenger to bring these tidings to me.
It's true that the second rescue is organised by Galadriel, but the third seems to me more like the first, that is, the Eagles observe the disaster happening on the ground and decide for themselves that it is time to intervene on Gandalf's behalf. Readers of The Hobbit will also catch the echo in the cry "The Eagles are coming!", adding yet one more example to the pattern.
For me, that's not really deus ex machina. The Eagles, and their modus operandi, have been introduced much earlier and woven into the story.
The actual rescue of Frodo and Sam, now - I would be happier to call that deus ex machina, because we have been led to believe that there is no way of escaping from Mordor. But the Eagles themselves are fully accounted for, in my opinion.
(Whether or not Higher Powers are involved in all of this is, of course, a separate issue. There's no evidence within LotR that they are, but plenty of scope for believing it anyway - which is how faith always works, after all. And the phrase 'deus ex machina', despite the divine terminology, doesn't necessarily imply a supernatural explanation - any last-minute, story-external solution comes under that category.)
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Jul 13 2008, 6:06am)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jul 13 2008, 7:54am
Post #28 of 56
(1542 views)
Shortcut
|
expected anyone to argue that the sudden and never explained appearance of the Eagles at the Black Gates is not an example of deus ex machina. I do think there is a difference between that appearance and the former role of the Eagles in LotR and The Hobbit, as I've discussed elsewhere in this thread, and I've tried to explore why Tolkien chose not to explain that final appearance, and why I like his choice. But I suppose it is true that the Eagles are not completely unknown agents. Still, there's a reason Bored of the Rings's Frito and Spam are rescued by Deus Ex Machina Airlines.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jul 13 2008, 9:39am
Post #29 of 56
(1641 views)
Shortcut
|
that the Bored of the Rings airline is one of the influences that have made people accept the 'deus ex machina' designation without examining it closely. I think the term is tempting to use here, both because the 'deus' makes you think of Higher Powers, and because Tolkien referred to the Eagles as a "dangerous 'machine'". But Tolkien is referring to the Eagles in general as a 'machine' (i.e., I assume, a plot device), not specifically to their final appearance. And as I argued previously, a 'deus ex machina' doesn't have anything to do with supernatural intervention per se.
I never expected anyone to argue that the sudden and never explained appearance of the Eagles at the Black Gates is not an example of deus ex machina.
As time goes on, a book gathers a great accretion of critical opinion around it, and some of it perhaps gets carried along without being reexamined too closely. I've always resisted reading primary criticism of LotR, because I know from experience that I soon internalise what I've read and find myself thinking along the same lines. I'd rather try to keep my mind free from too many outside influences so that I have at least a chance of having an original (to me) thought from time to time... Of course after years on TORn there's no longer much chance of that, but here's one point where I do disagree with the consensus.
I agree with most of what you say about the fact that the Eagles' appearance is deliberately unexplained. As I'm sure you know, I approve of the ambiguity in LotR and think it's one of the story's greatest strengths. I just don't think that it's really a case of 'deus ex machina', because we have seen the Eagles previously, and the rescue fits perfectly well with what we know of them already. In fact I'd say it's a very clever and unexpected use of a previously established plot point, which for me doesn't fit the definition of 'deus ex machina' at all. (And I never had a problem with the idea that the Eagles could rescue Frodo and Sam after the fall of Barad-dur, but not take the Ring to Mordor. I've seen enough WWII films to know that you can't fly over enemy territory with a secret weapon until you've disabled their radar and neutralised their defence force!  )
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jul 13 2008, 11:58am
Post #30 of 56
(1586 views)
Shortcut
|
What I am calling a proper use of deus ex machina, you seem to be saying isn't deus ex machina at all, because it isn't jarring enough, and doesn't violate the internal rules of the story. Tell me, outside of parodies like the P.D.Q. Bach opera in which the deus ex machina ending is deliberately and comically jarring, can you think of any examples of what you would consider proper use of deus ex machina? If not, again, perhaps I just have a more flexible definition of deus ex machina. But perhaps we are both making the same point, which is that criticism of the role of the Eagles is misplaced.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jul 13 2008, 12:55pm
Post #31 of 56
(1552 views)
Shortcut
|
and that we're just debating semantics.
