Notable moments are "rhetorical responses." They stem from the circumstances of reading--what readers might be looking for (like me with literacy), what their life experiences have been, what they have been reading, thinking or talking about reading. This is the value of rereading--each reading situation is different. The work itself hasn't changed, but we read it differently: bringing different things to the text and taking different things away.
Notable moments are a teaching and research methodology. They
- encourage reader engagement with the text
- provide a basis for class discussion
- stimulate connections (synthesis, to use a $0.10 pedagogical word) between what readers already know and what they are reading
- validate active reading
- collect ideas that might evolve into research paper/article ideas
They also work particularly well as blog posts.
Recently, I have been rereading The Lord of the Rings. I have read it and listened to the unabridged audiobook numerous times at this point, so that it is almost too familiar. It is slow going, because there isn't the compulsion to read, but at times, having read more contemporary writing lately, I am struck by how simply exquisite the language is--to say nothing of plot and character development, world building, mythos, and all that makes Tolkien fabulous. In the midst of my reading, I read Darwin's response to George R. R. Martin's somewhat offhanded critique of Tolkien on war. I also find myself reading Tolkien with the American History Channel series The Revolutionary War as background noise. And so, I come across this passage:
"The others go with him as free companions, to help him on his way. You may tarry, or come back or turn aside in other paths, as chance allows. The further you go, the less easy it will be to withdraw; yet no oath or bond is laid on you to go further than you will. For you do not yet know the strength of your hearts, and you cannot forsee what each may meet upon the road."
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens," said Gimli.
"Maybe," said Elrond, but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall."
"Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart," said Gimli.
"Or break it," said Elrond. (FOTR 274)I paused over this passage initially, thinking about war. Thinking about the British in particular, and the treatment of deserters in the Great War--the first "modern" war, a for which young British males volunteered enthusiastically, for which they were unprepared. It is also, famously and notably, the war Tolkien experienced first hand.
As Elrond commends the newly-formed fellowship to their journey, it is tempting to see this passage as a statement of sympathy, if not with deserters, than certainly with those who volunteered for a war they could not possibly understand. Whether or not the cause is the epic mythology of good and evil, Elrond's wisdom asserts that resolve alone can't necessarily drive one through fear. Later, in Return of the King, Aragorn deals gently with men who were ill-equipped to march into Morder, setting them to tasks that were appropriate to their ability, and which preserved or restored their dignity.
And yet, even though Aragorn and Boromir intend to head to war, the situation of the fellowship is different. Two pages earlier, the narrative asserts that "[t]he Company took little gear of war, for their hope was in secrecy not in battle" (272). Perhaps, then, Elrond's conditions are not applicable to war. After all, what general can command men who are not bound to follow orders? Could Tolkien possibly mean that soldiers should only serve insofar as they were able? This seems doubtful, and yet, the association between oaths in war and the oaths of the fellowship is hard to avoid, and perhaps it is in Aragorn's generosity and skill with men that the question is resolved.
What is interesting is the exchange of proverbs--not quite platitudes--between Gimli and Elrond, which represent two seeminly opposed approaches to oath-taking, and perhaps to human nature more generally. The opposing views may also characterize the particular races of Middle Earth--the elves, who keep to themselves, who belong to families and kinds, but who are very individualized, and the dwarves, who seem to be of one kind, but who are more clanlike, joining together in common purposes. Elrond is for individual freedom; Gimli, for allegience and loyalty. Inevitably, both are right, but Elrond seems more right.
It is not a theory; simply an observation, and a question. Is this about war? Politics? Individual freedom? Individual will? How does being bound to another affect individual will?
11 comments:
I've always thought Elrond's prohibition of the oath points to Tolkien's understanding of an oath as a terrible and sacred thing. To merely turn aside from the quest incurs no shame, but to break an oath would be a sin. He doesn't use that language of sin here, but I think the sense of it is there.
