Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Books Discussion » BC Archive: Lord of the Rings » 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
Author Topic:
Trignifty
Ruler and Court Jester of Planet Awesome
Posts: 470
Send Message
Avatar
Post 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
on: July 07, 2003 06:07
Just because I'm a curious Trig...how did you like this compared with the movie version?

- Why did Tolkien add the ransacking of the house in Buckland?
- Do the Wraiths seem similar to any monsters or haunts you've heard of in other stories (looking for archetypes here, people )
- Frodo's attack on the head Wraith, any thoughts? Do you find any symbolism in the fact that he attacks the Wraith in the foot? How about his exclamation of 'O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!' ?
- And why are the Wraiths, who are in essence the living dead ( Actually neither living nor dead) scared of a man with a torch?


[Edited on 28/1/2004 by Figwit]
Periantari
Council Member
Posts: 18
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
on: July 11, 2003 06:25
I definitely like the book version more...i know why PJ altered the movie version to make it go well with pacing, but what is lost is Aragorn and the hobbits (esp. Frodo's) struggle to get to Rivendell...
the part where Frodo screams those Elvish phrases and stabs the Wraith king is one of my favorite parts....
I also find it scary that they would actually attack Crickhollow with Fatty in there and that just really evoked a really scary image in my mind...
The wraiths are definitely mysterious characters and are told about when Aragorn explains to the hobbits in the chapter "Strider" i believe... they are indeed very scary for they attacked the hobbits and Aragorn... they are mysterious and scary and in the movie, they depicted that really well i think =)
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
on: July 15, 2003 12:32
Just because I'm a curious Trig...how did you like this compared with the movie version?


the movie visualized the angst, so I liked that (the slowmotion wraiths for instance) but that aside it was all wrong: the Hobbits were lame, te ting with the fire was in contradiction with the book, Strider was too much the hero and Frodo was a loser weakling...


Why did Tolkien add the ransacking of the house in Buckland?


I think, to keep in touch with the Shire, and to show at which speed the wraiths actually travelled?


Frodo's attack on the head Wraith, any thoughts? Do you find any symbolism in the fact that he attacks the Wraith in the foot?


Hobbits have big feet?

nah, all kidding aside: I think it might (in our deepest subconcious minds) trigger some deep thoughts about father-son killings (the Oedipus complex) and stuff, but in truth I think it's just about the only place where Frodo *could* sufficiently injure anyone bigger than him... or is that too practical of me?


And why are the Wraiths, who are in essence the living dead ( Actually neither living nor dead) scared of a man with a torch?


No idea, though fire has always been a dubious element in all kinds of thinking. Herakleitos, a Greek philospher of the 66th C BC said that fire was both the father of all things and the great destructor.

Mythology also has this dubious attitude towards fire: think of Thor or Zeus (Jupiter) who both have the power of lightning to do both good and ill with it. Or think of Prometheus who gave humans the gift of fire and was punished rather severely for it - yet fire later destroyed humans in many tales!

*spoilers for an upcoming chapter*
When Aragorn recites Eorl's Hymn in TTT, mark closely that in the first verse 'the wam fire glowing' is mentioned (when it comes to the spheres of men), but when all men are gone it becomes: Who will gather the ash of the dead wood burning?
Tolkien uses this distinction between human fire (which is good) and inhuman, natural fire (which is random, uncontrollable, destructive and often evil) in other places too.
*end spoiler*
{it's not such a big spoiler, is it Trig?}

Anyway, maybe the double nature of fire comes into play here: the wraiths are *thin air* and fire burns because of oxigin. It could also be a small hint at the christian idea of evil things burning in hell: witches burn like wood because the fire recognizes their evil blood... something like that.
eowynshue
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 182
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
on: July 15, 2003 02:04
(have more thoughts, will post later )

Why did Tolkien add the ransacking of the house in Buckland?

i think this was to show that they had to leave the shire and that it was no longer a safe haven
NenyaGold
Legend of Lothlórien & Head Chocolate Thingywidget of Yavanna
Posts: 14318
Send Message
Post RE: 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
on: July 15, 2003 02:24
I think the ransacking of the house also showed that Hobbits are very capable of taking care of themselves. They are somewhat portrayed as needing to be taken care of by *the big people* but Fatty knew something was up and did something about it.

