Sheesh......it's like we're having some kind of two-for-one special in this thread. Double posts galore!
Ax wrote:Choice of POV is a crucial one for an author, and with a good one, never accidental. This is something that is worth watching throughout LOTR.
Yes! I very much think that Tolkien knew precisely what he was doing and why. And I agree that it is well worth at least one read through of the story with this specifically in mind so that one can appreciate just how he handles the "hobbit POV" of the narrative, especially as their plot lines separate from each other. It's particularly interesting to see his choice for most of Pippin's and Merry's time together in The Two Towers - and I'm glad he gives old Merry a chance to fly solo for a while! Besides a couple of fleeting glimpses into Aragorn's thoughts, I can't recall another non-hobbit POV in the entire story.
Frelga wrote:Tolkien pulls this trick several times over the course of the book - when we first observe the reaction of a character to the Ring from the "outside" and then a similar situation is re-lived through the POV character.
To give just a couple examples: I commented in m00bs how in the Tower of Cirith Ungol Frodo lashes out at Sam for the "theft" of Ring and then, when he comes to his senses, he pours out his anguish in the same words as Boromir did. "What have I said? What have I done?" Now we understand what the Gondorian went through!
Another example - Faramir's noble denial of the Ring. He hesitates, he considers the possibilities, then he decides that he doesn't want it. Easy peasy, right? But later, Samwise the Strong is given a glimpse of what the Ring could do for him and we see his struggle to see through its tricks. Now we know - it wasn't so easy after all.
Wonderful examples, Frelga! I love how Tolkien slowly, almost indiscernibly pulls back the veil, so to speak, to reveal the nature of the Ring as the tale unfolds.
Mahima wrote:Why a year and A DAY? What does the additional day signify? Is it because Frodo threw another birthday party after a year - and people discussed them both on a year and a day? Or is it a linguistic style of Tolkien's I haven't identified with yet?
You know, that's an expression my mother often used to describe a l-o-n-g passage of time. The poem "The Owl and the Pussycat" comes immediately to my mind, as well ("so they sailed away for a year and a day"). But, thanks to Wikipedia, I've learned that there's more to the expression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_year_and_a_day
Mahima wrote:Jn wrote:
<snip> the more I have thought that the whole book is about humility. That this is what it is about, and that every relationship within the book reflects the cardinality of this virtue in some way.
Reading through certain passages of this chapter - I am not so sure. There is a certain arrogance in Gandalf when he speaks to Frodo, which comes from his belief in his wisdom, his stature.
I am not going to give an account of all my doings to you
The italics in "you", stress that Gandalf does not think that Frodo has the right to know what he was doing. Somebody else might.
And later, regarding why the Ring came to Frodo:
You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom, at any rate
I think Gandalf is extremely self-aware. He knows who he is and from that comes a confidence (not arrogance) about his position, his knowledge, wisdom and stature. I don't think he is modest about what he knows - he knows he is special, he is simply not a pompous ass.
I think Gandalf knows the importance of "unimportance". All of the Wise seem to have an understanding of its potency. Galadriel, Elrond, and Gandalf do indeed have a tangible confidence about their great wisdom, knowledge and stature - how could they not, given their lineage? But although they strive (and succeed) to contain and perhaps even hide their true power, this balance can only be maintained, I think, through their conscious wills. It's why they must reject the Ring. They have the wisdom to understand that it will tip the balance, it will overturn all that they have learned about how close to "dangerous" they are, and it will erase the restraints they place on themselves. Frodo (and Sam), in contrast, don't understand the importance of unimportance at all. They don't need to......they simply know, deep down, with that "hobbit sense" that Tolkien often refers to, that they ARE unimportant. It's what saves them from the temptations of the Ring. There's a verse from the Tao Te Ching that I've always thought sums up this idea quite beautifully. In Peter Merel's translation, it is entitled aptly enough, "Unimportance":
All the world says,
"I am important;
I am separate from all the world.
I am important because I am separate,
Were I the same, I could never be important."
Yet here are three treasures
That I cherish and commend to you:
The first is compassion,
By which one finds courage.
The second is restraint,
By which one finds strength.
And the third is unimportance,
By which one finds influence.
Those who are fearless, but without compassion,
Powerful, but without restraint,
Or influential, yet important,
Cannot endure.
Gandalf and "the Wise" choose to live by a creed very close to this, I believe, understanding its enduring truths. Saruman chooses not to, considering himself "separate" from the world and therefore important and worthy enough to rule it. But Frodo and Sam don't need to choose: compassion, restraint, and unimportance (most importantly!) just comes to them naturally.
That's twice now that that has happened.
