LOTR: Scaredy-elves???

[Shaihulud]

The Elves were cursed to failure for disobeying the Valar, their attempts at the ring of powers were to circumspect the curse, or so i remember when i read the Silmarilion.

 

[Verbose]

Because LotR is a parable about WW2 and people bugging out over the sea to the west and leaving the lands of men to fight alone is kind of the point of the story. Trying to persuade the elves to fight with "it is through the blood of my people that your lands are made safe" bitterness was a widespread sentiment. Then in the darkest houre they decide to do the honerable thing and stand by their buddies.

No actually Tolkein hated, positively Hated, that kind of modernistic appraoch to literature.

Things in LOTR are what you're told they are, there's no real hidden subtext to decode in there.

(Apart from the fact that he was a very firm Catholic and Sam Gamgi's attitude is loosely based on the blue-collar grunts he met in the WWI trenches who died in the mud with a "mustn't grumble, guv" attitude. That stuff crept in as part of a more general outlook on life.)

This comes out very clearly when modern Literary Criticism, with its thousand ways of culling hidden meanings from texts, has had a go at LOTR. It doesn't work like that, like some texts won't, since they aren't written to play meta-literary games.

If Tolkien talks about a Ring of Power, then it represents precisely a Ring of Power, no more and no less.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I have always found the fate of the Elves particularly depressing, to linger on after everything they cherished has destroyed. The most powerful scene in the movies, in my opinion, was Elrond's speech to Arwen with the scene of Arwen at Aragorn's funeral and then standing, still youthful, at the foot of his tomb many years later. It really drove home the point that there is nothing left in Middle-earth for the Elves.

That is easily one of my favourite scenes as well, very well done and very Tolkieny.

It is well known that Tolkien despised allegory, though he did write afew allegorical short-stories during his life. I don't think the LOTR is an allegory at all. Inevitably though their are parts which are taken from Tolkien's own experiences, for example I think Tolkien himself commented that the dead marshes were based on the no-mans land between the trenches in WW1 (in which Tolkien was a soldier.) This is not really an allegory though.

 

[bhsup]

Sidhe, do you think it's the same Glorfindel in LOTR as in The Silmarillion? I've always wondered, but never dared get into that discussion before since it is apparently rather heated (much like the "did Balrogs really have wings" discussions).

 

[brennan]

Because LotR is a parable about WW2 and people bugging out over the sea to the west and leaving the lands of men to fight alone is kind of the point of the story. Trying to persuade the elves to fight with "it is through the blood of my people that your lands are made safe" bitterness was a widespread sentiment. Then in the darkest houre they decide to do the honerable thing and stand by their buddies.

Faulty argument: the elves were beset as hard as anyone by Sauron's forces, they fought tooth and nail to protect that which they held dear.

Sidhe, do you think it's the same Glorfindel in LOTR as in The Silmarillion? I've always wondered, but never dared get into that discussion before since it is apparently rather heated (much like the "did Balrogs really have wings" discussions).

I think he meant them to be the same at some point. It was in a later draft of Silmarillion that Glorfindel died at Gondolin IIRC, it's just a continuity error if you will.

 

[bhsup]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize he went back and made alterations to it. Always thought it was written first but then just shelved and not published until later (sans revisions).

 

[brennan]

All the 'book of lost tales' and the other collections of Tolkien's ME stuff that isn't the Hobbit, LotR or Silmarillion is all his 'works in progress' over the years. (i've never read them personally tho).

 

[bhsup]

Oh. Cripes, I have lost tales sitting around somewhere. I bought it specifically to read one story in it and never read the rest. I'll have to dig that out.

 

[GinandTonic]

No actually Tolkein hated, positively Hated, that kind of modernistic appraoch to literature.

Things in LOTR are what you're told they are, there's no real hidden subtext to decode in there.

(Apart from the fact that he was a very firm Catholic and Sam Gamgi's attitude is loosely based on the blue-collar grunts he met in the WWI trenches who died in the mud with a "mustn't grumble, guv" attitude. That stuff crept in as part of a more general outlook on life.)

This comes out very clearly when modern Literary Criticism, with its thousand ways of culling hidden meanings from texts, has had a go at LOTR. It doesn't work like that, like some texts won't, since they aren't written to play meta-literary games.

If Tolkien talks about a Ring of Power, then it represents precisely a Ring of Power, no more and no less.

As much as Tolkine wished LotR to be of another time and place he remains a product of his time and place. Sometimes a ring may indeed just be a ring (to misquote) but the author is uniquely unqualified to decide if he may be productivly psychoanalysed.

So he sketched the story in the interwar years and wrote it in full just after WW2. It would be impossible for it not to have been influenced by the war and it is abserd to suggest such.

Im not claiming there is some subtle sub-text to decode, Im saying the concerns he adresses are those of an Englishman of German ancestry living through the end of empire and WW2.

The concerns around the end of empire/ the waining of liberal dem in europe etc are transparent. The men now are pale reflections of their ancestors and their strength to hold back the forces of darkness is failing. The orks themselves are perversions of something beautiful. If you dont see any parallel to how an englishman of german ancestry, an acedemic specialising in anglo-saxon to boot, feels about the british empire's strength failing as it attempts to hold against the tide of fascism then fair enough.

