The Structure of The Lord of the Rings

[Boromir88]

I've always felt that LotR could not be complete without the Scouring of the Shire and the chapters that follow.

I agree 100%, The Scouring ties up all the loose ends that we had in the beginning. Which, I think is why most people are ok with The Scouring being left out of the movies, because we don't have the foreboding warnings from Maggot, Butterbur, or Bombadil. The destruction of the Ring was a fitting end for the movies, but the Scouring is the fitting end for books. It shows that the Hobbits have grown up, what they weren't able to handle in the beginning of the story (by themselves), they are able to defeat by the end.

[Mister Underhill]

::first looks both directions for Mr. Underhill the Fearless Feline::

littlemanpoet, surely you know that the MICE never see the cat coming before he pounces...

I'm away from home on a visit so I'll have to make this quick, but I want to toss out the idea that the reason why the book ending works and the movie ending doesn't (or at least feels too long) is exactly the reason why I disagree with the idea that LotR is primarily a milieu story.

The movie version returns to the Shire -- milieu -- but strips the events of the ending of all their narrative significance and complexity -- story, or plot if you prefer. The ending of the movie is boring precisely because milieu is not story. Simply being in the Shire, or Middle-earth for that matter, is not enough. What's the story?

The Scouring works because the story isn't over when the Ring is destroyed. Evil has been defeated -- but only for now. Tolkien has much more to say on the subject, not the least of which is that evil can never be finally, utterly defeated. Here I could go on, but since I'm pressed for time I'll leave you to imagine in the meanwhile much of what I might say about the significance of the final chapters. To end the story after the destruction of the Ring by simply writing that "Frodo returned to the Shire and lived happily ever after to the end of his days" would contradict much of what the story is about.

[Boromir88]

Good thoughts Mr. Underhill. I would say for movie purposes, leaving out the Scouring was necessary, the movies never went into too much depth suggesting that there was still a threat of evil around in the Shire, plus they killed the two people who started the corruption.

The Scouring works because the story isn't over when the Ring is destroyed. Evil has been defeated -- but only for now. Tolkien has much more to say on the subject, not the least of which is that evil can never be finally, utterly defeated.

An excellent point, there will always be someone else who will rise up and desire more power/wealth...etc. I've been wondering which idea was Tolkien shooting for, if he even intended it to be an idea. One literary age is the reformation, these thinkers believed that people are born with the intent of doing evil, but it's society and government/rules, that keep us in line. Then Renaissance thinkers believed that people are born fully good, and it's society/government/rules that cause us to become evil. I think there are good parts to the government, and bad parts, it's a flawed system, but I think one cannot live peacefully without a form of government (example Shire). A place that seemed so good, and peaceful in the beginning, where there is really no government set up (besides the Mayor), well I should say no laws, and it still becomes corrupted. The hobbits kept to themselves, and were oblivious (and quite frankly did not care) what was happening outside the Shire). Reformation and Renaissance thinkers were complete opposites in their views, but maybe there is this middle-ground between them, if there even can be a middle-ground. I would say government is necessary, and in some aspects does keep us in line, to a "moral" person, if they get ticked and want to commit a crime, they think ahh, I will go to jail, how will people view me, it's not worth it. I also think, that as people, we have an intent to "do evil." Not that we are evil, but we have the capability to become evil.

This is something I've been pondering for a while, and can't seem to figure out yet. Which one was Tolkien shooting for, Reformation, Renaissance, both? If he was shooting for one.

If anyone wishes to look more into the reformation/renaissance, here is a good website on it.

[davem]

As far as the different endings of the book & the movie are concerned I think both are kind of inevitable given the times they appeared & the individual's who created them.

The book was written by an idealistic young man who had desired to change the world - or at least his own country - through an art that would produce a kind of moral regeneration. That young man returned from the horror of the trenches & found that rather than his sacrifices (& those of his entire generation) having made that desire possible, it had made it more difficult of achieving. In short, Tolkien could not have ended his story in any other way. I doubt that he, or any readers of his generation, would have expected the kind of 'happy ending' that we of a later generation might have. They wouldn't have been surprised by what the Hobbits found on their return.

The movies, on the other hand, were made by individuals from a generation who had never known total war, & the absolute destruction it brings - destruction of their ideals & dreams in particular. We, I suppose, want the movie ending - actually we want it to be a kind of 'prediction' of what will happen during the current 'war'. In that sense the movies are almost a kind of wartime propaganda excercise. Its simply untrue as PJ says that the Scouring would come across as anti-climactic (in the movie sense). Where it would be 'anti-climactic' is in terms of our hopes for what we're currently living through. It would be too much for the current movie audience. We all want to believe that the current 'war' can be won so decisively that the enemy will cease to exist, all the threats disappear, & we can all live happily ever after - apart from a few tragic veterans, who will be left with scars that will not heal - sad, but inevitable, & at least the rest of us can get on with our lives in the new Utopia which will arise from the ashes of war.

Tolkien may have wished for that kind of ending, but he was too honest to give us it. He confronted us with the reality of life in this world. Evil is an indestructible part of this world - at least it is not destructible by anyone within the world. It's part of us, innate, & cannot be eradicated by the defeat of external foes. We may wish to believe that, but its both erroneous & dangerous, because it leads us to extremes - if we just take that extra step, just step over that line, we'll solve all the problems we face, destory the bad guys, & win peace, happiness & freedom for all for ever.

Yet what Tolkien offers is both lacking in hope - there is no ultimate defeat of evil - & at the same time offers the chance of something better, something even 'salvific' for each of us - If evil is a constant, if it cannot ever be ultimately defeated forever, we can accept it, & keep from crossing that line in the belief that we can erradicate it forever.

