|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Apr 30 2009, 4:59am
Post #1 of 20
(818 views)
Shortcut
|
This isn’t about any specific part of Tolkien’s legendarium, but it touches upon something that seems to come up a lot, in my opinion, and that is The Shadow. And since it might well come up in my own discussion coming up very soon, I thought it might be a good idea to discuss it now before it’s too late. The Shadow works its way into myths, legends, fiction, fact, PTA meetings, church revivals, wars, political rallies, dreams, comic books, advertisements, television shows and pokes its ambiguous darkness into all manner of other nooks and crannies of human business. As for the writings of someone as sensitive to the collective unconscious muse as JRR Tolkien, it cannot help but spread everywhere, this stark backdrop against which elvish stars may shine.
(I have held back on this discussion so as not to overlap it on Gollum’s week. One cannot discuss the Shadow in Tolkien without discussing Gollum, after all!)
So what is the Shadow, anyway? All of us begin life with the potential for all character traits, and have almost infinite possibilities before us. Over time we decide who we shall be, influenced by our families, our religious upbringing, our education system, our neighborhoods, our culture, and the overlapping subcultures to which we belong, but also making independent decisions along the way, and encountering pivotal moments from chance-met strangers, books we read, dramas that we witness, and major life-changing events. For every choice we make on which trait to develop, we automatically decide to repress an opposite trait.
Those traits don’t vanish. They go into the Shadow. That is what the Shadow is–the repository of all the alternate traits that we decided not to develop.
Think of the conscious traits as the favored children in a happy, sunshiny house, given an education, taught right from wrong, taught wise goals, maturing, growing up, eventually becoming adults who build strong relationships with the surrounding community.
Now, think of the Shadow as a cellar underneath the main structure. All kinds of old things might rot down there, rusting from neglect, or going bad, poisonous. There might be all manner of useful things that one could bring back into repair and helpfulness someday. There might be whole rows of preserves, jewel-like and colorful in their jars, just waiting for the day when they are needed, or stacks and stacks of forgotten records that someday could come in handy. There might be buried treasure!
But there might also (and usually are) terrible convicts behind bars, deeply buried in the dungeons, that one really should check on now and then to see whether they’re plotting escape. And there are many traits that, having been branded as evil, have become like neglected and abused children, growing up rude and untutored, full of simmering resentments, locked away from the light and receiving neither goals nor guidance from the topside world, but only from the bad company in which they find themselves.
It’s never a good idea to leave the Shadow unexplored. This, for one thing, is the source of all hypocrisy. Whatever you don’t keep track of can sometimes sneak up behind you, knock you unconscious, and take over. This is where we get preachers and politicians and upstanding citizens of every sort, suddenly caught in sordid acts or crimes the polar opposite of what they publicly stand for. They did not monitor that part of themselves that they had decided to repress–they convinced themselves that it wasn’t even there. One day, under such lax management, it escaped.
And then there’s the danger of projection. That is where you avoid dealing with your own Shadow-side by scapegoating someone else. That other might have some small flaw resembling what one most wants to repress in oneself, and on that "hook" one hangs one’s own Shadow, seeing the other person as a caricature of whatever one least wants to be. The exaggeration keeps getting worse and worse until it surpasses all reason. Individuals project onto individuals, but groups also project onto groups. This is the source of all prejudice.
Another reason that you should keep an eye on your Shadow is that you never know when you might need something down there, something that you didn’t think you had any use for before, or never thought could be a part of your life. In an emergency, you have to be ready on a moment’s notice to unearth something from the Shadow, clean it up, and make it presentable to the sunlit world. The pure-hearted virgin must sometimes become a wife. The gentle scholar might find himself called to war. The loyal servant might need to take charge. The staid hobbit might find himself on an adventure.
And then sometimes one discovers that one might have set the wrong goals, defined virtue poorly, or become someone that one really does not want to be. When nothing topside seems to work anymore, sometimes one has to rummage around in the Shadow to find something else.
It’s a dangerous business. Some things deserve repression. Some things have gone too far into the darkness to ever see the light again. But sooner or later one has to deal with that cellar, one way or another. Old containers spring leaks. Hidden plumbing fails. Musty smells start to rise up out of the basement and trouble the party in the parlor.
