Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Books Discussion » Discuss the Books » Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
Author Topic:
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 01, 2006 03:51
Bits of this have already been discussed on other threads, but I thought it might be interesting to pull them together.

At the CoE it's said that Tom Bombadil has 'withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set' and refuses to come out, or take any active interest in what happens outside. The Council briefly considers sending the Ring to him for safe-keeping, but decides against it (a) because he'd forget about it, and most likely throw it away (!!!!), and (b) because 'power to defy our enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself' - which it isn't.

OK so far, and nobody condemns TB for staying in his little land. And yet he can deal with malevolent tree spirits and barrow-wights as easy as winking, is immune to the power of the Ring, and 'nothing seems to dismay him'.

So isn't it very selfish of Tom to shut himself away and let other people carry on a fight which he would surely be able to ontribute to?

Similarly, what about all the high-elves who shoot off to Valinor the minute things get tough? Why should they be allowed to chicken out of the fight while others, particularly Men, have to stay around and sacrifice their all in the fight against Sauron? Especially as those same elves also seem to go about saying sneery things about how wicked Men are?

JRRT was no pacifist, so why does he let some people get away with such attitudes?

[Edited on 1/9/2006 by Fattybolger]

[Edited on 9/10/2007 by cirdaneth]
danja_san
Council Member
Posts: 102
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 01, 2006 08:27
TB probably doesn't want to interfear with Eru's creation and professied 'final battle'; its not his war and he maybe knows something we don't...

As for the High Elves (Noldor), who are largely to blame for most of the woes in Middle earth (come on, admit it!). The Kin strife; the fall of Menegroth; the rings of power; the silmarils; general snobbery etc etc.
And then they run away at the second rise of Sauron (Thats not true, I know... entirely - there were good Noldor, eg Galadriel, Glorfindel etc) Some of them got what they deserved though; loremaster, who'd have 'em!
atalante_star
Scholar of Imladris and Theodens Lady
Posts: 1365
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 01, 2006 10:51
JRRT was no pacifist, so why does he let some people get away with such attitudes?

Because, I think, that while he was not a pacifist, maybe he wished he was. Or at least sympathised with that point of view.

Or maybe it was also to show that pacificism wasn't actually the answer ...
"Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'.

I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides, in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron."
Letters #144


More later ...
Celebrian
Council Member
Posts: 420
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 01, 2006 01:09
This topic demonstrates one of the reasons I think people will still be reading these books a hundred years from now or more. There are no easy answers to some of these questions. Was Tom selfish? Or was he merely weary. Clearly he still felt sadness connected to the long dead people in the Barrows. Maybe he didn't want to get involved with the affairs of the world any more because watching people he cared about die was so painful for him. Well, that is a form of selfishness too, I suppose, but understandable nonetheless.

Thanks for the quote, Atalante_Star. I think it shows that JRRT was more open minded than a lot of people give him credit for being. He was one of the few writers who seem to realize that just because a viewpoint does not agree with his own doesn't mean it is not valid and worthy of being expressed.
vicarcat
Council Member
Posts: 448
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 01, 2006 11:01
OK maybe I'm reading this wrong...

It seems to me that Tom B's job was to keep that patch
away from the nasties...
so that even if the rest of Arda fell Eru would have one place
where the taint of Melkor had not found root.

In regards to the High Elves who left Arda for the West...
they did so only after Eru gave the decendents of Feanor
an amnesty so they could sail west and then He summoned
them West..
Those Elves who didn't answer the call faced the Fading
and an upset Eru after they died...

As I say I could be reading things wrong...
but my gut says I'm right in this.

