If it weren't for the fact that it takes place over several thousand years, a TV series based on the War of the Jewels would be really cool. We'd get to see Morgoth in his prime, the War of Wrath...
Both LOTR and the Hobbit have Tolkien's more subversive traits interwoven into it, chiefly over the War Is Hell belief of Tolkien, which clashes with the traditional heroic narrative. LOTR has of course the fact Sauron is brought low, ultimately, by the kindness of Hobbits rather than force of arms. Even the most traditional enemy defeat (Witch-King's fall during Pelennor Fields) is done by the hands (secondary) female character. Aragorn, the most traditional heroic character, doesn't bring down the main villain or his dragon. They are both done by other, unexpected characters.
Both Eowyn and Theodén are character studies in heroic tropes of saxon/germanic tales. Eowyn for her role as a female warrior, Theodén for his grim fatalism, which is a heroic trait in many heroic songs, but here it's more of a character flaw that he struggles with.
I do quite like Bard the Bowman in the Hobbit. He's the most interesting bit almost by accident: I like the idea that he's this random face in the crowd (he's literally described as "grim voiced man" before Smaug attacks Laketown) who rises to become his own character when Smaug attacks the city. He's literature's greatest Badass Bystander.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."
His status as a Badass Bystander would me more accentuated if he weren't... you know... royalty. He's not just some normie.
edited 19th Nov '17 1:28:06 PM by DrDougsh
The Dragon of the Eastern Sea
Aragorn version 0.9
Literally same deal. King of a fallen kingdom, came from nowhere, seems to be a total nobody.
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
A Dunedain Ranger is rarely "nobody."
Yeah he's not 100% a Badass Bystander nobody, but the concept still works this way stylistically if not in practice. He shows up throughout the story as "man with a grim voice" and nobody pays attention to him or what he says, he's a random nobody no one cares about only distinguished by his pessimistic attitude. No one treats him as if he's royalty, he never brings it up and in fact no one really seems to remember he has royal blood up until he takes the lead in the aftermath of Smaug's attack.
He's a face in the crowd who turns out to be very relevant, but still. It's a neat trick.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Don't you mean Aragorn 1.5? 
It's a funny thing because Movie-Aragorn, with his reluctance to be King and more subdued attitude, is closer to Book-Bard than Book-Aragorn. Book-Aragorn is kind of a dick (and has a cruel sense of humor from time to time), most of the time, and a lot more concerned with being the great king of the people. Bard is the one who has absolutely zero interest in ruling up until the situation forces his hand and whose moody attitude strikes closer to movie Aragorn.
It's a kind of similar thing with how Movie-Gimli seems to have borrowed personality traits from Book-Thorin and how Movie-Thorin seems to borrow a lot from Book-Gimli.
In a tangent, I'm so-so with those choices regarding Aragorn and Bard in the films. Peter Jackson can't seem to grasp the concept of "grim" and "scruffy-looking". Both Bard and Aragorn were meant to look and act like grim types, and yet they're cast and played as dashing pretty boys.
edited 19th Nov '17 2:43:46 PM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."
The Dragon of the Eastern Sea
No. Aragorn was after Bard, both chronologically, and development-wise. I'm talking about the books, though.
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youI actually misread your post as Aragorn 2.0.
Blame my astigmatism.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Not even that… I've seen someone point out that, if you think about it, the heroes actually lose in LOTR. Frodo fails to resist the temptation at the very end, and the ring only falls into the lava by sheer luck.
edited 19th Nov '17 5:13:39 PM by Lyendith
Lost in Space
"Even Gollum may have a role to play by the end..." Gandalf foresaw it. Kind of.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!" When it comes to Frodo's "failure", I agree with this essay
on the situation:
Any other writer could have given us a very typical Manichean Cracks of Doom scene. Frodo approaches the fire, and the ring’s temptation overtakes him. He puts the ring on and begins to claim it. But a tiny voice somewhere deep inside him insists that this is wrong. Sam cries out, and thinking about Sam’s love and devotion rekindles a spark in Frodo. His Hobbitish desire for food and good cheer wells up, and he tears the ring off and throws it into the fire. A dramatic ending and a nice echo of the moral of The Hobbit.
But that’s not what happens. Frodo’s goodness – even the innocent goodness of a little old Hobbit – can’t go toe-to-toe with Sauron’s evil. Indeed, Isildur proved it. He defeated Sauron by opposing him with the force of good, and defeated him. But Isildur couldn’t destroy the ring, and within the year it had destroyed him.