I opine that Bilbo falls into the last category, of someone who has led the wrong life, prizing the wrong virtues. Conformity and predictability have their place, but he has worshiped them to the point where they have crowded out any growth. He needs to find something else. He needs a journey through the Shadow and out into a new light at the other end. The entire story of the Hobbit, in my opinion, involves one Shadow confrontation after another, leading to a second birth out into a new light, and to Bilbo becoming a new person. In my opinion.
1. Do you agree, disagree, or partially agree with important modifications, exceptions, or additional developments?
2. Can you think of any examples whether in life or fiction, but especially in Tolkien’s works, of ignored Shadow traits suddenly erupting? Of projection? Of people tapping into Shadow in time of crisis? Of people finding aspects of themselves that they thought they didn’t have?
3. As a case study of somebody who has really repressed the wrong things, what do you make of Smeagol/Gollum? (I’m thinking primarily of his LotR characterization, though I welcome discussions of Gollum as a whole.) In addition to his relationship with himself, do you agree or disagree with the premise that some put forth (from Timothy O’Neil’s "The Individuated Hobbit" to Peter Jackson’s movies) that he is Frodo’s Shadow? Could he represent anybody else’s Shadow as well? Anyone’s projection? Is he his own Shadow?
4. And what about other characters? Who can you name that have become overtaken by their Shadows, and why? (I can think of several.) Who projects their Shadow onto others? Who reclaims themselves and how? Does anyone find anything useful down in their personal cellar?
5. Any other thoughts on the subject?
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Apr 30 2009, 6:31am
Post #2 of 20
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In LotR, the Shadow is evil. In Jungian psychology, the Shadow is not
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
necessarily evil. I think Tolkien's fantasy was more clearly divided into good and evil than Jung's archetypes. Gollum is a character who sometimes seems to straddle the line between good and evil -- something which I would argue is rare in Middle-earth, where the line between good and evil is bright and hard. On the whole, though, I think Gollum was evil. The Jungian Shadow, as I understand it, is not inherently evil, although it is capable of doing evil, especially if ignored.
Long ago I argued that Riddles in the Dark is a metaphor come to life, a metaphor for Bilbo's journey into his own dark psyche. However, I did not conclude that Tolkien borrowed the imagery from psychology. I think it is more likely that Tolkien and Jung both borrowed the imagery from mythology, and each used the imagery differently, with Jung's imagery more morally ambiguous.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Apr 30 2009, 3:59pm
Post #3 of 20
(593 views)
Shortcut
|
Arwen Evenstar is a sign to the good people of Middle Earth that the night can be without fear, and she makes a banner of black for her lover, that glitters with sometimes-hidden jewels. Tom Bombadil also speaks of the fearless night before the coming of Morgoth. Sam was surprised to discover in Lorien that elvishness could thrive under broad daylight. The Glittering Caves of Aglarond are full of beauty and wonder. Tolkien is not all that black and white, upon examination.
I am not at all saying that Tolkien studied Jungian archetypes and deliberately incorporated them into his writing. The whole point of archetypes is that they crop up everywhere, without any conscious intention, in the art and dreams and imagination of people with no connection to each other. They are an integral part of the human psyche--and if a book is written by a human being, archetypes will surface in his work. This is true even of very bad literature by very ignorant and out of touch writers. From a writer as sensitive to intuition as Tolkien, who in fact celebrates and promotes following intuition even when it flies in the face of reason, archetypal content has got to permeate everything that he creates. (Or sub-creates, if you will: a telling phrase!)
And, in fact, I believe this to be what makes Tolkien's writing so compelling. That he was so wholly given over to following his intuition unquestioningly, even to the point of writing things that disturbed him, forcing him to struggle with how to square it with his religion. He tapped into universal, powerful archetypes that resonate across all divides of nation, race, religion, class, generation, culture and subculture. The very broadness of his fan-base argues that he has tapped into powerful unconscious material. Indeed, even when we find blatant flaws in his work, even when he breaks all the rules of good literature and sometimes even of common sense, something overwhelming pulls the reader back. He does not merely entertain, he enchants. He casts a spell, on himself as much as us--and that is archetypal work.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Apr 30 2009, 5:10pm
Post #4 of 20
(608 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Aragorn and Saruman are the two counterexamples
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
who show that black is not always bad and white is not always good. Arwen is an accessory to Aragorn. But Middle-earth is still a world of moral absolutes, and the Shadow, as Tolkien uses the term, is still evil.
