|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jul 7 2019, 2:16pm
Post #51 of 67
(4852 views)
Shortcut
|
While Aragorn does come off as boorish, that may very well have been the intent of playing good Wizard/bad Ranger. Even on my first read, I knew Gandalf was up to something with that staff, and I think any reader would--and certainly his fictional companions knew it too. So yes, it was probably a deliberate distraction along with, as you say, his genuine attachment to Anduril.
Lastly, I can read it that it's all deliberate - one of those double-acts that Aragorn and Gandalf seem to drop into (like at the Council of Elrond, where they support each other in the account of the capture of Gollum, whilst giving Aragorn a perfectly natural opportunity to impress Boromir wiht stories of his exploits). Possibly Aragorn has some inkling of what Gandalf is going to do, and a fuss over the sword is a distraction. Having forced Aragorn to hand over his supremely awesome sword, this argument goes, Hama might forget to - or feel too embarressed to - insist on taking Gandalf's staff too. Especially when Gandalf has been so nice and reasonable in talking badcop Aragorn down.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jul 7 2019, 9:43pm
Post #52 of 67
(4817 views)
Shortcut
|
Browsing Letters, I found this by accident today in #96, just after Tolkien has discussed Eden as a conceptual pull on him (and everyone) without needing to be a literal spot on the Earth, representing nostalgia for a lost, near-perfect past.
There are two quit diff. emotions: one that moves me supremely and I find small difficulty in evoking: the heart-racking sense of the vanished past (best expressed by Gandalf’s words about the Palantir); and the other the more ‘ordinary’ emotion, triumph, pathos, tragedy of the characters. That I am learning to do, as I get to know my people, but it is not really so near my heart, and is forced on me by the fundamental literary dilemma. A story must be told or there’ll be no story, yet it is the untold stories that are most moving.
Wittingly or not, Tolkien seems to have made the palantiri a window onto his own soul, where he deeply yearns for an Eden (or Valinor) just beyond view, and untold stories where only hints and suggestions exist, goading people into wanting more details to fulfill their curiosity. Sort of like a drug addiction, but not the same. More of an instinctive inner yearning, so like any instinct, it can leave even the Wise (like Gandalf) feeling helpless in its grip.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jul 8 2019, 12:38pm
Post #53 of 67
(4753 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Or: 'O lore, in which we don't always find simple answers?'
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have always read Gandalf's musing about using the palantir to try to visit the First Age and 'meet' Feanor as a reminder to the reader of his scholarly side in the midst of his being general-in-chief of a world war - the mind of a wizard who loves lore and craft, and knows well of Feanor and would dearly love to have met him. It's rather like giving a Nobel-winning physicist a time-machine and hearing him say he's off to visit Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.
I see where you're coming from with your take, but it never occurred to me he was speaking 'as' Olorin here. My impression is that Tolkien buries that side of Gandalf quite thoroughly in the book, as it tends to flatten him into someone who doesn't actually belong in the Third Age.
I agree, that's what the passage probably conveys to readers of LOTR who haven't read other material about Gandalf's past history as Olorin. It's also, as it happens, how I interpteted the passage until yesterday.
But, as I wrote my last post, I found myself wondering why readers who have access to the posthumosly-published stuff wouldn't expect Gandalf to have access to Olorin's memories. So now I see two ways of interpreting that detail.
It's hardly a matter of import, I think, since the passage works to the same overall effect --Gandalf realises that he wants to do something that he shouldn't -- whichever interpretation one makes of why he wants to do it.
~~~~~~
"Go down to the shovel store and take your pick." Traditional prank played on dwarves when they start down the mine.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jul 8 2019, 12:39pm
Post #54 of 67
(4749 views)
Shortcut
|
~~~~~~
"Go down to the shovel store and take your pick." Traditional prank played on dwarves when they start down the mine.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Jul 10 2019, 4:12am
Post #55 of 67
(4527 views)
Shortcut
|
Lastly, I can read it that it's all deliberate - one of those double-acts that Aragorn and Gandalf seem to drop into (like at the Council of Elrond, where they support each other in the account of the capture of Gollum, whilst giving Aragorn a perfectly natural opportunity to impress Boromir wiht stories of his exploits). Possibly Aragorn has some inkling of what Gandalf is going to do, and a fuss over the sword is a distraction. Having forced Aragorn to hand over his supremely awesome sword, this argument goes, Hama might forget to - or feel too embarressed to - insist on taking Gandalf's staff too. Especially when Gandalf has been so nice and reasonable in talking badcop Aragorn down.
