Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bhbhbhhh t1_j2bg9og wrote

Reply to comment by NameUnbroken in I finished re-reading The Lord of the Rings by EldritchHugMachine

Given how other people talk of how uplifting they find the ending, I doubt it.

1

trisdacunha t1_j2bi4u4 wrote

I think the journey is the point. And the journey takes you from the quiet peace and beauty of The Shire through to some very dark places, but all so you can return again in the end. No matter how bad it gets, something good survives. Sounds a bit trite, I know, but it is after all a Hero’s Journey and this template has been used and reused countless times over countless generations.

But the thing about journeys is you don’t return the same in the end. Sometimes the journey breaks something inside you and >!like Frodo returning to The Shire, nothing is ever the same, he can’t settle back into the old routines and decides instead to leave it all behind.!< Perhaps that’s how a soldier feels when returning from war? A feeling Tolkien was all too familiar with.

15

CrazyCatLady108 t1_j2c0xcv wrote

No plain text spoilers allowed. Please use the format below and reply to this comment once you've made the edit, to have your comment reinstated.

Place >! !< around the text you wish to hide. You will need to do this for each new paragraph. Like this:

&gt;!The Wolf ate Grandma!&lt;

Click to reveal spoiler.

>!The Wolf ate Grandma!<

1

daiLlafyn t1_j2dja7r wrote

Yep - and worth mentioning that both Tolkien and Frodo had survivor's guilt in bucket loads. >!Boromir and especially Gollum - and that Frodo at the last fails, and the agent for the mission's success should be one that also failed, but died.!<

1

bhbhbhhh t1_j2cuzud wrote

It's one of those curious phenomena of Reddit where people upvote comments containing mutually contradictory truth claims.

−1

daiLlafyn t1_j2diw72 wrote

As it should be. If it's friendly and well-argued disagreement, that should be encouraged. Have we not seen enough poisonous polarisation in the world?

1

bhbhbhhh t1_j2dj7hk wrote

It appears to be the same people upvoting two comments putting forward theses that cannot both be true.

> If it's friendly and well-argued disagreement, that should be encouraged.

"Upvote anyone who disagrees with the one person I don't like" is a pretty poisonous attitude towards debate.

2

daiLlafyn t1_j2djjue wrote

Upvote both, if it's well-argued and friendly. Applaud both sides.

1

bhbhbhhh t1_j2dkbvf wrote

This is on top of the fact that people in this thread upvoted the comment telling me "Its utter stupidity... That kind of extra-literal over interpretation is also absolutely moronic... I guess, in review, I'm not surprised you tried to make a red herring fallacy. Nothing else you've said makes sense. Why should you start making sense now. Just don't expect anyone to take your poorly thought out and easily disproven arguments seriously."

0

bhbhbhhh t1_j2djo2e wrote

What are you talking about? This is a case of "applaud sides two and three because fuck the first one."

−1

daiLlafyn t1_j2dl1ys wrote

Just scrolled through, and realise yours was the heftily-downvoted comment - understand now. I think you're also irritated by the thread that is now entirely deleted - which I couldn't see. Your first comment is right, though - the chapter, "The Ring goes South" really is tough. It takes a downturn before then - as soon as they leave Tom Bombadil's House, it turns much darker, even, than the darkest parts of the Hobbit. I love the Hobbit and hated what the films tried to do to it, while loving the bits that were true to the story. But The Hobbit was a children's book - Lord of the Rings really isn't.

Happy to discuss this, free of acrimony and downvotes if you want.

Edit: going out for a New Year's Eve walk now. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

1

dizzytinfoil t1_j2birs2 wrote

God literally wins in LotR. Evil is destroyed and banished, men are renewed in strength. It’s uplifting.

4

Griffen_07 t1_j2bkmnx wrote

For a generation. Then the fall resumes as the last of the old world dies. There is no God in these books or anything Tolkien himself published.

0

Crimson_Eyes t1_j2c1wdw wrote

Utterly false. By Tolkien's own words, "The Author Himself (Who is not me)" caused Gollum to slip at the Cracks of Doom.

3

pierzstyx t1_j2chnis wrote

>“The Lord of the Rings' is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism.” ―Tolkien

God is not in one place in Lord of the Rings. God is everywhere in Lord of the Rings. The reason you can't see it is because you have no understanding of the Christian worldview generally or the Catholic worldview specifically.

2

Rymbeld t1_j2bkrwk wrote

Nope. They fight in spite of the fact that they world they are fighting for is not going to survive the conflict.

0

dizzytinfoil t1_j2bpno9 wrote

Their world does survive the conflict. It is not the Dagor Dagorath. Sauron is defeated. Men do win. The stage is set for the eschaton in the future but Aragorn is crowned and the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor are united.

5

bhbhbhhh t1_j2bj00k wrote

I don't feel as uplifted by the defeat of evil in a desolate, declining world.

−1

pierzstyx t1_j2chuf4 wrote

The world isn't desolate. Its full of life and free peoples. Nor is it declining, though it is transforming. God's purpose for the Elves in the world has been accomplished and even the rebellious ones are returning to the fold. As a result now Men can take center stage and God's purpose in Creation of them can be fulfilled.

2

bhbhbhhh t1_j2ci1os wrote

It's so full that the party travels hundreds of miles through uncultivated, uninhabited land, that seems like it would be fine for agriculture.

−2

pierzstyx t1_j2cjmun wrote

The presence of wilderness is the exact opposite of desolation. Wilderness is full of life, as we see in Fellowship as they travel through rich lands full of flora and fauna, where even the trees have a form of animal-level consciousness. It is in fact beautiful and in any other circumstances (fleeing the Ringwraiths) would have been a charming and beautiful experience.

3

daiLlafyn t1_j2dipdx wrote

The reason for the wilderness is the presence of evil forces - Orcs were still numerous, evil strongholds still held sway over vast tracks of open land and forest, the rule of law had declined. By the end of LotR, Mirkwood becomes Greenwood the Great, the Brown Lands can now be populated, the Kings Road is in use and peace can be made with the Easterlings, the Dunlendings and the former slaves of Mordor. The melancholy comes from the decline and return of the Elves and that Frodo himself can no longer live here - the Shire has been saved, but not for him. He is broken by his loss, his injuries and his survivor's guilt.

1

Rymbeld t1_j2bkmh7 wrote

the book? nah. The move is, because they changed it. But the book is laced with melancholy, because the world is irrevocably changed, the war even ravaged the Shire and the hobbits don't have the same idyllic "home" to return to.

4