At the end of LotR, good and evil have become muddled in the mixed blood of men, who carry both elvish and orcish strains. In the Age of Man it will become harder to tell friend from foe, good from evil, especially several thousand years down the line, i.e., today. Then perhaps we can speak of each man or woman carrying his or her own shadow, and his or her own gold.
But when Tolkien uses the term Shadow in LotR, he means Sauron, the Dark Lord, the manifestation of evil. Only if we take the whole of the story as a manifestation of our collective psyche can we turn Tolkien's Shadow into a part of the collective unconscious. That can be done, certainly, but what do we learn by doing so? Maybe there is something to learn, I don't know. What do you have in mind?
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Apr 30 2009, 6:23pm
Post #5 of 20
(583 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Call it the Cellar, then, if you prefer.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As Tolkien uses the word "shadow" it is indeed a bad thing. And the archetype certainly includes this usage as one part of all that it contains.
But I mean looking at the story from outside of Middle Earth. We've had plenty of arguments on this board as to whether to look at the story from within (thereby needing to find explanations for discrepancies and hold on faith that "The Hobbit" was indeed Bilbo's "There And Back Again" diary) or from an outside literary perspective (training ourselves to imagine ourselves peering over Tolkien's shoulder as he scribbles at his desk or types ineptly with two fingers, rather than imagining ourselves off adventuring with hobbits.) I propose that there's a third way of looking at it, from the philosophical side of psychology.
Keep in mind that by psychology I do not mean psychoanalyzing Tolkien. He would not appreciate it, I think not even dead. I am superstitious enough to want to leave him alone on that account! Nor am I qualified to strip him of his nicely-embroidered and really well-made facades to clinically examine him in his nakedness for any sign of pathology. By no means!
Rather I mean using his art, as conveyed through a singularly intuitive and talented man, for the understanding of the human soul, and the trends of modern society. Carl Jung (whose example I'm following closely here, although not necessarily in any dogmatic fashion--scientists should never adhere to dogma, especially not scientists of the psyche) puts forth the premise that the arts of a given time reflect the needs and conditions of that time. Since Tolkien's work has so profoundly resonated for most of a century, now, since young people still pick it up in fascination, and old people still reread it, and fan sites like this still thrive, and people like us spend ridiculous amounts of time enthusiastically poring over every least word (like a certain recent discussion as to his use of "my" in a children's book) I would say that even though his conscious proclivities rejected the modern era his unconscious work somehow fits our era to a T. Or at least it fits a huge subculture within the larger culture. Isn't that worth exploring?
What can we learn? That depends on what we find down in the cellar. Dragon's gold? Casks of Dorwinion brandy? A bug-eyed critter who eats raw fish but wouldn't mind trying a tooth on us? A Balrog? Mithril? Dreary dungeons or the Glittering Caves of Aglarond? Or how about Mama Belladonna's cherry preserves? Think it's worth a spelunking expedition to find out? In other words, I don't know, but I feel as eager and terrified as a hobbit on the brink of a dragon's hoard of gold, wondering if the dragon is still there.
I know I discussed a lot of this before in the thread on archetypes, but this time I have zeroed in on the Shadow as an archetype that needs some explaining before discussion--precisely because the author does not use the term in quite the same way. My own take on my chapter will not refer to this concept alone, but it will save time if everybody has some working idea of what it is, in advance.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Apr 30 2009, 7:27pm
Post #6 of 20
(577 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Jungian shadow appears in dreams as a feared or despised being.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thus if I were analyzing The Hobbit from a Jungian perspective, I could see Gollum and Smaug as shadow archetypes. Gollum is more despised, and Smaug more feared. Gollum may represent cowardice, and Smaug avarice or greed. The one holds Bilbo back, the other draws him forward. And then there are the goblins, the hordes of violent goblins. They may represent the dark side of Bilbo's cleverness, the trickster as monster. The Giant Spiders? How about animal hunger, the dark side of Bilbo's appetite? Bilbo must escape the evil tricksters, defeat cowardice, conquer appetite, and restrain or channel greed.
Is that what you have in mind?
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Apr 30 2009, 8:00pm
Post #7 of 20
(576 views)
Shortcut
|
And yes, feared or despised beings is a major way that the Shadow can show up. You give marvelous answers, that make a lot of sense!