I don't know of any 'proper' use of the deus ex machina, because to me it implies a kind of cheating - providing a solution to a plot problem that has not been 'earned' by the story. Checking Wikipedia, I see that it provides one example of a deliberate use of a deus ex machina ending:
Sometimes the unlikeliness of the deus ex machina plot device is employed deliberately. An example is in Brecht's "The Threepenny Opera", in which a "riding messenger of the king" appears in the last moment, stops the execution of the story's criminal anti-hero Mack the Knife, and bestows an inheritable title of nobility on him. The very absurdity of this serves to underwrite the great lack of generosity and selflessness in the capitalist reality that the story is mostly about.
But perhaps more to the purpose, it also provides a possible answer to our question of semantics:
The notion of deus ex machina can also be applied to a revelation within a story that causes seemingly unrelated sequences of events to be joined together. Thus the unexpected and timely intervention is aimed at the meaning of the story rather than a physical event in the plot. This may more accurately be described as a plot twist.
What do you think? Does this describe the Eagles' intervention to your satisfaction?
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jul 13 2008, 2:56pm
Post #32 of 56
(1509 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Eagles, well, Psalm in 'The Field of Cormallen'
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
seems to be the only reason to justify Voronwe the faithful's claim the Eagles in LotR are more similar to those in the Silmarillion than those of The Hobbit. And their appearance on the battlefield is clearly connected by Tolkien with that of The Hobbit, in which the were an effective fighting force, but insufficient to tip the scales.
The funny thing is that it took me very long to realise the language the Eagle used was odd - as the first three of four times I've read the book were of a translation, which might have missed this point, or renderes it less significant. And those first impressions are difficult to shake off - so I took them as a piece of annoying archaism rather than an eucatastrophic moment of revalation.
And if we do not think of the Eagles in terms of Thorondor taking Fingon to Thangorodrim, or attacking Morgoth after the fall of Fingolfin - the answer to why nobody thought of using the Eagles becomes fairly simple: Gwaihir himself confessed not to be able to bear Gandalf very far (not from Isengard to Rivendell, but only to Edoras) - so there is a problem of 'effective range', plus the fact that the Eye of Sauron is on the watch, and with Nazgul around - it seemed a sure way to attract attention, and nine Riders would have been enough to intercept them (plus, some birds were untrustworthy - so there is no option of getting into Mordor in secret). Even before knowing the Black Riders have become Wraiths on Wings - it wouldn't be a very appealing prospect to the Council.
Why were the Eagles around at the time of the Last Battle? Even that never bothered me, as the answer seemed fairly simple. Around the time of The Last Debate, Lorien was attacked from Dol Guldur, and the assault on Dale was in progress. The Eagles would have been concerned - the Dol Guldur-Lothorien conflict involved Galadriel, and probably Radagast (at any rate, it was too close to Rhosgobel for comfort). Even if the Eagles didn't take part in that action. the would be concerned, and follow it closely.
But when the Captains of the West approached the Morannon, all the Nazgul awaited them there, i.e., including Khamul and his lieutenant. The Nazgul's departure clearly wasn't unnoticed; so the Eagles followed, and its a telling fact that they came rather late, if they could indeed match the Fell Beasts.
So there's no need for what I called 'the theological solution' - one could simply argue the Eagles would be pretty useless in destroying the Ring (or that the disadvantage of a sure exposing of the Council's plans far outweighed the advantages of faster transport with less obstacles), and that they came in time to save Frodo for no better reason than the reason they had to come to the battlefield in the Battle of the Five Armies. It was a work of Providence, of course; but no more than Pippin and Merry's being captured by the Orcs and arousing the Ents just in time (and not a moment too early - an Isengard full of Saruman's army wouldn't have been taken that easy).
"Don't make jokes about it," hissed Gollum. "It isn't funny. O no! Not amusing. It's not sense to try and get into Mordor at all."
"I am commanded to go to the land of Mordor, and therefore I shall go" - said Frodo.
Sam frowned... his mind was full of doubt.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Black Gate is closed,
but the Reading Room discussion is open.
