January 21, 2004
Me So Geek
A discussion has broken out about who the Rohirrim are supposed to be in the "real world," the nexus of which is at this post at Impearls, which I discovered via Geitner Simmons. Well, they are forgetting that Tolkein rejected such allegory: "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and have always done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence [emphasis mine]". The Rohirrim are simply a group that sprang from Tolkein's mind, with no doubt many an influence from history, but not a transposition of a real people from history.
Be sure to follow the links from site to site, or you'll miss many a gem, including this great sendup of (biblical) literary source criticism by Mark Shea.
I have to note, the discussion starts innocently enough, with Michael McNeil contrasting who Peter Jackson and company modeled the Rohirrim on for the movie, and who in his opinion they should have modeled them on. Fun stuff, but it is easy to get carried away.
While you can argue endlessly about who is the best historical fit for the Riders of Rohan (and believe me, there is every indication that that is the proper length of the discussion), there is no denying that the honor culture that the Vikings had, and is common to warrior peoples such as the Vikings, Sarmatians, Samuri, Navaho, Aztecs etc., is most accessable to Americans today through the Vikings and especially Icelandic sagas. I've often had trouble understanding (or at least appreciating) the motivations of characters in Victorian writings (and the movies made from them) like Howard's End, but I have no trouble understanding what motivates the characters of Njal's Saga.
As long as we're on the subject of Lord of the Rings and the Eorlingas, I have to say I think that the character of Theoden came through the best from the books into the movies, if only because he lost so little face time in the transition from one to the other. One of the nice things about Tolkein was that he didn't put modern characters into previous times; Theoden could have been lifted straight out of an Icelandic saga, with his concern over his honor and desire for glory. While I prefer the books to the movies, it is undeniable that certain parts simply work better in the movie -- even when taken straight from the book, and Theoden rallying the Rohirrim before their charge onto the Pellenor Fields is one of them and is one of my favorite parts of the movies. He also had the most detailed and believable growth in the movie, nosing out Sam.
As long as I'm talking about characterization in Lord of the Rings, one of the oddities of the books is that Frodo, ostensibly the main character (I do happen to agree with the analysis that in fact Sam is the protagonist - a reference to which I don't have the time to track down at the moment) is in many ways the least likable or interesting. His main strength is simply enduring the unendurable. His most selfless single act is trying to leave Sam behind along with the rest of the Fellowship, which he both fails at and which feels more like cowardice than sacrifice. Jackson made his overall sacrifice clearer by having him note that while he saved the Shire, he didn't save it for himself -- he's a tragic hero. Sam on the other hand gets to be a loyal and true friend, and he gets most of the good lines (both in the books and in the movie). Merry and Pippin go from baggage constantly needing rescuing to the fearless and competent leaders of the Scouring of the Shire (left out of the movie, and so Jackson made them into complete to bumpkins in the beginning to provide their growth) where they even scold Frodo for his lack of action. Faramir is just screwed in the movies, although the extended version of The Two Towers explains the relationship with his father better which doesn't make him look as bad.
OK, enought Geek for one post.
Posted by Kevin Murphy at January 21, 2004 12:59 PM | MeI'd read Tolkien's disclaimed about finding symbolism in his works. And frankly, I don't buy a bit of it.
Yeah, sure, Sauron has nothing to do with Hitler. And Mordor, Germany. Sure, the despoilment of the Shire has nothing to do with Tolkien's only feelings regarding industrialist despoilment. And sure the "land to the west" isn't North America.
Perhaps it wasn't deliberate, but there's just waaay too much there to say Tolkien's writings did not reflect, at some level, his own experience and times.
Posted by: Tim at January 26, 2004 12:05 AMCertainly Tolkiens' writing reflect his own experince, times, and his passions in life. But what I argue against, and I think I'm supported by Tolkien's expressed thoughts and history, is that you can make a one-to-one correlation like Sauron symbolizes Hitler or the Rohirrim symbolize the Sarmations.
The chief trouble with Sauron standing in for Hitler is that he was conceived before Hitler made his first putsch, let alone gained control in Germany. And how does Mordor = Germany? Does that mean that Orcs = Germans? And if Sauron does symbolize Hitler, then does Galadriel, Denethor, Gandalf, etc. symbolize other real people? And if not, what's the point of Sauron standing in as Hitler?
I think it makes far more sense to say that since evil manifests itself in similar ways, evil people/acts will have certain similarities. Similarly, if Tolkien developed an antipathy to industrialization based upon what happened to the area he grew up in as a boy, then it isn't surprising that there is an antipathy to industrialization in his writings. That antipathy shines through much more in Saruman and what he does at Isenguard far more than what happens in the Shire (which no doubt could be an allegory for the creeping socialism that afflicted Britain - kind of like the Road To Surfdom meets Beowulf - except again it was writing before the creep started). But that isn't symbolism or allegory. Just as his sympathy for heroism was sharpened by his reading of heroic literature, we shouldn't be surprised that his writings are often quite heroic.
Posted by: Kevin at January 26, 2004 11:44 AM