The little people fighting in a big war to defend the shire is clearly influened by the real-world people living in the shires going off from their rural idyl to fight in a big war. The shire isnt any particuar place but it is clearly reminiscent of the cottswolds running across oxforshire and glostershire. The mythologising around the men of the villages of the cottswolds (and similar across the country) was that these were peaceful domestic people who wanted nothing more than a pint and a pipe by the fire of the village pub being dragged from their harths to fight the good fight. If you dont think the self-mythologising had any influence on Tolkine's mythlogising then there is nothing I can say.

Two vast wars created, as Adlers posts in the thread currently running in the history forum so clearly explains, by webs of alliances wrack the contenent - indeed the world. Tolkine's preoccupation with who will honor their allegiances against seemingly suicidal odds - with the knowledge that if they do not honor their allegiances they will be devoured peacemeal - isnt a direct reflection of precise events, but is a reflection of the comprehension of international relations of someone living through two world wars.

Similarly the sense of people sodding off into the west isnt a direct parallel to the millions using the UK to gain transit to the americas or of the years of waiting for US reinforcement but is influenced by such. For each polish airman who fought in the battle of britan or french soldier who signed up there were many who fearing britan would fall next simply wanted passage to the US or canada. Clearly there was resentment to those who felt that while we fight to free your people and lands you sail west to safety. Similarly with the US provarocating for years before openly commiting to the war(s). While the book doent have the "it is through the blood of our people your lands are made safe" line it is very much the essence of the public sentiment.

The ring is just a ring? Indeed but having just had a war that, especially oxford academics, might perceve to have been fought by millions but won by Turing and Oppenheimer does this not inflence his perception of the dynamics of great powers? While the treck into Mordor isnt a direct metaphor for anything it expresses the concerns of a war where commando raids (and the fear of them) had taken on a properganda value far beyond their millitary significance.

In short - while LotR isnt a direct parallel to the events of either of the wars it is a product of the concerns and percieved world view of the time.

And whatever Tolkine himself had to say on the matter doesnt matter a dam.

 

[Swedishguy]

What would YOU do if an 'America' was before your feet?

 

[GinandTonic]

What would YOU do if an 'America' was before your feet?

I dont understand?

 

[Swedishguy]

I dont understand?

Uh... 'Ready to be grabbed', 'A sure target for expansionistic civs', 'send colonists'?

 

[Love]

Ahh, i see...But did the elves want to go to the other place?

 

[GinandTonic]

Uh... 'Ready to be grabbed', 'A sure target for expansionistic civs', 'send colonists'?

You need to explain what parallel you are drawing here. I dont mean to be dense, but Im just not getting what you are driving at.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

In terms of his writing Tolkien was just as much a man of ancient times as he was of the WW2 period. In fact his stories bear much more ressemblance to old Norse sagas and other dark age Europe stuff (such as Beowulf) than they do to most contempory stories.

But having said that you are right that no author can completely seperate his work from his 'time' (and I don't think Tolkien was really trying to do this anyway.) For example the general theme of good nature vs evil industry is very much a modern theme, and it is undeniably a large part of Tolkien's stories. The theme of things fading and ending in Middle-Earth is another one, and this is probably in some part at least a reflection of the fading British Empire during Tolkien's life.

But ultimatley these are not allegories, they are just themes/ideas.

 

[Love]

Yeah, agree, but it was not from norse myth. It was from Eddan. Like middleearth. That was the humans "place" And the dwarfs and Elves are based from there at the beginning i think...

 

[brennan]

As much as Tolkine wished LotR to be of another time and place he remains a product of his time and place. Sometimes a ring may indeed just be a ring (to misquote) but the author is uniquely unqualified to decide if he may be productivly psychoanalysed.

And whatever Tolkine himself had to say on the matter doesnt matter a dam.

You spelt damn wrong. The rest is bunkum too. If an author tells you his novel isn't allegorical then just take him at his word.

 

[GinandTonic]

You spelt damn wrong. The rest is bunkum too. If an author tells you his novel isn't allegorical then just take him at his word.

As Ive pointed out endlessly Im dyslexic. And frankly thats a cheap shot, well beneath you and against forum rules to boot.

As I repeatedly said it not an allegory but reflects the concerns and world view of the time. What the author says on the matter simply doesnt signify.

 

[brennan]

It was just a cheap way in. I'm not going to make allowances for the fact every other poster is dyslexic round here if I get a cheap gag out of it.

Sorry but telling us an author has no right to tell us what his own novel is about is stunningly arrogant.

 

[GinandTonic]

It was just a cheap way in. I'm not going to make allowances for the fact every other poster is dyslexic round here if I get a cheap gag out of it.

Sorry but telling us an author has no right to tell us what his own novel is about is stunningly arrogant.

Well tell that to every small-a arts criticism for the last forty years. The authors stated intentions are simply one factor in the understanding of a text. One person might look exclusivly at the text itself, another might psychoanalyse the author. Another might look at it as simply an artifact of the culture that creted it. Another might consider it in terms of the relationship of the text and the meanings taken from/ uses it has been susequently put to. Yadda yadda.

Bottom line what the author meant is only a part of the story. What the author CLAIMS to have conciously meant is a far smaller part of the story.