Not an easy choice to chose Human if you are a Half-Elf
after the amnesty shown by Eru...
I suppose they hoped for the Grace extended to Men by Eru...
Irmo_of_lorien
Council Member
Posts: 315
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 02, 2006 04:02
Ive just had a thought, maybe the elves time is over, and their power is less in middle earth than it used to be, so they will not be much use in battles, and there are few of them left aswell. Also maybe as the time of men draws near, this is their test and if they survive such a war they will be able to finally live in peace. I dont know about tom, hes a tough one to think about as we know so little about him. Sorry if no one understands any of this
Dolwen
Store Admin & Head Weaver of Vairë
Posts: 15040
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 02, 2006 04:47
I understand what you are saying Irmo. I don't really see it as the elves taking off to Valinor as soon as times get tough. They spent thousands of years fighting a worse evil; Morgoth. The time of the elves is over and they're fading. Men are stronger and more in number by this time and it is time for them to decide the fate of the world.
danja_san
Council Member
Posts: 102
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 03, 2006 01:59
The Exiled Noldor only fought Morgoth out of a desire for the the stolen Silmarils. They killed many Teleri on the coasts of Valinor too.
It has been noted that their arrival prevented Morgoth taking Beleriand, as seemed likely; but this was a coincidence. Following their Jewels, they arrived in just the nick of time; only to end up sacking the city of the Sindar (when they heard there was a silmaril there). Elves, particularly deep-elves, are given a gloss that does not exist.
The Noldor later named Felagund (a Dwarfish derived name!) and Maethros and his brother were good Noldor kings / Princes in Middle earth; but many were self obsessed and twisted by their own foul deeds...

...lo and behold as soon as the amnesty was announced; the most part of the remaining Deep-elves (along with many Sindar), ran away before the defence of Lothlorien and Mirkwood. To help in the defeat of Sauron, would have redeemed them, perhaps even in the mind of Thranduil, who hated them for their endless Kinslaying...

The trouble is, high elves in general get painted in a very good light, just for having seen the light of the two trees; but I don't think it did Feanor and his accomplices any good... Whether Elf or Man, judge them by their actions, I say.

And to top it all; despite being warned several times, the Mirdain worked with Sauron (in the guise of Annatar) in making the Rings of Power... everything the Noldor Kings and Loremasters do, screams arrogance!

[Edited on 3/9/2006 by danja_san]
vicarcat
Council Member
Posts: 448
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 04, 2006 11:18
Danja_san;
I wonder have you noticed how many of those who were guilty of
Kinslaying died before the amnesty was granted?
Or did their deaths count for nothing in your view of Elves?

I do not ask this to be mean, yet your view sounds so one sided [to me]
as to be missing parts of the tales as Tolkien wrote them...

I find no gloss on Elves only a differing point of view from the normal
Human view of non-Humans...

Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 04, 2006 11:27
Your point about 'screaming arrogance' is very interesting and seems right to me. Perhaps, at times, 'pride' would be a better world. I think one of the most tragic moments in Sil. is towards the end, when Feanor's surviving sons are sick to death of the Silmarils, but still feel bound to try and grab them because of the oath they swore to their father. In all those centuries, they haven't learned the humility they would need to say, 'Sorry, our father was wrong, we were wrong, we renounce the oath and offer to help rebuild Middle Earth instead of doing some more to wreck it.'

High Elves in LoTR don't seem to be as arrogant as they were in Sil. Even Galadriel renounces her centuries of pride and refuses the Ring. Perhaps it took aeons, rather than centuries, for them to learn something like humility.

I'm not sure that Elves would have been ineffectual fighters in the war against Sauron. From what you read in the appendices, they seem to have defended Lórien quite effectively, and Legolas's people seem to have been involved in the war as well. But the focus is very much on the wars of Men, with Legolas and Gimli as a token presence.

Come to think of it, that's one of the (many) reasons why the Helm's Deep scene in the movie grates so much. Elves just aren't so prominent in the schema of the book when it comes to warfare, however important they may be in other respects.

As for TB representing the pacifist viewpoint, the quote from JRRT's letter is very illuminating. However, I wonder what TB would have done if Sauron's forces had invadad his own country, as they surely would if the War had been lost. Would he have resisted? Or quietly faded away?

