Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf
An afterthought:
I suspect that this problem (if you are inclined to view it as such) stems from Tolkien's method or style of writing. He really excels when it comes to the reinterpretation of mythical motives and their expression in his own world. But there are certain aspects of story-telling that seem to be, let's say, of less importance to him, to be a little more diplomatic about it. The numerous cases of deus ex machina (Oh, those eagles) may be fitting examples for this feature.
And I really don't want to be too harsh. The general embedding of the King-story into the Ring-story was accomplished with great success. I really like how it drives the narrative foward and how it connects the past with the present. I'm just being a little bit nit-picky about it because I want to get to the bottom of this.
Thanks, that would be great.
|
The intersection of the Ring/King-Stories is pure Mythological Archetypal Narrative, as well.
We see similar features in Myths ranging from the Cradle of Civilization, all the way to Native Americans in the 1800s (although the Native American Myths are much older in origin than the 19th Century).
The Kalevala is the most obvious, being a nearly direct inspiration for much of Middle-earth.
And the Nibelungenlied has similar archetypes. Obviously not identical, but carrying many of the same narrative structures.
Tolkien does a much better job in his myths than do the actual myths because Tolkien set out to Consciously construct these stories, rather than arising out of Social Constructs from the Legends and Mythic Persons within a Culture - which can lead to a great many contradictions and conflicts that remain very difficult to satisfy or resolve.
MB