LotR -- Book 4 - Chapter 10 - The Choices of Master Samwise

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

ha ha! "lobbed"? Surely that was on purpose?

The sexual undertones of Shelob's defeat at Sam's hands was not lost on me this time around. I found it interesting that our little hero has not lost his "sting". But where is Gollum? Hiding? Fallen? Why is he not anywhere to be found at this point, considering that he shows up again later?

Of course it was, lmp

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Hey -- you want Freud? What about the act of thrusting a finger into a Ring? Or how about a race of people who live in womb-like holes in the ground?

"Absent" indeed! Lurking, m'dearies, lurking.

My amenable fellow, I must thank you for providing such examples as make a veritable operational definition of exactly what my examples are not. You do my work for me.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Yeah, but how else would one describe a spider? I mean, legs are their most prominent feature (the awful, wretched things).

Well, Kuru, either the words are a meaningful facet of his writing/art or they are forced upon him, with no credit to him.

Originally Posted by davem

Even if Tolkien had the story of Lilith in the back of his mind we mustn't, or we'll be dragged out of Middle-earth into the realm of comparative mythology or worse

So readers dare not go where only authors care to tread? Well, well. What are readers to do who see imagery and symbolism of the Virgin Mary in Galadriel, which was 'put there' "consciously so in the revision" by Tolkien's own statement? Are they to discount it as irrelevant intrusion of primary world? Why one and not the other? (oh dear, have reached my smilie limit.)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

So readers dare not go where only authors care to tread? Well, well. What are readers to do who see imagery and symbolism of the Virgin Mary in Galadriel, which was 'put there' "consciously so in the revision" by Tolkien's own statement? Are they to discount it as irrelevant intrusion of primary world? Why one and not the other? (oh dear, have reached my smilie limit.)

I think while we are reading the story we should try & leave behind primary world ideas & symbols - otherwise we risk having the spell broken. While reading the story Shelob should only be 'an evil thing in spider form' & Sam's method of dispatching her bring to mind things like the Turin/Glaurung & Earendel/Ungoliant battles.

Once we step outside the secondary world we can analyse it all as much as we want - though in that case we are doing what Tolkien condemned - breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, dismantling the tower to find out wherre the stones originally came from.

This is the real 'Freudian' approach which we're all (myself as much as, or even more than, others, I sometimes feel) in danger of falling into. The Freudian approach is essentially backward looking, asking 'what caused this, what is this made of?' The alternative, which I suppose we can call the 'Jungian' approach, is to ask 'What is this for? 'Where is this going?' rather than 'Where did this come from?'

As for the Galadriel/Mary connection, it is in there - quite blatantly some would say in the later writings - but its not there so strongly that it can't be ignored by those who want to, & its not necessary to know anything about the Virgin Mary
in order to understand the character & role of Galadriel. We may learn a lot about Tolkien by bringing Mary into our reading, but we won't learn much about Middle earth. We won't actually learn that much about Galadriel, either.

Letter 144:

Myth & fairy story must, as all art, reflect & contain in solution elements of moral & religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world.

Having said all that, its difficult to seperate the creator from his creation, & Lilith may have been in the back (or even the front) of his mind when he was writing this passage - we'll probably never know.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I think while we are reading the story we should try & leave behind primary world ideas & symbols - otherwise we risk having the spell broken. While reading the story Shelob should only be 'an evil thing in spider form' & Sam's method of dispatching her bring to mind things like the Turin/Glaurung & Earendel/Ungoliant battles.

Once we step outside the secondary world we can analyse it all as much as we want - though in that case we are doing what Tolkien condemned - breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, dismantling the tower to find out wherre the stones originally came from.

This is the real 'Freudian' approach which we're all (myself as much as, or even more than, others, I sometimes feel) in danger of falling into. The Freudian approach is essentially backward looking, asking 'what caused this, what is this made of?' The alternative, which I suppose we can call the 'Jungian' approach, is to ask 'What is this for? 'Where is this going?' rather than 'Where did this come from?'
. . .

Having said all that, its difficult to seperate the creator from his creation, & Lilith may have been in the back (or even the front) of his mind when he was writing this passage - we'll probably never know.

I am writing this in haste, but I do want to get something posted in reply as soon as possible.