July 7th-13th.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jul 13 2008, 3:31pm
Post #33 of 56
(1594 views)
Shortcut
|
The Eagles, well, Psalm in 'The Field of Cormallen' seems to be the only reason to justify Voronwe the faithful's claim the Eagles in LotR are more similar to those in the Silmarillion than those of The Hobbit. This simply isn't true. First and foremost, (as I said before), Tolkien explicitly connects the Eagles of LOTR with those of the Silmarillion, calling Gwaihir and Landroval the mightiest of the descendants of old Thorondor. And despite Christopher's mistaken (by his own acknowledgment) effort to obscure this fact in the published Silmarillion, it was Tolkien's intention that Gwaihir and Landroval were actually the Eagles that were with Thorondor at the rescue of Beren and Luthien. Moreover, the Eagles in The Hobbit have a completely different personality than those in LOTR. Could you imagine the Eagles in The Hobbit following Galadriel's "command" to find Gandalf and bring him to Lothlorien? Could you picture Gwaihir telling Gandalf that he would not take him anywhere near where Men lived because they would shoot at him with their bows because they would think the Eagles would be after their sheep, and at other times would be right? Could you imagine Gwaihir being given a golden crown by a dwarf, even one as great as Dain? Could you imagine Gwaihir or Landroval talking to Frodo the way the Eagle talks to Bilbo? No, the Eagles in LOTR are completely different beings than those of The Hobbit, greater, longer-lived, more solemn (and politer!), and yes, more 'holy'.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jul 13 2008, 3:56pm
Post #34 of 56
(1521 views)
Shortcut
|
|
For many years I actually did, so apparantly I could
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Could you imagine the Eagles in The Hobbit following Galadriel's "command" to find Gandalf and bring him to Lothlorien? Could you picture Gwaihir telling Gandalf that he would not take him anywhere near where Men lived because they would shoot at him with their bows because they would think the Eagles would be after their sheep, and at other times would be right? Could you imagine Gwaihir being given a golden crown by a dwarf, even one as great as Dain?
I agree the crown is cheesy, and Gawaihir's words about the sheep are a bit unexpected (how much more than the High Eldar's reception of Thorin and co.?) - but all you have against it is the fact Galadriel sent him to look for Gandalf? Who else would she send?
IIRC, The Hobbit also calls the Great Eagles "the greatest of the living birds", or something similar, so being the descendants of Thorondor. Before reading the Silmarillion, there is no reason to assume this is anything more special than Thorin's or Bard's lineage; and proving your point by the new (to me) information that Tolkien intended Gwaihir and Landroval to be the ones who accompanied Thorondor to save Beren and Luthien, says nothing about my claim - that in the text of LotR there is not much to suggest the Eagles are fundamentaly different than those in The Hobbit, and that there movements can't be explained by mundane reasons.
"Don't make jokes about it," hissed Gollum. "It isn't funny. O no! Not amusing. It's not sense to try and get into Mordor at all."
"I am commanded to go to the land of Mordor, and therefore I shall go" - said Frodo.
Sam frowned... his mind was full of doubt.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Black Gate is closed,
but the Reading Room discussion is open.
July 7th-13th.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jul 13 2008, 9:37pm
Post #35 of 56
(1368 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The changes in the Eagles' personality
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
between The Hobbit and LotR don't seem any more different to me than the changes in the Elves' personalities, or Gandalf's for that matter.
...the Eagles in The Hobbit have a completely different personality than those in LOTR.
If LotR is history, then The Hobbit is a fairy-tale, and the Sil is mythology. Gandalf the wizard of LotR is a trickster in The Hobbit and an angel in the Sil. The difference in the way characters or races are presented is an effect of the different modes of storytelling.
The fact that the Eagles who rescue Frodo and Sam are the descendants of those who rescued Beren and Luthien is a very moving element in the ongoing story of how the humble can follow in the footsteps of the great mythic heroes who inspired them. That doesn't "prove", though, that the Eagles of LotR were directly sent by Higher Powers. The Higher Powers belong to the mythology of the Silmarillion, which lies behind LotR, but which within LotR is a matter of faith and not direct fact. That certainly gives them an aura of holiness, as you say. But even in The Hobbit, despite their children's-story beginnings, there's an air of the mythic about them by the end:
[Bilbo] gave a great cry: he had seen a sight that made his heart leap, dark shapes small yet majestic against the distant glow. "The Eagles! The Eagles!" he shouted. "The Eagles are coming!"
That moment is clearly echoed in their arrival at the Black Gate in LotR:
Then [Gandalf] lifted up his hands and cried in a loud voice ringing above the din: The Eagles are coming! And many voices answered crying: The Eagles are coming! The Eagles are coming!