I think the letter also makes, however mildly and courteously, the point that well-intentioned pacifism can only thrive if other people are willing to do the fighting. Eowyn makes that point in the book and so does Pippin. It's noticeable that TB, pacifist as he may be, doesn't try to deter the hobbits from fighting; indeed, it's he who suggests they take the knives from the barrow, and so gives them, for the first time, the idea that 'fighting was one of the things in which their adventures would land them'.
PotbellyHairyfoot
Grandpa Moderator
Posts: 2929
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 05, 2006 12:32
The Oath of Feanor was only taken up by his immediate family. The remaining Noldor that fought with them, did so out of loyalty to their leaders.
I can agree with Danja-san that much of what was done by the Noldor became fouled up, but they didn't run away before the defense of Lothlorien and Mirkwood. Many returned to the Undying Lands after the loss of Beleriand at the End of the First Age. Most of the Noldor that stayed on Middle Earth and survived the battles of the Second Age and early Third Age were still there when Lothlorien and Mirkwood were attacked and took part in those battles.
Those elves that left earlier did so more out of longing than out of any pacificism. I really have trouble thinking of Tolkien's Elves as pacifists. It seems to me that Elves went to war, when they felt the necessity for war, without fear of death for they knew that their souls (fea) would survive the death of their bodies.

In a way Bombadil was a pacifist, but seems to me more as a case of him not being concerned about things that didn't, or couldn't, affect him. There was evil all around him, but he did nothing about it because it didn't have any affect on him, only taking action when the evil bothered him; when he came across Old Man Willow harming the Hobbits and when Frodo called for his aid against the Barrow-wight.
Had Bomabdil's homelands been harmed by enemies , as the Entwood was by Saruman, I wonder how he would have reacted as the boundaries he took for himself seem to be set by the boundaries of lands that had been relatively unchanged throughout the Three Ages, and had never been harmed or settled durng all that time. Would he rebel against those permanently harming his 'home' as the Ents had?


Bomadil reminder;
note that we have a long running thead concerning Bombadil and that discussions of Bombadil's nature that aren't focusd on pacifism should be made in that thread



[Edited on 5/9/2006 by PotbellyHairyfoot]
danja_san
Council Member
Posts: 102
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 05, 2006 07:38
Talking of pacifism; what of Eru himself? Could he not have ended the war in an instant, or even in Tom's case, ordered him to fight the shadow. It seems easy to blame the little guy and see him as uncaring to the fate of the world (though IMHO he is far from that).
For all we know Eru may have commanded him to not take part... Else why not just end the war himself

I must declare at this point; my regards for the exiled Noldor, in no way colours my image of elves. Though most of them, while acting autonomously, make mistakes easily on a par of those made by humans and usually with more dire consequences...
Considering the usual "men are week and only desire power" view of men by (many) Elves, it seems they ignore the discresions of their own. There are evils committed by all the free peoples, at various times (even hobbits). There is no perfect child of Iluvatar; all have vices, desires and regrets.
The simple view: Elves are perfect under star and sun; men are greedy and make war on their neighbours, hobbits eat too much and orcs are orcs; but at the end of the day they are all individuals capable of a great many things good and bad.

It was not only Feonors house that committed the kinslaying; they did what their king asked of them... (I know many followed out of love for him - for which they were arguably naive; and that many stayed in Valinor untarnished)
Many of the perpetraitors died in the first age... but they were still Elves...
I do think too many people regard Elves as flawless, which Tolkien never claimed them to be. Often their tempers and reactions to insult were quite aweful.
They didn't learn from their mistakes (or their late king's mistakes, if that pleases you more...). After the Silmarils fiasco, they still went on to forge the rings of power... 'nough said there.

The Sindar also can be arrogant (for reasons and instances I shall restrain myself from repeating - look into it if you are interested). The humble Silvan more of a contrast perhaps; though their rash battle tactics didn't do them any favours...

Elves are by no means pasifists ( thats for sure )

(edit): I take back the "...lo and behold..." remark in my last post; that was unfounded, I admit.

[Edited on 5/9/2006 by danja_san]
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 06, 2006 01:02
The Eru question is something else and has been discussed elsewhere (can't remember which thread, but somebody will know). It's the same question Christians and Jews always get asked, and ask themselves: if God is all-powerful, why doesn't he just step in and stop evil? That question is too vast for this thread.

As regards TB, I very much wonder what he and Gandalf said to each other at their last meeting. 'He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling. But my rolling days are ending, and now we shall have much to say to one another.'

It certainly doesn't sound as if Gandalf plans to rap TB over the knuckles for not taking an active part in the war. It sounds more as if he wants to learn from Tom's wisdom, as well as airing some of his own.

