Quote:
|
It seems I'm alone in preferring an empowered, dangerous, feminine force of nature, while everyone else is wanting a safe nurturing housewifely type!
|
Now that statement is one which likely would make
SaucepanMan's day, being almost a recognition that we see what we desire to see.
Actually,
davem, I don't think I have said I want a "safe, nurturing housewifey type" but then you could be speaking to others besides me.
Quote:
|
Another thing I don't get is this desire for the young Goldberry to be 'nice' & playful.
|
Is there "a desire to see" a nice and safe Goldberry? I rather think that my observations about how Tolkien domesticated the older mythologies and
legends suggests that I cannot see such a dangerous character in the text rather than that I don't want to see such a character. I can appreciate the legendary precursors, but in Tolkien's text I don't see the fearfulness, perhaps because this house, the House of Bombadil, is a sanctuary. The Hobbits are delayed by a "washing day", an ordinary rain , rather than a fearful storm with lightning and thunder and violent winds. What sort dangerous empowered feminine nature would say, "Heed no nightly noises"? The dangerous female figures of legend and myth come at night to disturb sleep, not to banish fear.
When I used the word 'play' I did not mean mere frivolity. I meant the very serious, profound kind of play which is the most important aspect of human existence. "Play" is the crucible of children's learning and the keystone in adult mental health. It does not have to be 'nice'. It merely has to be a game.
This is the reason why, I would argue, Bombadil "takes everything so lightly", as
Firefoot has complained. For some, the world falls so heavily and so seriously that the only way to stay sane is to deal with it "lightly" in play. I would suggest again that if Frodo had more "play" in him, he might possibly not be so wounded. Or might have been able to resist the Ring better.
Aiwendil, I think it is good to bring that list of past debates and discussions here. And I think you are right to couch the questions this way: "But it is incredibly uncharacteristic of Tolkien to violate the reality of his own creation in such a way." He almost seems to invert his stricure in 'On Fairy Stories" that the one thing that must not be satirised is fairy itself.
But I think you have omitted some other possibilities in the discussion. If I may be so outrageous, let me refer to that rather light-hearted interpretation known as Revenge of the Entish Bow.
Ricky and Gucyberry
And
Being Ilúminated
Hey ho, merry dol, is this allowed, oh mighty mistress Moderator?