In the end, I don't think the differences are so great after all.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jul 13 2008, 9:58pm
Post #36 of 56
(1379 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tolkien saw LOTR as a Continuation of the Silmarillion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think that's the biggest difference. Like Tolkien, I look at LOTR and The Silmarillion as one long continuous story, with The Hobbit as mostly an abberation. I agree that the personalities of Gandalf and the Elves are at least as different in The Hobbit from LOTR (and the Silmarillion) as the Eagles, but that to me just emphasized my point, instead of contradicting it. There is no difference between the Gandalf/Olorin that we see in LOTR and the Olorin who is briefly mentioned in the Valaquenta (unfortunately, there is a longer description of Olorin in the Valaquenta that Christopher inexplicably removed from the published version, which would have made that a bit clearer).
The fact that the Eagles who rescue Frodo and Sam are the descendants of those who rescued Beren and Luthien is a very moving element in the ongoing story of how the humble can follow in the footsteps of the great mythic heroes who inspired them.
Actually, they are not the descendents; they are the very same birds! (Another point that Christopher obscures, as I mentioned earlier).
I agree with you that at the Battle of Five Armies the eagles are presented virtually the same way as they are in LOTR. But by that point The Hobbit has reached the point where it is told on almost the same level as LOTR. I can't help but wonder how the eagles would have been presented if Tolkien had gone forward with his 1960 revisions of The Hobbit.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Jul 13 2008, 11:17pm
Post #37 of 56
(1409 views)
Shortcut
|
The reason Olorin in the published Valaquenta (and even in the unpublished expansion you mention) so resembles Gandalf is that he is Gandalf. That is, Tolkien added him to the Valaquenta after writing The Lord of the Rings. The same is true of the presence of Galadriel and the Ents in the Silmarillion tales. In the late 1940s JRRT felt the Silmarillion, last attended to in 1938, needed some updates to reflect the writing of The Lord of the Rings. As we know, Tolkien was not even writing The Lord of the Rings as a Silmarillion sequel until he was quite well into it; rather it remained an enlarged Hobbit sequel long after he recognized that it was no children's story. Even The Hobbit, of course, drew on the Quenta Silmarillion, but the idea of all three works consistently and chronologically belonging to the same so-called legendarium did not fully come to Tolkien until the mid-1940s at the earliest. Because of this, and despite the fact that he later engaged in numerous rewrites of various complexity in order to bring all three books into some kind of mythic unity, it is dangerous for us to say outright that so-and-so in one work is the "same" as he/she/it is in another work.
That is why, in your specific example, Christopher Tolkien left Gwaewar/Gwaihir and Lhandroval/Landroval out of the rescue of Beren and Luthien in his 1979 edition of the Silmarillion. It didn't make sense to him at the time, since CT had not yet found the prewar pre-LotR text that first mentioned Gwaewar, before Gwaihir became the name in LotR of The Hobbit's King of the Eagles. In the 1951 rewrite of Quenta Silmarillion JRRT had changed Gwaewar "Lord of the Wind" to Gwaihir "Lord of Storm" in the rescue of Beren and Luthien.
As CT notes, we now see that this could only have been to make the Silmarillion episode and the LotR rescues of Gandalf and Frodo more similar. Yet all he knew in 1979 was that LotR was published with the statement that those two were Thorondor's "vassals", not his descendants so to avoid the apparent inconsistency he omitted Thorondor's "vassal's" names. As elsewhere, even Tolkien tried and failed to make the Sil and LotR consistent.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jul 14 2008, 12:19am
Post #38 of 56
(1374 views)
Shortcut
|
It doesn't make any substantive difference, but I wouldn't want anyone thinking there might be some other Christopher Tolkien-edited version of The Silmarillion besides the 1977 publication. Also:
It didn't make sense to him at the time, since CT had not yet found the prewar pre-LotR text that first mentioned Gwaewar, before Gwaihir became the name in LotR of The Hobbit's King of the Eagles.