Thinking over this topic reminds me of another rather cryptic remark made by Gandalf at Rivendell, or was it earlier? He says that certain places, like Lorien and Rivendell, have power to resist Sauron for a time, 'and there is a power, too, of another kind in the Shire'.

Now what was that power in the Shire? Clearly not a military power, and not an organisational power or they wouldn't have fallen such easy victims to Sharkey. It must have been the hobbits' innate goodness and decency and essential peaceableness, mustn't it? But how would that help to keep off Sauron?
atalante_star
Scholar of Imladris and Theodens Lady
Posts: 1365
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 06, 2006 09:29
The Eru question is something else and has been discussed elsewhere (can't remember which thread, but somebody will know). It's the same question Christians and Jews always get asked, and ask themselves: if God is all-powerful, why doesn't he just step in and stop evil? That question is too vast for this thread.

We've got a few threads about Iluvatar / Eru - Ilúvatar and LotR Theological being the main two.

It certainly doesn't sound as if Gandalf plans to rap TB over the knuckles for not taking an active part in the war. It sounds more as if he wants to learn from Tom's wisdom, as well as airing some of his own.

Could Gandalf censure Tom? I mean, what authority does Gandalf have over him to be able to do such a thing? And would Tom listen?

Thinking over this topic reminds me of another rather cryptic remark made by Gandalf at Rivendell, or was it earlier? He says that certain places, like Lorien and Rivendell, have power to resist Sauron for a time, 'and there is a power, too, of another kind in the Shire'.

Now what was that power in the Shire? Clearly not a military power, and not an organisational power or they wouldn't have fallen such easy victims to Sharkey. It must have been the hobbits' innate goodness and decency and essential peaceableness, mustn't it? But how would that help to keep off Sauron?


"Indeed there is a power in Rivendell to withstand the might of Mordor, for a while: and elsewhere other powers still dwell. There is power, too, of another kind in the Shire. But all such places will soon become islands under siege, if things go as they are going. The Dark Lord is putting forth all his strength."

I think he means the simple steadfastness of the Shire people. Their refusal to give in, their refusal to honour anything but love, respect and caring. But then one wonders why the Dúnedain were set to guard the Shire if the innate power of the region was so great ....
vicarcat
Council Member
Posts: 448
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 06, 2006 09:55
Well the Hobbits lacked Greed so they wouldn't understand a foe who was motivated by Greed.
Where as the Dunedain understood greed and how it can cause people to
act so the Dunedain would be better prepared to defend the Shire.

As for Tom B defending his home...
What safeguards do you think he placed around his home so it could be
used as a safe haven...?
And how much did that cost him in time and energy to maintain such
safeguards?
Something to think about when you go to safeguard your own homes...

Eru haven given free will to both Elves and Men would hardly force
them to change their paths, rather visions would be sent to each as a suggestion on how to change things in their lives.
It would then be up to the individual to either heed the visions or
ignore them and pay the price for their choice of actions.
This is also why Gandalf would not condemn Tom B...

PotbellyHairyfoot
Grandpa Moderator
Posts: 2929
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 06, 2006 11:52
But then one wonders why the Dúnedain were set to guard the Shire if the innate power of the region was so great ....

Perhaps they did so out of a love for the innocence and purity of the Hobbits and a wish to keep them that way.

There is also the possibility of the Rangers seeing the Hobbits as small and almost defenseless and in need of protection.

Note that it wasn't just The Hobbits that were protected by the Rangers. Aragorn even comments about protecting Bree from unseen dangers. For a third possibility it could be that as the last remnants of the warriors of Arnor, the Rangers set for themselves the task of protecting the remnants of the peoples of Arnor and the Hobbits just happened to be among the peoples to be protected .

[Edited on 7/9/2006 by PotbellyHairyfoot]
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 07, 2006 01:26
I'd forgotten that places like Bree were protected by the Rangers as well. Aragorn makes a very telling remark about that: 'If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so.' In other words, the Rangers think that 'simplicity' is something of 'great worth' in itself (as Halbarad says later of the Shire-folk). There's certainly a huge contrast between comfortable, solid people such as Barliman or Mugwort, and tense, hyped-up people on the front line, like Beregond or even Bergil - not to mention Denethor and Boromir.

