|
I am not bothered by things being called "a modern-day David and Goliath" or "a scenario reminiscent of David and Goliath" or whatever. As a cliche it's harmless--still misapplied, yet harmless all the same. But when one uses the story (not the cliche) as a historical example of the underdog prevailing, I have to balk.
--
The power hierarchy was evidently important to Tolkien. He talked about power and spiritual "greatness" often. Melkor was the greatest of the Valar; the Valar were the Powers, greater than all other sentient creation; Sauron was the greatest of Melkor's servants; the Maiar were greater than the Eldar; Melian, a Maia, mothered the greatest of all the Eldar; The Eldar are greater than Men; the Numenoreans are greater than other varieties of Men; and so on and on. Barriers are occasionally breached, such as when elves slay Balrogs or when they are reincarnated nearly as powerful as Maiar. But when individuals create exceptions to these general rankings of power, it is usually a revelation of that individual's true latent power rather than a negation of the hierarchy.
I think this whole disagreement stems from a fundamentally different view of Tolkien's work. Some seem to see LotR as a self-contained story, starting at its first chapter and ending at its last. This might be too strict a definition for anyone here on this forum, but the viewpoint must exist in various degrees. Others can only see LotR as a microscope over the latter part of the Third Age of Tolkien's Middle-earth, a product only of what came before it and not of any conscious desire of the author to create moral lessons. I think that these two perspectives differ greatly, and I am buried deep in the latter camp. In my eyes, Tolkien wrote histories of a fictional world. History provides lessons and surprises, but not contrived ones that are intended to uplift; rather, only incidental ones that may sometimes encourage but often enough disgust our sense of justice and burn our hearts like acid. To me, Tolkien told us nothing more than what happened on the Pelennor, and what happened was necessarily predicated upon rules and circumstances established previously. So it was not Merry's inherent value and courage that overcame the Witch-King, but an ancient power and a miraculous circumstance. That Merry had the bravery to strike is a credit to him, but I do not see the same lesson to be learned as some sincerely do.
Like our world, Tolkien's has rules, and just as the danger of me standing in opposition to a speeding train is obvious, so is the danger, for example, of an Elda standing in opposition to Morgoth. Eowyn defied the Witch-King, and I think that it might be argued that her power truly overcame his, but there was no transcendence of hierarchy here; both were mortal Men, fear whose power would be measured on the same scale. When the Witch-King stood before Gandalf, he faced a power that he likely did not comprehend, and, I believe, could not have overcome.
Tolkien's world is real enough to me that I have difficulty entertaining ideas that I feel run counter to what I have come to understand about it and its established rules. I do not claim that this is a superior perspective of Tolkien's work, but it is preferable to me and is the only way that I can discuss Tolkien. Having defined these differing perspectives, however, I do think that I have a better understanding of the nature my disagreement with certain posters.
|