Tolkien holds instead to an Augustinian view of evil. Evil, according to St. Augustine, is not a force of its own, but rather is the absence or corruption of good. We see this most explicitly in the idea that Morgoth and Sauron can’t create anything of their own, but only corrupt and warp what has been created by others. We also see it when Gandalf and Galadriel describe what would happen if they took the ring – it would warp their own desire to do good until they became evil. An Augustinian climax can’t involve a contest of wills between good and evil. In an Augustinian world, evil can only exist by leeching off of good. So evil must be given an opportunity to destroy itself, much like the self-defeating band of thieves described by Plato (on whose philosophy Augustine drew heavily). Good wins by renouncing evil, not by overcoming it.
And that’s exactly what happens at the Cracks of Doom. The ring isn’t destroyed because Frodo’s force of good overcame the ring’s evil. Nor is Gollum’s intervention a coincidence or deus ex machina (like the series of disarmings that happened to make Harry the master of the Elder Wand). Rather, the ring’s evil collapsed in on itself by drawing Gollum. The very corruption of Gollum that enabled the ring to escape the river drove him to wrestle desperately with Frodo for it and ultimately fall to his doom, ring in hand.
An Augustinian view of evil has definite moral implications, which are also shown throughout The Lord of the Rings. A Manichean world is a consequentialist world. To defeat the forces of evil, we need to think strategically. Sometimes we may even need to indulge in a little short-term evil in order to be able to achieve the greater good. But an Augustinian world can’t allow that kind of pragmatic approach. In an Augustinian world, any compromise with evil can only strengthen it, giving it an infusion of good that delays its self-destruction. An Augustinian world demands a deontological ethic, doing the right thing regardless of the outcome.
Again and again in The Lord of the Rings, we see that strategically pursuing the greater good fails, while remaining true to moral principles succeeds even when it looked foolish. On the cautionary side, we have Saruman and Denethor. Though they may point to the palantir as an excuse, they each ultimately made a thoroughly reasonable choice in the face of Sauron’s overwhelming advantage – to ally with him while playing the long game, or to give in to despair. Our heroes, on the other hand, repeatedly make foolish decisions based on hope. Aragorn is a good example – he decides to pursue Merry and Pippin because he owes them protection even though Frodo is the one who holds the fate of the world in his hands. Later, he decides to make a suicide attack on the Morannon rather than hunkering down in Minas Tirith, in the hopes of Frodo’s quest succeeding.
But the most important instance of doing the right thing despite the consequences comes from Frodo himself: he refuses to kill Gollum. Killing Gollum would have been an eminently reasonable idea – he’s a slinker and a stinker, and we know that he never redeemed himself or turned over a new leaf. Indeed, his main accomplishments were to lead Frodo and Sam into a death trap, then to try to kill them with his own hands at the Cracks of Doom. Both Sam and Faramir were right when they said that killing Gollum would have been a good idea! But Frodo showed Gollum pity and spared his life because it was the right thing to do. And just like Gandalf could see Frodo’s unwillingness to destroy the ring back in Bag End, he also addressed this very issue. He instructed Frodo:
Frodo: It’s a pity Bilbo didn’t kill him when he had the chance.
Gandalf: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.
And in the end, that pity was what saved the world. Frodo’s pity made it possible for Gollum to be there at the Cracks of Doom to take the ring. Frodo refused to give in to the small, reasonable evil of killing Gollum, and so he left the great evil of the ring exposed to destroy itself. That was Gandalf’s backup plan, not Aragorn’s strength to take the ring and destroy it. And so Frodo didn’t really fail. He succeeded at his quest back when he saved Gollum’s life, when he did the right thing even though it seemed foolish.
edited 19th Nov '17 5:54:07 PM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Didn't Tolkien imply that Eru intervened during that scene? It sounds like there was a Deus ex Machina aspect to it.
Lost in Space
No more or less than Eru intervenes directly anywhere. Does it matter if you call it "fate" or "divine intervention" or "chance" or "karma" or "narrative causality"? If Eru Iluvatar is the ultimate Cause of Arda, then everything that happens is ascribed ultimately to Him, but this equally makes it pointless to do so. A drop of dew from a tree is Eru's work, too.
There's one thing that must be stated: there is no way in God's green Earth that you can call it a Deus ex Machina given the reams and heaps and piles of foreshadowing involved. Nor can you possibly call it Tolkien painting himself into a corner. He intended that to be the resolution practically from the beginning.