There are reasons to doubt that Gwaihir and the Lord of the Eagles are the same: in "The Field of Cormallen", Gandalf refers to the Black Gate-Mount Doom round-trip as his third flight with Gwaihir. As Gwaihir was definitely his ride from Orthanc and Celebdil, that should rule him out as the Eagle from The Hobbit, where Gandalf gets two more flights. However, perhaps Gandalf was misrembering: he also says "Thrice shall pay for all", implying that Gwaihir owes him a debt, something which was also true of the Eagle in The Hobbit. Gandalf's comment also omits his journey from Lórien to Fangorn, which in Tolkien's notes (published in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion) have Gandalf "borne by Gwaihir". Or is Gandalf referring only to his new life as the White? This would be the third journey, with that constraint.
Yet all he knew in 1979 was that LotR was published with the statement that those two were Thorondor's "vassals", not his descendants so to avoid the apparent inconsistency he omitted Thorondor's "vassal's" names.
A slight mix-up there: G & L are Thorondor's "descendants" in LotR and his "vassals" in the "Silmarillion" writings to which VtF refers.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us July 7-13 for "The Black Gate Is Closed".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jul 14 2008, 12:57am
Post #39 of 56
(1364 views)
Shortcut
|
It is certainly true that LOTR started out as a sequel to The Hobbit, and didn't become more of a continuation of The Silmarillion until well into its drafting. And it is equally true that Tolkien returned to the 'Silmarillion' texts after writing LOTR (but before it was published) and worked on bringing it more in line with the latter. But I think that bears my point out rather than contests it. It was Tolkien's desire to have the two be part of one long saga, even if he never fully accomplished that. The Hobbit, on the other hand, was another story altogether. The references to 'the Silmarillion' in it were mostly incidental, and it was never truly meant to be part of that world. He did change Riddles in the Dark to bring that in line with LOTR, but the differences overall were too stark for him to ever bring The Hobbit in line with the other two (and as a result, Tolkien really came to dislike that book). Even the 1960 rewrite, had it been carried through, would not have done so successfully (which I suspect is one reason that he abandoned it, although there is no evidence to support that supposition).
By the way, The Silmarillion was published in 1977, not 1979.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Jul 14 2008, 1:06am
Post #40 of 56
(1385 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you: of course 1977 for the Silmarillion; and I did switch the vassals with the descendants.
Good point about Gwaihir. I never thought about it before, but I see that you are right. Gwaihir is identified at the Council of Elrond as the "swiftest" of the Great Eagles - one messenger among many, and so not necessarily the Lord of the Eagles from The Hobbit, who was last heard of wearing a golden crown. Contrariwise, the strongest argument that Gwaihir is The Hobbit's Lord of the Eagles is that he is Thorondor's "mightiest" descendant, and leader of the contingent of "vassals" that arrives at the Last Battle. Surely his nobility among the Great Eagles of the North of Middle-earth is thus unsurpassed? (And where did you hear that idea by the way? At least you seem to suggest that you read it somewhere.)
Or perhaps this is just another instance where The Hobbit and LotR once again do not jibe, no matter who wishes them to.
This just in from the Department of Two Simple Words in the English Language:
P. S. I forgot to say this in my previous post, so I'll take the opportunity now. John Rateliff has a fine little essay on 'The Eagles' in his The History of The Hobbit, Part One: Mr. Baggins (see pp. 219-224). After a lot of semi-padding on the previous appearances of eagles in world mythology, he recounts their increasing presence in successive versions of the Silmarillion tales. He criticizes Tolkien for overusing them in The Silmarillion, noting ironically that Tolkien subsequently claimed to have recognized the danger of their becoming a "device" in The Lord of the Rings. As he puts it, "Clearly, Tolkien was fond of his eagles and found it difficult to keep them out of each of the major stories that make up the Silmarillion cycle." (p. 222)
Curious will be glad to know that Rateliff certainly characterizes them as a deus ex machina, in The Hobbit and The Silmarillion as much as in LotR.
What Rateliff doesn't do is show that the Eagles and their Lord in The Hobbit are identical to the Eagles and Thorondor King of the Eagles in the Silmarillion tales. He suggests merely that their appearance in The Hobbit is part of a "long-established tradition in Tolkien's work", noting as differences that The Hobbit's eagles also draw some of their specific characteristics from the medieval bestiary tradition and European folklore.