Not necessarily the only way, however. For instance, in my own dreams, it often shows up as a big, dirty, friendly dog, who wants to lick my face, land its heavy paws on my shoulders and breathe foul dog-breath into my face, wagging its great tail and knocking things off of shelves in the process. (Did I mention that I'm allergic to dogs?) That tells me that I have rejected something that could become my best friend, if housebroken (for instance, things taboo as "unfeminine" or not "staying in my place" that could actually get me ahead.) When I dream of clean, well-trained dogs that I'm not allergic to, I know that I have good hope of retraining and cleaning up that particular part of the Shadow so that it is no longer shadowy.
(Well, I suppose there's some level of "despisal" there, or at least amused disgust. I don't really want to be licked by a creature who also licks his own backside, but on the other hand he means well.)
Hmmm...for things reclaimed from Shadow, Chrysophylax comes to mind. For of course, rebelliousness would have been strictly taboo for Farmer Giles of Ham as a loyal subject of his King. But when the King turns out to be a useless, scheming, greedy fop, deserving of no loyalty, Giles reclaims that portion of what he had suppressed before, and becomes a king himself!
And of course, to those who have chosen evil, their good side becomes correspondingly suppressed. I have always felt that Tolkien's original premise, that orcs are elves gone bad, held more psychological truth than his later revisions, besides being more consistent with folklore in general. Orcs and elves hate each other because they are each other's Shadow.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
weaver
Gondolin
May 1 2009, 4:02am
Post #8 of 20
(587 views)
Shortcut
|
|
the Shadow may be evil, but its existence is "permitted"...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
At least that's what I get from the Ainulindale of the Sil, where Melkor tries to mess things up by introducing his own discordant theme into Eru's creation...
"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost sources in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove my instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
So even the Shadow serves the good, and within that context going into it, confronting it, etc. can lead to good ends.
Not sure if this is the kind of thing you were looking for in this thread, but my thoughts for what it's worth...
Weaver
...In honor of
...
......TORN's annual
......Founder's Day Celebration
...........Established 4/26/09
...Corvar, Xoanon, Tehanu, Calisuri.....LARGER IMAGE
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
May 1 2009, 4:56pm
Post #9 of 20
(555 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gollum is temporarily reclaimed from shadow
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in the original version of The Hobbit and in LotR. In both cases he serves as an unlikely guide. Even in the revised version of The Hobbit he serves that function, albeit unwittingly.
And I think that it is significant that Aragorn is identified with shadow, although not the Shadow. Aragorn too is a guide, and might represent a reclaimed portion of shadow.
In The Hobbit, it is not clear that Gandalf is a trustworthy guide. He repeatedly disappears when trouble starts, and he tricks Bilbo into going on the adventure in the first place. So maybe there's an element of reclaimed shadow in Gandalf's role in The Hobbit.
There seems to be a theme that the hero needs to reclaim a portion of his shadow in order to make it through the darkness.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
May 1 2009, 7:09pm
Post #10 of 20
(569 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that there is something of reclaimed shadow about Gandalf. Most of the fire-maiar joined Morgoth in rebellion; he was one of the few that did not. That sort of makes him a "good imp".
I also agree on the theme.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
(This post was edited by Dreamdeer on May 1 2009, 7:10pm)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
May 1 2009, 7:18pm
Post #11 of 20
(551 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gandalf is to fire as Aragorn is to darkness?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In both cases, they are exceptions to the general association of fire and darkness with evil.
But I'm not sure if Gandalf was a fire maia, even though he was clearly associated with fire. It's a good guess, but I don't think Tolkien ever said that explicitly. Arien, on the other hand, was a fire maia who, instead of following Morgoth, served good by guiding the Sun.
Also, I still think we must distinguish between Gandalf in The Hobbit, Gandalf in LotR, and Gandalf rather belatedly added to The Silmarillion.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
May 1 2009, 7:46pm
Post #12 of 20
(549 views)
Shortcut
|
It would spoil the fun if it were too explicit, yet the clues are all there. Gandalf has far more associations with fire than with any other element. And since we know that maiar have elemental designations, it only makes sense.
Let's explore his fire associations, throughout The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion
- Gandalf has "made a special study" of smoke and fire effects. In other words, he's a fire specialist.
- Fireworks are his hobby.
- He smokes.
- He likes to play with smoke rings.