I like that! I must admit, I'd never read it that way.
OTOH, would Aragorn stoop to deceit? (and if it was all an act and he really didn't mind leaving Anduril with Hama, then it was deceitful, even including spoken lies)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jul 10 2019, 9:42am
Post #56 of 67
(4477 views)
Shortcut
|
|
OTOH, would Aragorn stoop to deceit?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
OTOH, would Aragorn stoop to deceit? (and if it was all an act and he really didn't mind leaving Anduril with Hama, then it was deceitful, even including spoken lies)
I agree - deceit seems a bit out of character too. Perhaps, like Farmir, he "would not snare even an orc with falsehood", in which case this theory falls.
But On The Third Hand - I don't think Aragorn actually says anything untrue (unless I've missed something).
First he says 'it is not my will' to leave the sword behind. That's probably true - he doesn't want to do it. But as Hama promptly points out he should do it, and Aragorn seems to accept that - at least he now advances another point.
Aragorn then says that he'd be perfectly willing to leave a lesser weapon behind (again probably true).
So one could imagine it as a deception (like appearing around Bree as 'Strider', perhaps), but not a spoken lie. Or is that too legalistic?
Yet another theory, should anyone want one, is that Aragorn is learning that 'Every man has something too dear to trust to another' (as Aragorn himself says at the end of this passage). A similar test passed by Pippin when he drops the Lorien broach as a signal to any pursuers. Aragorn praises that ("One who cannot cast away a treasure at need is in fetters' - TT Ch 9, Flotsam and Jetsam). And the book contains other precious treasures to cast away - I can think of Frodo's Ring, Arwen's immortality, or the expat Little Elvenhomes created from the powers of Rings and so undermined by its destruction. So perhaps that's a theme there.
~~~~~~
"Go down to the shovel store and take your pick." Traditional prank played on dwarves when they start down the mine.
|
|
|
Roverandom
Bree
Jul 12 2019, 8:48pm
Post #57 of 67
(4171 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Commanders, Leaders and Heroes
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Sorry to have been away for so long, but I have been following this most excellent discussion! I apologize, in advance, for what will probably a lengthy entry, but I have several thoughts on this subject, in no particular order, and in reply to various posts by many others in the thread:
I agree with what seems to be the majority consensus with regards to the definitions of the three roles I have listed in my subject line. In real-world history, we could probably substitute "general" for "commander", someone who must, by necessity, control large armies from the rear, keeping an eye out for the big picture and opportunities to shift resources to take best advantage of changing events. I would put Denethor in this category, but not Theoden. Real-world commanders are usually judged after-the-fact. How successful were they in accomplishing their goals? The examples of Eisenhower and Nimitz, among others listed, are, by most accounts given credit for the successes of their campaign. In American football terms, they are the game-manager quarterbacks, as opposed to charismatic gunslingers like Brett Favre, and the term "competence", already mentioned by others, seems an appropriate description. I think the interesting situation occurs when a commander's results blur the historical narrative. By most accounts, Lee was considered the more brilliant battlefield general, but he still lost to the competent Grant, the latter knowing that he had exploitable advantages at his disposal that Lee did not. Which, then, was actually the better commander?
As opposed to the commander, the leader does seem to have his boots on the ground, and that, as has been pointed out, is where the charisma factor comes into play, but with the following admonition: most people alive in the world today have a hard time with the blurring of history and fiction. Are we remembering Patton the actual WWII leader or the Patton played by George C. Scott? Did Henry V lead from the front, or was that just Kenneth Brannagh? That's where purely fictional characters like Aragorn have the advantage! Their only judges are the readers, and the author can make them into whatever he or she wishes. Real-world leaders, like the commanders, are judged by history. Patton was charismatic (at least George C. was!) and successful. Custer was charismatic and a complete failure. Here's where I would put Theoden, who absolutely lead from the front, was certainly successful, and was, arguably, more charismatic than Aragorn. Other fictional leaders, charismatic and otherwise, who achieved varying degrees of success in their careers: Thorin Oakenshield, Robb Stark, and Darth Vader. I would also classify Gandalf as a leader, rather than a commander, due to his personal involvement in events.