So, the movie offers us a 'hope' which is both false & dangerous. Tolkien came back from the trenches wiser than that. The struggle against evil is an eternal one - there are no start & end dates to it.

[Lalwendë]

In short, Tolkien could not have ended his story in any other way. I doubt that he, or any readers of his generation, would have expected the kind of 'happy ending' that we of a later generation might have. They wouldn't have been surprised by what the Hobbits found on their return.

This is so very true - Tolkien was one of a generation which was decimated by war in very real terms. He returned to a country which had lost many of its men, and which had been turned on its head by the necessary practicalities of war, from women entering the workplace in large numbers to the mechanisation of agriculture to enable quicker, and cheaper food 'production'. I once stood looking at a war memorial in St Mary's in Whitby and worked out that one small town had lost one third of its young men. It was the end of a dream of a 'safe' Britain, and so Tolkien had to offer nothing less than this complex ending.

The movies, on the other hand, were made by individuals from a generation who had never known total war, & the absolute destruction it brings - destruction of their ideals & dreams in particular.

They were also made by those directly involved in or who grew up soon after the counter-culture era, which was centred upon idealism - which is not wrong in any way, but which would have welcomed the notion that bravery and sacrifice ought to lead to rewards, that an earthly paradise such as The Shire could live on unharmed.

Many films have barely veiled propaganda elements. We all know about Michael Moore's overtly political films, but other examples include Top Gun which could have doubled as an air force recruitment film, Ken Loach's tragic tales of the British underclass and the message of The Day After Tomorrow with a real warning hidden beneath the special effects - this also has a seeming happy ending though in reality the truth would probably be much more grim.

[Mithalwen]

This is another of those threads which is so vast and erudite that I know I will have to take a deep breath before hitting "post" at the end of my ramblings.

First is to point out is to point out the silmilarity between the journeys in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (cf Paul Kocher ?) Ie Leave Shire at instigation of Gandalf, arrive at Rivendell where Elrond dispenses wisdom, dangerous crossing of mountains , part with Gandalf, cross river into magical Elvish realm, which is left by river... ultimate destination a perilous mountain... of course there are differences to but in some respects the Lotr is a "Grown up" version of the Hobbit. Tolkien isn't afraid to use the same elements and let them play out in diffferent ways (several stories in the silmarillion have similar elements). However it was the separation of the threads in TTT which stalled my first attempt at reading LOTR when I was about 10 (Father Christmas had noticed I had enjoyed the Hobbit ). By the end of the Christmas Holidays I was struggling across the Ephel Duath with Frodo and Sam and by the time I rejoined Gandalf and Pippin I had forgotten what they were up to and they went back on the shelf for a couple of years when I skimmed book 5 ( despite Faramir it remains my least favourite and least read part apart from Bombadil). I wonder if the complete separation of the threads is to stop it being quite so obvious that the main thrust of the plot has relatively little action? In the Radio version where they cut back and forth between the two this is alleviated partly by exploring the psychology of the 3 main protagonists whose mental journey is so much more interesting than the physical journey, and of course in the "real time" version Faramir becomes a muchstronger link between the plotlines. I must reread the relevant parts of HoME.

As for Christopher as audience, I am sure we owe him a fair bit - including the original map (if memory serves correctly). Even as a small boy he seems to have a memory to detail that proved complementary to his father's creative imagination. I really much get "The Letters" - that quote is quite touching and I wonder which Hobbit? Merry maybe.. It also ties in with my theory that the LOTR is the grown up version of the Hobbit...

As for the scouring of the Shire, I understand why some feel it an anticlimax , especially if you have been caught up with all the great deeds and great people- the wondrous elves and the noble men, but I think if you lose the scouring of the shire you lose the "point" of the whole thing. It is the Hobbits, that Tolkien identifies himself with and I sense that he expects us to too - much as we might fancy ourselves as Aragorn or Galadriel, Faramir or Eowyn - and we cannot live on the heights for long. The hobbits have to go home and the reader has to get back down to earth. Again it reprises "The Hobbit". Bilbo returns to find his home in the narrower sense overrun ( albeit non violently) and he has some bother before it is restored to him. Frodo and Co return to find their home overrun.. I think this shows that we cannot insulate ourselves in our own little world and keep the outside out forever (I am sure I have said this elsewhere but cannot remember which thread ) - nor can we leave and return to find it unchanged. Frodo's words about going to save the Shire, and it having been saved but not for him are perhaps the most moving and significant for me and I think that the character of Frodo lost out most of all in the movie version. I know there are cinematic reasons why they simplified the story but I find the book (and Radio) Frodo, facing middle age and making a choices to go (rather than running away all the time) so much more moving. Especially when the other hobbits are able to find a degree of fulfilment in Middle Earth. Enough rambling

[littlemanpoet]

Mr. Underhill, I await your erudition in regard to Milieu or not.

Mithalwen, I found it interesting that you pointed to the similarities between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Your similarities seem to consist mainly in plot-string, which seem to me to be more on the face of things. Your comment that LotR is a "grown-up" version of TH may have something to do with a rather fundamental difference between TH and LotR: whereas TH is an adventure story, a "there-and-back-again" tale, to use Tolkien's words (as spoken through Bilbo), Tolkien has made quite a point that LotR is a quest story, and not merely an adventure story. To overstate the case, the adventure story is a lark: the hero leaves home, has his adventure, and goes back home again. By contrast, in the quest story, the huge events spread wider until they overtake the humble home of the hero, who is taken up into the quest, against his own will, and only accepts the arduous task appointed to him because he must remain true to himself, knowing full well that he will probalby fail. So the quest nature of LotR raises the story to a more serious level, more mature, more thematically deep and rich, than TH.

[Mithalwen]

I wouldn't say Bilbo quite goes of his own free will..... and the story of the Hobbit is known as the "Quest of Erebor"..