- In challenging the Balrog, he compares fires (you serve the fire of Udun, I serve the fire of Arien) rather than threatening to quench the Balrog.
- His other chief weakness (besides his nicotine addiction) is his hot temper.
- When forced to make fire in the snows of Caradhras, he worried that he had declared to the whole world that "Gandalf is here!" Fire, in other words, is his signature.
- Both in the Hobbit and in The Fellowship of the Ring, he fights off wargs with fire.
- In the Hobbit he also fights off goblins with flashes and explosive blasts.
- As Gandalf the White, he holds off the Nazgul with blasts of light.
- One possible interpretation of his Valinor name, Olorin, is "Dream-Fire" or "Fire of inspiration".
- He carries the elvish Ring of Fire.
- When he livens up the flood that Elrond sends to wash away the Black Riders, he adds visuals of white horses (well, that's logical for washing away black horses, and he's associated with a white horse named Shadowfax) and white flames--why on earth would anyone add flame-effects to a flood in bolstering its magic, unless it was one's personal signature?
Really, Curious, if you had this guy on trial for arson, wouldn't you be building a pretty good case for him as a pyromaniac right about now?
But let's not leave it there. I challenge myself to find any other connections to the other elements.
Air:
- Well, he does call on eagles quite a bit. But that might just be because Manwe commandeered his service away from his original master, Irmo Lorien.
- Uh...he sometimes hides high up in trees?
- He sang as part of freeing Theoden, and a wind blew open the shutters immediately after.
Earth:
- He walks on it a lot.
- He has been known to climb over and under mountains.
- He likes earthy hobbits.
Water: - He helped Elrond with the flood thing.
- He sailed in from Valinor, and sailed back.
Conclusion: No matter how hard I try, any connection that I can make to the other elements are few, tenuous, and for the most part not especially distinguishing. Fire easily overwhelms all the rest, in frequency, in signficance, and in having a certain "signature" quality. Therefore, if I were to choose which element to associate with Gandalf, it would have to be fire, by a wide margin.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
May 1 2009, 11:21pm
Post #13 of 20
(543 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with Curious that there is no one "Gandalf". He evolved as Tolkien wrote him into, successively, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings - and then the Unfinished Tales of the Third Age, and finally the Quenta Silmarillion's Valaquenta. Only in the last is Gandalf declared to be a "Maia", and it's not clear that the term means very much: every spirit-being in the Tolkien universe, from Sauron to the local salamander-god, is a Maia - one of the people of the Ainur who entered Middle-earth but who is not one of the fifteen Valar.
Of course Gandalf's signature is fire. That started with his fireworks, mentioned on the fifth page of The Hobbit and never forgotten by Tolkien ever after. Never forgotten? Maybe! Because as Gandalf developed in LotR into an angelic messenger to aid the Free Peoples, his qualities of pity and mercy merged uncomfortably (but interestingly, character-wise) with his qualities of inflaming the people's will to resist Sauron. In other words, his Fire diverged strongly from the power of fire wielded by Sauron and Saruman - both later declared to be Maiar (minions) of Aule the Smith Vala, wielder of fire and technology.
In LotR there are two fires that compete: the yellow-white fire of comfort and lantern light in the darkness, and the blood-red fire of the forge -- which is also seen in the windows in the various dark towers that loom on various dark horizons. The former is Gandalf's - the latter is Aule's when innocent, and Sauron's when not. And even as Gandalf's fire was differentiated from Aule's, Gandalf himself was transported into Valinor in the Valaquenta, and he turned out to be a Maia of Lorien, the lord of dreams and sleep. Gandalf (as this cipher called Olorin) also hung out with Nienna, the Valie of pity and sympathy. No mention of Fire!
So in no way is Gandalf a "fire Maia". And really, since "fire Maia" connotes that fires should have their own spirits - the concept of elementals is pretty alien to LotR's cosmogony - I don't think it's a general term. It's true that Arien, the guiding Maia of the Sun in the mainstream Silmarillion, is called a "fire spirit", but it's not clear what that means. Before she is given the Sun gig she is said to toil in the lands of Vana, the very obscure Valie of spring and new growth! In later notes, Tolkien toyed with the spirit of the Sun being one of Varda's people - associated with starlight, not fire.