Moving on to heroes, I put them into two, overlapping circles. In fact, this whole exercise might benefit from a large-scale Venn diagram! There are heroes like Turin, Beowulf, Wart from T.H. White's The Sword in the Stone, Luke Skywalker, and Harry Potter. While they may or may not represent a larger constituency and can receive help from other characters along the way, they illustrate the importance of the One. Their successes, or failures, are primarily achieved through individual skill or determination. These characters usually rise from anonymity to great heights. The fact that they usually have some sort of magical weapon never hurts. I could think of no real-world example of the lone hero. Even Alvin York had command of a small number of men. The other circle contains the charismatic leader, and in the area where the two intersect we find Aragorn. Still with the magic blade and the destiny and all that, but both charismatic and competent, inspiring others to succeed.
The example of Achilles was brought up, and I was thinking of his place in the discussion. While he has all the markings of a traditional lone hero (self-confidence to the point of arrogance, magical armor, etc.), let's not forget that he was also a charismatic leader of the Myrmidons, the most feared military unit on the plains of Troy. So much so, that even the armor of Achilles, worn by Patroclus, spurred them to glory and routed every Trojan from the field save another hero: Hector. Turin reminds me quite a bit of Achilles, the tragic hero (more blurring of lines and roles).
For just as there has always been a Richard Webster, so too has there been a Black Scout of the North to greet him at the door on the threshold of the evening and to guard him through his darkest dreams.
|
|
|
Hasuwandil
Lorien
Jul 12 2019, 11:19pm
Post #58 of 67
(4154 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Leaders, Heroes, and Sidekicks
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It seems to me that the "hero's journey" is a journey from being an ordinary person to being a leader. However, since the focus is on the hero, less attention is paid to his followers. Still, Luke Skywalker was a leader by the time of the final trench run on the first Death Star, and later he was "Commander Skywalker". Beowulf was already a leader when we first meet him, with a retinue of fourteen warriors, but he achieves his notable deeds alone. I'm not sure how that fits in with the "hero's journey". Towards the end of his life he is a king. However, he only commands eleven warriors. Perhaps only eleven volunteered to fight the dragon? As it turned out, most of them chickened out, and he ended up fighting the dragon with only one companion.
Hêlâ Aurwandil, angilô berhtost,
oƀar Middangard mannum gisendid!
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea
Jul 15 2019, 10:23am
Post #59 of 67
(3857 views)
Shortcut
|
That Aragorn simply had better friends and support than Turin. Gandalf, Elrond and the Elves of Rivendell, his fellow Rangers even the denzens of Bree and the Hobbits of the Shire might have had an influence. In the case of Turin he does have companions, but they simply don't seem of the same quality. But in some ways, the two are so similar in personality that if there had been a movie done of the Silm at the same time of Lotr they could both have been played by Viggo!
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea
Jul 20 2019, 10:33pm
Post #60 of 67
(3308 views)
Shortcut
|
One thing which i have wondered is Aragorn's statements to the Hobbits when he meets them at Bree. He does seem to have very inside knowledge of the Bree's citizens despite Butterbur saying that he hadn't been there for some time. How did he know things like Bill Ferny wasn't to be trusted and did he know information about the other Bree citizens if he needed it. I assume that he and Ferny had previous but had he talked to to other Rangers that had been in the village in his absence? Just wondering! Of course when one reads the book for the first time especially as a child you just take it for granted that someone like Aragorn simply knows a lot but in later life, I wonder.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 21 2019, 12:10am
Post #61 of 67
(3308 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sure that Aragorn wouldn't have been the only Ranger to visit Bree.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Certainly Rangers must share information between each other. And Aragorn would have been told things by Gandalf as well.