This is in keeping with much of The Hobbit's re-usage of Silmarillion themes and characters: The Hobbit has much more folksy "character" and more of an old-fashioned fairy-tale aspect, than does Tolkien's rather dry, somber, and deadly-serious great tale of the Elves and Heroes. It is hard to imagine either Thorondor or Gwaihir wearing a golden crown, as does the Lord of the Eagles, or their "fifteen chieftains" wearing golden collars; on the other hand it is hard to imagine the Lord of the Eagles, or Gwaihir, having Thorondor's golden beak or 180-foot wingspan. Gwaihir, in his LotR appearance, is barely described at all.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
xy
Nargothrond
Jul 14 2008, 9:25am
Post #41 of 56
(1372 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't know about any alternatvies but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've seen the question come about on why Eagles didn't carry the Ring into Mordor often before.
I would say for the following reasons:
1. It is said they can't fly great distances.
2. Eye of Sauron, 9 Nazgul and about a billion of Orcs. A huge bird won't go unnoticed in Mordor.
3. What if the Eagle drops/swallows the Ring ?
4. They seem to be proud beings, and aren't messengers to be bossed around.
I agree this is deux ex machina - Eagles in Silmarillion and Hobbit are explained, and even LOTR (when they save Gandalf twice) but this time, no explanation. I don't think the Valar or even Eru himself would, after all those years after Numenor and War of Wrath, willingly engage in Middle Earth. This was an issue for Middle Earth residents to solve, not the deities.
That said...no one considered that bird-loving nature boy Istari member Radagast ?
|
|
|
a.s.
Doriath
Jul 14 2008, 10:30am
Post #42 of 56
(1350 views)
Shortcut
|
That said...no one considered that bird-loving nature boy Istari member Radagast ?
Can you elaborate? Do you mean you think Radagast might have sent the Eagles or somehow controlled the Eagles involvement?
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
|
|
|
xy
Nargothrond
Jul 14 2008, 11:29am
Post #43 of 56
(1355 views)
Shortcut
|
...wouldn't that be a reasonable feasible solution ? We know from FOTR that Radagast is friendly with birds, so maybe he contacted the Eagles and asked for their help -presumably after Gandalf contacted him (I presume Gandalf contacted whoever sent the Eagles somehow).
|
|
|
a.s.
Doriath
Jul 15 2008, 12:24am
Post #44 of 56
(1342 views)
Shortcut
|
|
perhaps as good as any, although
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I get the impression that Radagast has kind of dwindled into a wandering hermit-wizard interested only in the ordinary flora and fauna of ME. I'm not sure Radagast even knows what is happening this far away from his own reducedl concerns. But there's really not much to "know" about Radagast, I suppose.
There's nothing ruling out any specific person's contact with the Eagles; either some entity contacted them or their own scouts were watching the progress of the Army of the West at that point. So maybe "Gandalf contacted whoever sent the Eagles" or they just knew when to come in.
It's all very vague, and the Eagles just come in swift as lightening to save the day!
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jul 15 2008, 9:27am
Post #45 of 56
(1352 views)
Shortcut
|
There's nothing ruling out any specific person's contact with the Eagles; either some entity contacted them or their own scouts were watching the progress of the Army of the West at that point. So maybe "Gandalf contacted whoever sent the Eagles" or they just knew when to come in.
Don't forget that there are several references in LotR to the Eagles watching events on the ground for themselves, while flying so high that they are almost invisible, even to Legolas. No-one really needs to send them - they seem to have wills of their own, and their own perspective on events in Middle-earth. If they decided that Gandalf has earned their help again, or even if they simply fear that Sauron is about to win if they don't intervene, that would be enough to explain their actions to my satisfaction.
That doesn't contradict the idea that the Eagles represent Providence. In fact, it fits in perfectly with all the other examples of Providential intervention in the story. Some are explained, and for some the explanation can only be deduced from clues in the text (as it can for the appearance of the Eagles at the Black Gates). I don't think that makes them a 'deus ex machina' in the strict sense of the term. If they had appeared for the first and only time at the Black Gates, with no preparation or possible explanation at all other than a supernatural one, now that would be a 'deus ex machina'. But Tolkien never shows his hand quite so clearly as that!