That said, there are some moments in the greater narrative that are textually and explicitly Eru's intervention, but in every case it's a direct appeal from the Valar — for example, the fall of Numenor. There's also a moment during the destruction of both Sauron and Saruman where their spirits are seen, wafting like a great cloud into the sky, seeming to make one final plea to the West (i.e., the Valar and Eru), and being rejected. It's not completely clear who's doing the rejection, but if it isn't Eru, I'll eat my hat.
edited 19th Nov '17 6:56:44 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fun fact: Tolkien did envision several other scenarios before settling on the published one. I recall one where Sam wrestled with Gollum and then threw him into the fire, another where Sam went into the fire with Gollum. Personally, I'm glad neither of those got used.
I think there was also a version where Gollum threw himself into the fire as an act of Redemption Equals Death. As a pretty big Gollum fan I have to admit I would have liked that. But overall, I'd still say the current ending is better and is more thematically fitting.
I honestly rather prefer the way the Ring is destroyed in the movie, because there at least it's possible to see it as Sauron being Hoist by Their Own Petard. In the movie, the Ring is destroyed because it works too well — it's so corrupting and enticing that once you're hooked on it you can't stop fighting over it even when you're right over a pit of lava. The very greed and lust for power Sauron cultivated goes so out of hand that it ends up doing it in. Maybe that was the intent in the book as well, but it's not particularly well conveyed there.
@Gaon: One issue I take with that essay is that The Lord of the Rings does still involve a lot of killing people in the name of the greater good. Aside from all the enemies slain in the various battles, there's also the fact that throwing the Ring into the Cracks of Doom is ultimately an assasination mission. Showing mercy and giving the opportunity for redemption is shown as the right thing to do in some cases, but doesn't really seem to be considered in others.
Lost in Space
Sauron was given the chance for redemption several times, and always rejected it. He and the Nazgul are totally corrupted, beyond any hope of saving — at least anything that is within the power of mortals. The books also go out of their way to depict the human allies of Sauron fleeing and/or surrendering upon his destruction, so they aren't portrayed as irredeemable.
And we've been over Tolkien's discomfort with the Orcs as an Always Chaotic Evil race enough — it was a problem that he never found a satisfactory answer to.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Personally I like the theory that Orcs were more of a state of mind than a race per see. That Orcs were basically Elves (and possibly other races) who purposefully chose to side with Morgoth/Sauron and let his influence corrupt them to the point they were twisted to this form. So in theory if an Orc stops being evil, it stops being an Orc and slowly reverts back to Elf.
So they can't be redeemed because they made their choice a long time ago. This likens them more to the angels who sided with Lucifer during his rebellion in Heaven (and subsequently became demons, as per the traditional narrative), which I think Tolkien would find at least halfway plausible.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."
There is a blatant deus ex machina, but it's in The Hobbit rather than Lord of the Rings. Gandalf even lampshades it:
Lost in Space
Bilbo finding the Ring is indeed the single largest piece of pure luck in the whole Third Age, and is the sort of thing that could seemingly only have happened with straight-up divine intervention. Gandalf lampshades it, but it's not a Deus ex Machina at all. A DEM is exactly and only when an author paints themselves into a narrative corner and pulls a resolution out of their ass to extract themselves from it.
Bilbo finding the Ring isn't an Ass Pull to fix an intractable narrative snafu; it's literally the whole point of The Hobbit. It's what ties it into the larger narrative and makes the War of the Ring winnable. It is the very opposite of a Deus ex Machina.
Most people throwing that term around don't seem to understand what it means.
edited 20th Nov '17 8:14:25 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Bilbo and the dwarves are the adversaries in The Hobbit. Bilbo is perfectly willing to divvy up the treasure to avoid further conflict, and he almost succeeds in preventing the battle entirely with his Arkenstone gambit. Thorin could be seen as an adversary, but even in the book (which is much less blatant about it than the movie) there are hints that his dragon-sickness is not entirely his fault.
Lost in Space
Who/what are you replying to?
Point taken. So rather than calling it a deus ex machina, call it Providence or something similar instead.
RavenWilder's post about how the dwarves and Bilbo turn out to be Bard the true hero's adversaries. #851 in the thread.
edited 20th Nov '17 8:17:53 AM by Bense
I like The Hobbit better, too.
I don't think it gets enough credit for not only being a rollicking fantasy adventure story, but also an incredibly subversive fantasy adventure story. We spend so much time following Bilbo and the Dwarves through their adventures that we assume they must be our heroes, only to discover they're actually the antagonists in the heroic narrative of Bard the Bowman. And when the final, epic battle comes around, Bilbo spends almost the entire thing knocked unconscious, and completely unnoticed because he never took his ring of invisibility off.
For all that Tolkien tried to recreate the feel of ancient epics and mythology in his private work on the mythos, in The Hobbit and parts of The Lord of the Rings (the only two Middle-Earth novels published during his lifetime), he could get very meta and deconstructionist with the whole thing.