"Change is inevitable. Growth is optional." - DRWolf (after John C. Maxwell)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Jul 22 2019, 7:18pm
Post #62 of 67
(3116 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Rangers, by their very nature, range...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Agreed. Any number of Rangers probably stopped in Bree over the years. Given Aragorn and the Dunedain's longevity, chances are they knew more about Bree than most longtime inhabitants.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
elevorn
Lorien
Jul 23 2019, 4:14pm
Post #63 of 67
(3006 views)
Shortcut
|
As I'm just now rereading LOTR again after a long while I come across an interesting thought on Aragorn. There seems to be a dichotomy to his nature. He is selfless in that he is willing to sacrifice everything to serve his post as ranger and then as king. Yet, his goal then becomes one of a selfish nature in that he must have the kingship, and then Arwen as his bride. So perhaps in the vein of leadership that is what makes a good leader. Someone who sees what must be done for the greater good, and then selfishly does what is necessary to make it happen. Just a thought, I could be way off base here, its been a while
"clever hobbits to climb so high!"
Check out my writing www.jdstudios.wordpress.com
Posted newly, A short story draft, "The Last Bastion"
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Jul 24 2019, 12:07am
Post #64 of 67
(2978 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That seems to ask a lot of the term 'selfish'
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If, as you say, Aragorn is selfless in his "sacrificing everything" to be king, how is it then selfish that "he must have the kingship"?
I think we tend to use 'selfish' as a synonym for bad, and 'selfless' as a synonym for good, without inquiring hard enough about what the terms mean. Is sacrificing one emotional satisfaction in order to acquire another emotional satisfaction being selfish or selfless? For instance:
1) I ignore my family and friends to save humanity (to be rather broad about it), but as it turns out,
2) what I want most in life is to be praised and remembered for saving humanity.
Am I selfish, or selfless? I forego having a personal life in order to serve a good cause, but it's really for a selfish reason: desire for glorious immortality.
This isn't about Aragorn, exactly. What I wanted to point out is that we should agree what is two-sided about his nature, if it is in fact two-sided. Wanting to be king, because he is the only one with the right to be king, may be alien to us modern democrats. But in the context of heroic legend and birthright titles that Tolkien has recreated, Aragorn's nobility is both consistent and good. Selfish/selfless tends to reduce him to a self - an individual like the reader - when he is, in fact, the King of a people and a land. His own individuality is not nothing, but it is in a mystical way intertwined with the fates and identities of the multitudes of his rightful subjects, who he rules over by proxy from the Valar and the One Himself.
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'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
elevorn
Lorien
Jul 24 2019, 12:37am
Post #65 of 67
(2971 views)
Shortcut
|
perhaps dichotomy was a poor choice of words. In the end at some point selfless can become selfish and that's not necessarily a negative thing. In a way they work together to a certain point I guess.
As far as leaders, perhaps it boils down to motivation. Aragorn is somewhat motivated by that fate and direction of the Valar's will (the themes they sang to Eru) and then some by his own desires. So Aragorn as a leader is a pour translation to our world as our free will is much deeper than say a a character arc in a story.
Though, to circle on my own self here, I do think the qualities that Aragorn shows are great leadership qualities. He is not infallible and makes mistakes, but then works to recover. The only examples I have at the moment is when he is leading the Hobbits to Rivendell and gets them a bit off course, and then his taking too much time near Rauros.
"clever hobbits to climb so high!"
Check out my writing www.jdstudios.wordpress.com
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea
Jul 25 2019, 8:57am
Post #66 of 67
(2939 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think that the Rangers must have been quite stretched at the time of the War of the Ring
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Firstly, they had their normal job to do which was never easy and I just have the feeling that it was getting tougher at that time, also they had the Saruman takeover of the Shire and Bree, ie his ruffians planning to take-over although they did not know that they came from him at the time and also Gandalf wanted them to double-guard the Shire.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jul 25 2019, 1:39pm
Post #67 of 67
(2937 views)
Shortcut
|
...Aragorn and other Rangers would have been protecting Bree-land for many years and their eyes and ears would have kept them apprised of local events. And Aragorn was their chieftain, even if circumstances often kept him traveling. The Dúnedain could have also maintained a handful of contacts inside Bree and the other villages who could have passed along local news and gossip.
"Change is inevitable. Growth is optional." - DRWolf (after John C. Maxwell)
|
|
|
|
|