The idea seems to be that pacifism, in the broad sense, is OK as part of the whole tapestry of anti-Sauron activity. Anything that's good is anti-Sauron by definition. But goodness in itself is no defence; you have to fight as well. Some people, like Faramir, are naturally peaceable but are told off to do the fighting and do it without fuss because it's their duty. Theoden does the same, although he claims that in his old age he's 'earned' peace.

A corollary seems to be that the pacifist/pacific folk may be called upon to fight if the fighting reaches them despite the best efforts of their defenders. The hobbits fight, once Merry and Pippin have rallied them, and even the Bree-folk seem to have been in a scrap.

I've a feeling that TB wouldn't let orcs overrun his country, or mess with Goldberry, without using his power in some way to defend them.

By the way, I'm not sure that hobbits lack greed; not all of them, at any rate. With the S-Bs it may start with silver spoons, but it ends with Lotho becoming Saruman's agent, slave and ultimately victim, not to mention Wormtongue's dinner. Slippery slope!
Celebrian
Council Member
Posts: 420
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 07, 2006 07:15
I don't think there is a serious lack of greed among Hobbits. More a lack of arrogance. Hobbits get greedy thoughts but they mostly think again and laugh them off. Like Sam when the ring tested him. I think the power that existed in the Shire was more elemental. Hobbits actually have many of the attributes usually ascribed to elves. They live in close harmony with nature, damaging nothing without good purpose (clearing fields for crops but allowing trees to remain along the edges). They are curious and interested in many things but they tend to take little that doesn't impact them personally seriously. It would be hard to bribe a Hobbit to evil deeds because most of them don't really care about wealth and power. Basically, all they want for themselves is comfort and peace to enjoy it in.

With this outlook I think the Hobbits would have no difficulty understanding TB's disinclination to get involved and endanger his own patch. After all, the reason Frodo and company left the Shire was to protect it. Like many in these and other times, they'd rather face an enemy on the enemy's turf rather than fight him off on their own. But, in the end, they were faced with that need and they did rise and fight.
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 07, 2006 07:10
Interesting topic, Fattybolger!

JRRT was no pacifist, so why does he let some people get away with such attitudes?


Perhaps characters like Tom Bombadil and the elves of Valinor exhibit the natural reluctance of the virtuous to get into a fight, however just the cause may be.

There is a striking illustration of this attitude in the Indian epic, the Mahabharata. There is a dramatic moment in this epic, in which two armies are gathered on a great field, in battle array. Just as the mother of all battles is about to begin, Arjuna the heroic archer who is about to lead his army into battle, is overcome with emotion, and suddenly decides that he “will not fight.”

The reluctance of characters like Tom Bombadil and the elves of Valinor to rush to the defence of the others cannot be construed as indifference. In these characters, Tolkien is just giving us a psychologically realistic picture of a truly good person's sense of revulsion at the idea of violence.

At the same time, Tolkien also presents to us, through other characters, the view that pacifists are impossibly naive, and that one needs to fight to overcome evil.

After presenting both points of view to the reader, Tolkien leaves it to us to decide for ourselves how we feel about these things. He doesn't impose a particular view on the reader, but by presenting both sides of the question, he leaves us with a fuller understanding of the issues involved.
http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 08, 2006 12:25
It's perfectly true that JRRT doesn't preach (thank God), but I think he does leave us with a pretty clear conviction that somebody has to do the fighting. But he also makes it plain throughout that it isn't the fighting that actually decides the issue: it's Frodo's and Sam's courage, self-sacrifice and refusal to give up, coupled with the nobility of all the people who refrain from grabbing the Ring, and finally, the irony of Gollum's being the one to bring about the actual destruction of the Ring when it was the last thing he intended. And Gollum was only around to do that because Bilbo, Gandalf, the Elves, Frodo, Faramir and in the last instance, Sam, refrained from killing him although he 'deserved' it.


That seems to tip the balance away from fighting being 'important', but it always tips back again. What would have happened if Sam hadn't used violence on Shelob, or on the orcs in the tower where Frodo was imprisoned? Or if the Rohirrim and Gondorians (and others) had taken no steps to defend themselves?