I hadn't thought of it like that. This post was more a chain of associations than actual analysis, and I like your interpretation better. It has been a line that I liked, but not one that I had given much thought.
I'm coming up on the end where the Fellowship breaks up. I found it interesting that Gimli returns to this exchange. I don't have the text, just recalling from memory. He says something like they are not bound by vows and he had no idea how terrible it would be. You kinda get the feeling he is glad to not be bound. He says he will go anyway, but it seems his position has softened quite a bit.
That's true! I hadn't consciously noticed Gimli's shift in position here. I believe he might come back to it again in Return of the King...
I don't know where to put this thought so I'm putting it here. Again I don't have the text--a hazard of audiobooks. Something else I noticed about Tolkien's views on war. He gives Saruman an exchange with Theoden's head horse guy whose name I don't recall. Saruman tells him basically to mind his own business and, as a soldier, it is his job to kill whomever his lord says to kill without question. Given that this pronouncement comes out of the bad guy's mouth, Tolkien must feel like individual solders have an obligation to only fight on the side of justice. Given that this was written in the aftermath of WWII, it also seems like a small commentary on the morality of "just following orders."
I love that you identify the statement coming out of Sarumon's mouth as automatically suspect. I wish more people recognized the difference between a quote out of context and one in context!
Eomer is the head horse guy! :) I totally understand the problem with audio books. Interestingly, I find eBooks similarly disorienting.
I think that your reading is an interesting one. It think in more than one place, Tolkien speaks to the dilmmas of individuals involved in wars. But... I would be hesitant to attribute that theme to WWII more than WWI. No doubt the ending of the SECOND conflict brought it to his mind, but Tolkien did always insist that WWI was the one that influenced him, and in this case, I'm inclined to actually listen to the author. I think Tolkien was sincere in ways that authors rarely are when talking about their own works.
No doubt that WWI was his overriding influence, but this turn of phrase sounded like something straight out of Nuremberg.
Now THAT's interesting!
And I didn't mean to sound as though that WASN'T the case. I'm just always a little hesitant. Could be, too, that I'm more interested in the First World War in a scholarly way, though WWII interests me as well. So that might, just possibly, influence my reading... ;)
A passage caught my eye last night and reminded me of this discussion. From The Plants of Middle Earth by Dinah Hazell.
The greater context is a discussion of the meeting with Faramir in Ithilien. Interesting thoughts on oath taking:
"The site of impending peril becomes a testing ground for trust; Faramir and Frodo must rely on each other's honor in order to maintain their safety and commitments. The tactic Frodo uses to save Gollum appears to be a betrayal to Smeagol and fuels the dark side of his (unevenly) divided nature, on which Frodo and Sam must once again depend. The rituals that accompany Faramir's judiciary pronouncements and the rendering of Gollum into Frodo's care recall medieval cultural custom and values, particularly trouthe, a concept of utmost importance reflected in the literature Tolkien studied. More than just truth, among its many facets were trust, fidelity, in love and friendship, honor and integrity, and devotion and loyalty, and it underlies the basis of Frodo and Faramir's relationship. Oath-keeping was an essential element of trouthe, which is shown in Frodo's refusal to break faith after he has given Gollum his word, despite the possible consequences and Faramir's warnings, and in the extraction of an oath from Gollum not to reveal the location or existence of the Forbidden Pool. The Dead who follow Aragorn into battle do so to fulfill an oath and thus find peace, and old oaths and friendship bind Rohan to Gondor when called upon as the siege of Minas Tirith looms. Even Smeagol/Gollum feels bound to keep the oath he had sworn on the Ring to aid and obey Frodo, articulated in his debate over the sleeping hobbit whether to remain faithful to his promise and master, or to take his Precious and become Gollum the Great."
I like the reference to medieval custom and tracing various oaths through the books. It makes me want to think through all the various oaths and oath breakings you find in Tolkien.
Oh yes--definitely some Medieval/Old English influence here. Thanks for sharing this, Melanie!
Post a Comment