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
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
May 2 2009, 2:12am
Post #14 of 20
(538 views)
Shortcut
|
And that's not UUT, but very specifically spelled out in the Silmarillion, that Aule is the substance of the earth. His special talents might include using fire in the smelting of metals, but the metals are where he's at, not the tools by which he gets to it. Whereas Gandalf revels in fire for its own sake. There is no specific Vala of fire, so which of several possible Valar Gandalf might be serving or hobnobbing with at any given time is irrelevant in determining his particular element.
As for Arien's association with green, growing things, a number of cultures associate fire with the kindling of life, including the sprouting plant. Plants don't grow without sunlight. (Fungi are not precisely plants.) It's in Chinese philosophy (I Ching) and Greek philosophy (the four elements and how they come together to produce life, just for two examples off the top of my head.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
May 2 2009, 2:56am
Post #15 of 20
(558 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"...irrelevant in determining [Gandalf's] particular element."
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Melkor - later Morgoth - is the Vala of fire and ice: the extremes of physics, passion, and madness. The fact that he seduces a large number of Aule's maiar to his cause is not a coincidence - Earth-god Aule's complement is Fire, for the reason you mentioned. Aule is Melkor gone right, not wrong, as the chapter on the birth of the Dwarves makes clear.
Since there are only four Valar of the primary (Greek) elements (Manwe air; Ulmo water; Melkor fire; Aule earth) but there are fifteen Valar and Valier total, any attempt to impose an "elemental" identity on the entire pantheon of Valar and their associated Maiar is probably not what Tolkien had in mind. Thus Olorin (Gandalf), as a disciple of the gods of sleep and dreams and sympathy, has no "element"; yet we agree that as Gandalf he has an affinity with fire that is central to his nature and his power. But it would hardly do to have the Grey Messenger be a disciple of Melkor - or even of Aule, given the track record of that great Smith's students.
Why the inconsistency? because one comes from 1937 (The Hobbit), and the other from 1951 (revised Valaquenta). Or, because the mythological system is just inherently not consistent or logical. It is story, and the story is confused and internally contradictory, despite this highly scientific and rational storyteller's best efforts. But a total and artificial consistency would invite the reader to a simple decoding exercise, after which the thing would lose its interest. Of course, any other mythology is similarly based on story and self-contradictory, so Tolkien is not doing too badly!
---
About Arien and the connection of sunlight and growing things. Just so. But all things in nature are connected if you think about it. My point was that the gods of fire and light are Melkor, Aule, and Varda - not Yavanna and her little sister Vana. Arien was assigned to a lesser Valie, with an indirect connection to sunlight, for the very reason that Gandalf was also sent to the farm team: those who are good but wield fire cannot be associated with Melkor or Aule, since that is a fate reserved for the various villains of the piece.
Tolkien's tentative later reassignment of Arien to Varda is kind of splitting the difference: Varda is a heavy hitter, but her light is starlight, neither fire nor sunlight.
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
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
May 2 2009, 5:28am
Post #16 of 20
(588 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien's tentative later reassignment of Arien to Varda is kind of splitting the difference: Varda is a heavy hitter, but her light is starlight, neither fire nor sunlight.
What is the sun if not a star close at hand?
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
kejensenuvm
Lindon
May 19 2009, 1:09pm
Post #17 of 20
(511 views)
Shortcut
|
I greatly agree with the connection of Gandalf and fire and therefore contemplate why Gandalf can not carry the ring himself.
Fire is tamed with difficulty and is often said to have a mind of it's own. Fire is destructive and yet necessary, life sustaining and yet contains the power to annihilate. Therefore, only the most skilled can control and use the power of fire to their benefit and strengths, hence Gandalf's connection with this mighty source.
I would assume a master of fire could overcome an object forged with the flames of a great fire, but perhaps because of this reason, it is too dangerous. The connection shared by the ring and Gandalf is too great.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
May 19 2009, 2:08pm
Post #18 of 20
(507 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Did Tolkien conceive of fire-spirits before or after creating Gandalf? //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us May 18-24 for "Barrels out of Bond".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
May 19 2009, 6:46pm
Post #19 of 20
(498 views)
Shortcut
|
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
May 19 2009, 6:47pm
Post #20 of 20
(542 views)
Shortcut
|
Could Gandalf have always had connections, conscious or unconscious, to the universal archetype of Fire as one of the four elements? Tolkien could have noticed it later and developed it more consciously. I do that with characters in my fiction all the time.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