As for liking and disliking fightng, again there's a range of responses on the 'good' side and none of them seems to be condemned. There are characters who actually like fighting - Gimli and Boromir - although neither of them is at all sadistic. There are plenty of fighters who think fighting is noble - all the Rohirrim seem to take this line, and Eowyn for various reasons is almost obsessive about it. There are others, including most Gondorians except Boromir (I think), who believe fighting's necessary and just a job that has to be done. Aragorn and Gandalf seem to see it in more or less that light. And there are plenty of people who only fight if really pushed into it, like the hobbits and the ents. And then the ones who apparently won't fight, like Tom (though we can't be sure about even him). None of these attitudes seems to me to be clearly set above any of the others: they all make their contribution.


Looking further back, am I right in thinking that the Valar intended all the Elves to come to Aman and live there in bliss for ever, but some were afraid to go, and some came back as rebels?

If all the Elves had gone to Aman, it would have been jam for them. But what would have happened to Men? Would they have been left to fall victim to Morgoth and become his miserable agents, without hope of redemption?

[Edited on 8/9/2006 by Fattybolger]

[Edited on 8/9/2006 by Fattybolger]
Celebrian
Council Member
Posts: 420
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 10, 2006 08:39
I agree that some love to fight just out of sheer joy of fighting but I don't think that necessarily applies to Gimli or Boromir. They wanted to fight for something that seemed important to them, which is another matter altogether. I think to greater and lesser degrees with nearly all the characters in these stories, the overall code seems to be a desire to live at peace, moderated by the belief that some things are worth fighting for and should be fought for.

I don't think the Elves were all that much more self-involved than other peoples. It's natural to "stick with your own." I think it was admirable of all the peoples to break with natural inclinations and join with others for common good, especially the Hill People who had little reason to love Men. And yes, Middle Earth would have been a dark and evil place indeed if all the Elves had left it when they first received the call.
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 11, 2006 06:53
I agree neither Boromir or Gimli enjoy fighting to the extent that they'd deliberately pick a fight unnecessarily, but they do consider fighting as 'both a sport and an end'. Gimli, in particular, thoroughly enjoys the fight at Helm's Deep and counts the heads of his fallen enemies in a way I'm tempted to call 'primitive'. I can't see him indulging in torture, though, or doing something despicable like killing an unarmed enemy (as Aragorn does in the EE of RoTK, yuk yuk). And Boromir most certainly wouldn't do anything like that either.

Question: assuming you have to fight, is it better to like doing it? Or to hate it?
Strider_is_the_cats_MEOW
Council Member
Posts: 14
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 12, 2006 01:18
I don't think anyone should "like" fighting, but shouldn't back down once they are - because it might put others in a serious predicament.
danja_san
Council Member
Posts: 102
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 12, 2006 12:19
I suppose, if you have to fight, you may as well enjoy yourself.

I gues the age old enemies would give a certain amount of satisfaction when destroyed...
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 13, 2006 09:31
It's an interesting question. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that war and fighting are a Good Thing, but I think the hatred of war which has so pervaded the western outlook (or the politically correct part of it, anyway) since World War I has perhaps blinded us to the very real joy which many people took in war and fighting in previous ages - and some people still do, let's be honest.

I can't find any evidence (subject to correction) that JRRT enjoyed his wartime experiences or saw the wars of his lifetime as being anything but horrible and tragic. But he was a profound scholar of heroic literature, and in heroic literature many characters do revel in war and violence, including characters whom readers/listeners are evidently invited to admire. LoTR is to a considerable extent 'heroic' literature, and therefore contains characters of that type whom we are invited to admire - at least to an extent (like Boromir in his last fight) - although we don't have to accept their attitude as the (only) correct one. Faramir has some thoughtful remarks on this in TT.

There's a telliing passage in C. S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength in which the characters consider the possibility of having to do actual physical fighting in order to overcome evil, and one of them quotes a sergeant in World War I: "Sir," says he, "did you ever hear anything like the way their heads cracked?"

One of the women present reacts as all of us probably would: "I think that's disgusting." But in the heat of battle I can imagine a fighting man taking precisely that attitude (especially if he knows that if he doesn't crack the enemy's head, the enemy will certainly crack his), without this signifying that the fighting man is, in normal circumstances, a vicious brute. And if you can't at least contemplate that attitude, you can't really understand heroic literature. Maybe you can't understand men, not really. Or human beings either. We aren't exactly a pacifist race, are we?