"He had a ring, a golden ring, a precious ring." ~ from The Hobbit
Naurlas
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 1661
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
on: July 20, 2003 07:17
I agree that Tolkien showed the Wraiths attacking Buckland for pacing but as far as the movie version, I missed them leaving Bree and Bill the pony's introduction and Sam's bit of defiance on seeing Ferny ( the apple ). As far as archetypes, the Wraiths to me are a cross between a vampire and a banshee but the imagery reminds me of the Disney movie "Fantasia"...the very last bit "Night on Bald mountain" ( i think that's the name, it's been years)
McDLT
Council Member
Posts: 20
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
on: July 28, 2003 04:29
I liked the movie part where the Wraiths attack the Hobbits room in the Inn, but I still think the movie is lacking so much more stuff.

Why did Tolkien add the ransacking of the house in Buckland

The ransacking of the house just adds a well-rounded feel to the story. Fatty staying behind is just not left hanging and it also shows that Fatty does play an important role and a good friend.

I also agree that it shows the Shire was no longer a safe haven. Frodo couldn't go back.

And why are the Wraiths, who are in essence the living dead (Actually neither living nor dead) scared of a man with a torch?

Not entirely sure, but I think it has something to do with Light and I know - ***********SPOILER*********** - that we will find out more about fire later on.

Just some of my thoughts
Gildor-Inglorion
Elvellon ar Pethdan
Posts: 296
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
on: July 29, 2003 06:43
Why did Tolkien add the ransacking of the house in Buckland?


I think Tolkien included this to 1) Show how desperate the wraiths were to achieve their goals (after all they dislike being around lots of people and light) and 2) To emphesize the power of the wraiths when one is alone and in the dark of night; their sheer power for terror. A very chilling image to be sure.

Do the Wraiths seem similar to any monsters or haunts you've heard of in other stories (looking for archetypes here, people )


No indeed not. Part of the reason I was grasped so firmly be the book the first time I read it..

Frodo's attack on the head Wraith, any thoughts? Do you find any symbolism in the fact that he attacks the Wraith in the foot? How about his exclamation of 'O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!' ?


Shows that the little hobbit had some courage, something that was lacking in the movie. While Frodo gave in to the temptation to put on the ring, he quickly realizes his mistake and actually attempts to fight back. Foolish but brave nonetheless.

And why are the Wraiths, who are in essence the living dead ( Actually neither living nor dead) scared of a man with a torch


Mythology also has this dubious attitude towards fire: think of Thor or Zeus (Jupiter) who both have the power of lightning to do both good and ill with it. Or think of Prometheus who gave humans the gift of fire and was punished rather severely for it - yet fire later destroyed humans in many tales!


Interestingly Tolkien seems to be implying that even the elements can be turned to evil or good purposes. He seems to emphesize that nothing in and of itself is inherently evil, but it can be turned to evil purposes. Indeed, the wraiths themselves "do not love it (the fire)" but they can endure it as a servant for their purposes. Indeed, light in general seems to be an enemy to darkness (thus being inherently good) - but can unfortunately be turned to wrong purposes.
_LadyEowyn_
Council Member
Posts: 109
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: 1.XI. A Knife in the Dark
on: January 05, 2005 07:40
1)Just because I'm a curious Trig...how did you like this compared with the movie version?

I think I like this version better because of Frodo being portrayed as stronger than in the movies, though in the movies, I do like the fact that they are on top on Weathertop, not hiding in the Dell, and that Sam tries to fend off the wraiths.


2) And why are the Wraiths, who are in essence the living dead ( Actually neither living nor dead) scared of a man with a torch?

I find this very interesting, I think that wraiths are meant to be scared of the 'elements' (ie fire, water, etc), because they see the world in a half light, as shadows. just a thought.

Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email