Middle-earth Journeys

Yes, this is one of my favorite things about Tolkien. It's sort of a belief in Providence, I guess: that doing that right thing on the micro level also turns out to be the right thing in the long run. So Aragorn knows that he can't leave Mippin to torment and death at the hands of the orcs, even though in the bigger picture, this might be a small loss compared to all that is at stake.

What this does is to save Tolkien from utilitarianism, an ethical theory that says that the ends justify the means and that all that counts is the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain in the end. Sounds like a good idea, until one realizes that the Mippins of the world would have to be sacrificed on occasion.

I love it that it is this choice that finally brings clarity to Aragorn.

Exactly! Well-said.

This is why he is fit to be a true King and lead Middle-earth into the 4th Age and Saruman isn't. Saruman is all about sacrificing the Mippins of the world for the greater good and the end justifying the means. If Saruman was around today he'd be hailed as a great politician and leader.

Thanks, librislove! (Maybe I'm getting my mojo back--I don't think I've announced this in these threads, but my house was flooded last month and it's been like I've been tossed about by orcs. The fact that I can string a couple of thoughts together these days means my cognitive abilities may be returning! You make me feel better.)

Yes, Iolanthe, I guess it is the modern politician that JRRT had in mind when forming Saruman. I wonder if it would get too political to talk about real life examples?

Oh Merry--how awful!

Merry, it's good to see you back here - I've missed your contributions & hope things your end are getting sorted out.

As for real-life examples of Saruman-type leaders sacrificing the "little people" for the greater good, I can't think of a better example than the First World War . . .

I'm glad you're back with us on the board, Merry . Having all your Tolkien books back with you must be doing you a world of good! I hope your corner of the Shire gets rebuilt ASAP.

WWI is a good example, marbretherese. Shippey said that Saruman was 'modern' in his thought and speech. The character shows how much Tolkien had his finger on the pulse - he might have been writing about a long bygone age but he had the way the world was changing in nutshell for anyone able to see.

Thanks, everybody, for your good wishes. I think it's going to be a very long time until the Shire is rebuilt. I wish we had a Sam to lead us in our efforts. Our leaders seem to be much more interested in getting the nasty mill rebuilt so it can continue to pollute the river rather than in getting the gaffer restored to his garden.

Which makes a great segue to the modern politician: he or she is led by abstract principles like Progress rather than by a knowledge or love of the people s/he is supposed to represent.

That just about sums it up! Tolkien understood what real leadership is.

I've got as far as Merry and Pippin and the Ent Moot in my re-reading. I've been wondering why Tolkien chose to relate all the horrors of the forced march with the Orcs through Pippin's eyes? We don't generally have any of the book seen through a single character's eyes when there is more than one of the Fellowship involved, but this is different. Merry is hardly there because Pippin isn't anywhere near him for most of the time.

It really makes the terror and privations immediate, knowing what he is feeling and thinking.

Why Pippin and not Merry? I wonder if Tolkien even thought about it and made a choice or whether it was just Pippin's thoughts he heard.

Interesting, Iolanthe, because this kind of parallels the fact that when things get to be really bad for Frodo and Sam, we see the whole story through Sam. It's almost as if he respects the suffering of the deeply wounded too much to invade their privacy.

Iolanthe wrote:
Why Pippin and not Merry? I wonder if Tolkien even thought about it and made a choice or whether it was just Pippin's thoughts he heard.

Perhaps he chose to see it through Pippin's eyes because Pippin is the most junior of the hobbits - arguably it's from this point onwards that Pippin has to start taking on a certain amount of responsibility!

Today, I found a very interesting take on the question of whether Eowyn should be considered a heroine for her actions on the Pelennor Fields or a traitor for abandoning her people at Dunharrow.

If you're curious, take a look at this short piece by Salsify at Stories of Arda: http://www.storiesofarda.com/chaptervie ... 5&cid=1839

Here's little taste of her approach, and one that I find very apt!

They got what they should have expected. A woman who is called to great deeds will always find the door slammed in her face. Either she subsides into gossip and embroidery or she learns to go out through the window instead. Lady Éowyn chose to act.

Your brothers are fools to argue over whether she did right or wrong to their way of thinking. She is a woman, and men’s codes of honor and duty make no place for us. If a woman is to accomplish anything at all, it must be through guile and sometimes a...certain lack of scruples. The rules are not made for women, nor, I think, are women for the rules.

copyright Salsify, Stories of Arda

Your thoughts?

While I would never doubt that Eowyn has courage and a desire for great deeds, and indeed performs them at Pelennor--we must remember that what drives her there in the first place is a desire to die in battle because Aragorn will not/cannot return her love, and she can see no reason to go on, so decides to spend her life dearly while she basically commits suicide by battle. She is acting from despair by the time we meet her on the march with Theoden's Army--a despair which does not lift until she meets Faramir.
This is different from an escape to heroic deeds and adventures--though said deeds and adventures followed her actions. Part again perhaps, of Tolkien's prediliction for eucatastrophe: Eowyn's despair ultimately leads to the death of the Witchking of Angmar.

What a fascinating topic!

Yes, I agree that the eucatastrophe theme in Tolkien's writings made for incredibly dramatic reading and it felt good to see Eowyn finally come to that peace within herself after her heroic deeds. But I am really intrigued by the thought process that labels her, 'a woman called to great deeds'. Was she indeed? Or was this the rash act of a frustrated and, to an extent, pampered princess?

I think you have to thoroughly examine Eowyn's true motives for going off the fight. Was it to save her people? It may seem some sort of divine plan that put her on the Pelennor with the Witch-king at just the right moment, but was it fate or just pure dumb (redeeming) luck?

Was she behaving on behalf of the people of Middle-earth or was this the irrational behavior of a woman, scorned (in her mind) by Aragorn and discounted by her uncle and her own brother...just like the furniture...keep it dusted and don't let the termites get at it. What if the battle had gone in favor of the Enemy and they marched on Rohan from the south. Given Eowyn's bravery and determination and inner strength, it would have been a true tragedy had she not been there to help her people.

Fascinating indeed!