[Edited on 13/9/2006 by Fattybolger]
Strider_is_the_cats_MEOW
Council Member
Posts: 14
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 13, 2006 09:47
To add to what Fattybolger said, here's a quote from the RoTK . . . .
For once more lust of battle was on him; and he was still unscathed, and he was young, and he was king: lord of a fell people.
Eomer is admirable, but at the same time this quote gives the impression that he's enjoying himself.
Celebrian
Council Member
Posts: 420
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: September 13, 2006 04:39
I think the desire to consider oneself able to defend hearth and home is basic to all human beings (and, by extension, Elves, Dwarves and even Hobbits). It isn't so much a drive to go out and kill somebody or something just to see if one can, although that does exist too. It's just that a person (male or female) likes to think themselves capable of providing for their own, including protection if necessary. And, if fighting does prove necessary, it isn't much of a stretch to believe a person would find a certain degree of satisfaction in it.

Eomer had been through a lot by the time this passage was written. I think most of us in his position would take real pleasure in striking a meaningful blow against the terrible evil that beset his family and his people.
Hercynian
Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message
Avatar
Post Re: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: June 14, 2012 09:14
As I try to write fantasy, I'm always attempting to depict higher thoughts, feelings, inklings, most of which cannot really be adequately put down on paper, no matter how skilled I may be with representations. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that Tolkien cannot be ultimately understood in any left-brain, rationalist, logical way. Sometimes I think he had wondrous, insightful visions . . . and merely glued a story around them to give it all some sort of form and body. And yet such is light: momentum and illumination -- but mysteriously both wave and particle, AND possessing no mass.

If you saw the EE FOTR DVD, there is a short (too short!) scene where Frodo and Sam spy on a procession of Elves going into the West. The music is a very hypnotic, trance-like version of "O Elbereth Gilthoniel" done in Sindarin:

Snow White! Snow White! O Lady clear!
O Queen beyond the Western Seas!
O Light to us that wander there
Amid the world of woven trees!
Gilthoniel! O Elbereth!
Clear are thy eyes and bright is breath. . .


(Maybe hear this version: http://youtu.be/MA-QVMEcy_Y)

When I think about this, it occurs to me that Elves (most, not all) were a) on a higher plane all along, b) were "slumming it" to be in Middle Earth in the first place, c) were, subsequently, not hard to sell on the idea of going back to Valinor. The Tolkien Ensemble's excellent version of this song is, upon comparison, almost too Victorian parlor-room-ish. This Howard Shore film version captures better the "in the beyond," trance-like state in which pilgrims of a superior race might be as they are on their way to the higher realm.

And so, the "Higher Realm" pulls, prods at (some of) us. Higher states of being always undermine left-brain, rationalist thought patterns -- however noble and honest and sincere they may be.

As far as Galadriel's "...long defeat" remarks are concerned, I think she was fatalistic in part because after thousands of years of trying, there simply was no infusion of "higher realm" into Middle Earth that would hold up, let alone proliferate and expand. In the Sil you see how the Valar are always having to come back in and rebuild, reinfuse ME.

In our own world, we see how "higher realm" is constantly under fire from "realists," rationalists, materialists. They rule the day. They shape the world, all but devoid of higher realm/higher purpose. It's Saruman a million times over -- as Tolkien himself once quipped. But Men -- both in ME and here -- seem up to the task of living, proliferating in conditions less (sometimes FAR less) than "higher realm." And so the time of the Elves was probably way overdue its passing when Galadriel et al finally left and the Fourth Age began.

All in all, the question of fight, flight, Tom B is somewhat moot, because ME always was just an experiment, a place which, after all, was too "corporeal-corruptible" . . . perhaps just like this world, although I haven't given up yet! But then again, perhaps this world (and ME) aren't too corporeal-corruptable, that our task is indeed to make a world fit for the Elves. . . .

Such irony! Right after "Passing of the Elves" came "Palästinalied" on my music player. For those not familiar, Palästinalied, or "Song of Palestine" was the "fight song" of the German medieval crusaders.
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post Re: Fight, Flight and Tom B. [keep]
on: February 05, 2013 03:33
*bump
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email