[Lalwendë]

I have to defend the comment by Lush:

In general, it seems that if a taboo is broken in Tolkien's works, the consequences are never funny or ambiguous.

I think she is right, and the examples given here prove it:

Originally Posted by lmp

But a hobbit leaving the Shire for parts unknown is itself a taboo of sorts. So is entering the Old Forest. So is a strong desire to see Elves, or to disappear from before the eyes of 144 birthday party guests by the aid of a magic ring (or any aid, for that matter). So there are enough specifics to lead me to question your generalization.

Yes, they are all breakings of taboos, but they do lead to serious consequences. Very severe consequences. If a Hobbit had not left The Shire then a certain ring would not have been found. This indeed eventually turned out fortunate for Middle Earth, but I wonder would Bilbo or Frodo have thought that way?

Originally Posted by lmp

In other words, every writer is going to dip his ladle into the soup of story and come out with a different set of ingredients; that Tolkien has not used all of the elements of Trickster does not mitigate the fact that the Trickster can be discerned in LotR.

Indeed, there is much that Tolkien could have included but did not. After all, he was creating his own myth, not merely rewriting old ones. So he would use essential elements of certain archetypes as he saw fit. He included something of the Green Man but did not include the female Sheela-na-Gig, perhaps as she was a little too crude. But the fact that he used elements of certain figures makes me realise that yes, I can accept that elements of The Trickster are discernible. But I must still be contrary and say that not to allow the Trickster full reign is not to have a true Trickster.

But Faust is well worth a read (and another read, and another...), and I think Tolkien may have read it himself, as whether at a subconscious level or not, he drew elements of Faust into the creation of Saruman and possibly Sauron.