I suspect that the 'deus ex machina' conventional wisdom has arisen as a way of addressing the metafictional aspect of this part of the story - that is, according to the strict rules of storytelling, Frodo and Sam should have died, and this get-out is a kind of deliberate cheat (in terms of storytelling convention), to allow the story to examine death and the afterlife from another perspective. The 'deus ex machina' effect is certainly something a storyteller uses to say, essentially, "this is just a story, after all - and if you want the ending I've imagined, you have to buy this...) Perhaps Tolkien is deliberately doing that here. But I think the tension between history and mythology, between reality and imagination - the tension, perhaps, that makes a Secondary World work - runs right through the whole book, and this is just one very clear example of that.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jul 15 2008, 9:37pm
Post #47 of 56
(1360 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I still stick by my explanation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Given some twenty posts ago in this thread:
On March 22nd, The third assault on Lorien was made; the forces of Dol Guldur attacked Lorien, striked Northwards towards Thranduil's realm, and might have been in high command of the attack on Eastren Rohan, and possibly even on Dale.
But the burnt of the attack was taken by Lorien. And it appears that Celeborn and Galadriel where given a hard time by Khamul and his lieutenant.
I'm sure Radagast was greatly concerned with those events, and between Galadriel and himself - so was Gwaihir. Some of the mightiest Eagles would be hovering around those lands.
Now consider this passage, from 'The Black Gate Opens', described the morning of the 25th:
And as they stood they saw all the Nazgul gathered togother, hovering above he Towers of Teeth like vultures
All of the Nazgul were there - i.e., including Khamul and his second in command.
So just think of Radagast, Galadriel - or Gwaihir himself! In the middle of the battle, they realise the Enemy's High Command isn't around, having been summoned urgently by thier Overlord in Mordor. The most reasonable thing would be for the Eagles to follow as soon as possible.
So I never had any problems with the Eagles arrival, and saw it as quite a natural thing. In BotR, I used to consider the Deus ex Machina airlines as refering to the fortunately speedy ending of the book (as the author would have written). o.k., strike the last line - it wasn't serious. But I did think the Eagles should have been at the Morannon around that time, and unlike in The Hobbit, where there is no reason for them to come on the nick of time - here there is such a reason.
"I does ask. And if that isn't nice enough, I begs" - Sam
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jul 17 2008, 11:54pm
Post #48 of 56
(1358 views)
Shortcut
|
if you are correct, the reasoning certainly is buried deep. But then I like squire's idea that Gandalf called Gwaihir as easily as he bent his thoughts toward Shadowfax earlier in the book. There are a number of plausible explanations for the appearance of the Eagles at the Black Gates -- but Tolkien offers none of them in the text of LotR. We are left to draw our own conclusions. Why does he do that? I think it is to leave open the possibility that the Eagles are a true miracle, Divine messengers, while at the same time offering the skeptics alternative explanations.
As for The Hobbit, I thought it was quite clear why Beorn and the Eagles arrived. They came on the heels of the goblins, and for the same reason: Smaug is dead, the treasure is up for grabs, and why should the goblins get it? Then again, there is a strong theme of Luck and Prophecies Fulfilled in The Hobbit as well.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jul 18 2008, 2:18am
Post #49 of 56
(1307 views)
Shortcut
|
The Eagles, well, Psalm in 'The Field of Cormallen' seems to be the only reason to justify Voronwe the faithful's claim the Eagles in LotR are more similar to those in the Silmarillion than those of The Hobbit. This simply isn't true.
I agree that for me, there are other reasons to compare Gwaihir to Thorondor. And I think the genius of LotR -- and its a bit of an accident that it happened this way -- is that on the surface it is very much a sequel to The Hobbit set in the recognizable world of The Hobbit, but beneath the surface it is a sequel to The Silmarillion set in the world of The Silmarillion. So it is quite true that for many readers, there's no need or desire to see the Eagles as Divine Messengers. And Tolkien was careful to leave other options open. He deliberately buried the spirituality, the far off echo of evangelium.
And I think he became reluctant to publish The Silmarillion because he realized the happy accident that created LotR. Originally he wanted to publish The Silmarillion with LotR, thus confirming that in his mind they were linked. But years later, I think Tolkien worried that The Silmarillion would spoil the illusion created in LotR, and disappoint all the fans looking for more of LotR. Ulmo should stay in the water, hidden, and leave the story to hobbits and istari. But Ulmo is still there, if only in the author's mind. And so are all the Valar, if only in the elements of nature with which they are connected, and the heroes and heroines -- and villains, let's not forget Sauron's debt to Morgoth -- who resemble the archetypical Valar.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jul 18 2008, 2:58am
Post #50 of 56
(1305 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I Certainly Agree With This //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
|
|