First of all, what is this 'breaking the spell' and who says Shelob should only be a 'an evil thing in spider form'? And who says this approach is merely an archeology to determine original intent?

It seems to me impossible to dictate a right way and a wrong way of reading, first of all. Yes, some books do have ways to be read which are more rewarding than others, and some readings do become dead ends, but all in all reading is a creative process as well as writing, and why dictate that some things must be held off? Why must the right reading be a naive or virginal always 'first' reading that denies any other reading experience?

Possibly I put this entire discussion at odds with my joking reference to Fordim and his anti-Freudian take. (Hmm. Fordim, Freudim. ) And I subsequently framed my points poorly by suggesting Tolkien's own knowledge of mythology. However, I did say initially that I don't know if Tolkien was familiar with the Lilith legends. And knowing me, you all ought to know by now that I don't think it necessarily important whether we can objectively ascertain that he did or not.

What matters to me is the possibilities for plenitude which the text holds out. I cannot separate Tolkien's wonderful depiction of Shelob from my knowlege of other reading: too many points are similar for there not to be some fruitful going forth here. I have already hinted at where my reading goes. The text, for me, enacts a story as old as the earliest narratives. That story bears upon the roles of characters here, especially Galadriel, Eowyn, Arwen, but not them alone. I leave it now for others to read my text with plenitude.

[davem]

I suppose in a way I'm 'arguing' in order to keep the debate going - I think this chapter thread alreay has over three times the number of posts the previous one got.

I don't want to imply that your approach is 'wrong' in any objective sense. I can see 'external' references which were probably put in deliberately by Tolkien - the line 'His weariness was growing but his will hardened all the more.' does seem to echo the famous lines from the Battle of Maldon:"Heart shall be harder, strength the keener, spirit shall be the stronger, as our might lessens." I suspect Tolkien was deliberately referencing this verse, & would have expected any reader who knew the Anglo-Saxon poem to pick up on this. If he was aware of the Lilith legend maybe that was also in his mind, but I see little connection between Lilith & Shelob in their backstories, only a vague similarity in the way they are described. If you make that connection that says more about you than about anything Tolkien was doing, consciously or unconsciously. As we see with some of the 19th century mythographers, virtually any myth can be reduced to a 'solar' myth (I'm again influenced by something Flieger has referenced in her latest book!). I think we have to distingiush between what was in the author's mind (whether he or she was aware of it or not) & what is in our minds as we read. We may bring things to the our reading of the text - its probably inevitable that we do - but we have to keep those things seperate from what the author put in there. Yet

Myth & fairy story must, as all art, reflect & contain in solution elements of moral & religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world.

If the Lilith legend is an example of 'moral & religious truth (or error)' - ie if it has some 'archetypal' dimension or aspect then that may well have seeped in to the story Tolkien was writing without him realising it - or it may have been placed in there deliberately, as part of the 'consciously so in the revision' process. But either way it is not there 'in the known form of the primary 'real' world'. Shelob is not Lilith transported lock, stock & barrel to Middle earth, neither is Sam one of Beortnoth's retainers deliberately placed into that secondary world. What I mean is, if we take the approach Shelob=Lilith then we'll be neither in Middle earth, in the ancient Middle east, nor in our own 'primary' world, & our whole experience will crumble away before our eyes. Once we cloe the book & come back to our own world we can analyse & deconstruct to our hearts content, but while we're in Middle earth we have to let the story work on us, climb the Tower & look out on the sea. Within Middle earth at least Shelob is 'an evil thing in spider form', not a Middle eastern demon. In discussing The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe Flieger makes the point that when Aslan sacrifices himself in place of Edmund the story 'no longer has its own life but has been put in the service of another story.' I think this doesn't only happen when a writer deliberately writes allegory, but also when we bring too much of our own ideas & experiences to the stories we read - we put the story to to the service of 'another story' - our own.

Your turn....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

It seems to me impossible to dictate a right way and a wrong way of reading, first of all. Yes, some books do have ways to be read which are more rewarding than others, and some readings do become dead ends, but all in all reading is a creative process as well as writing, and why dictate that some things must be held off?

I agree that to read is a creative process, and we do bring to the text our own experience. I've said this before, but it fits in again with what is being said here. We all interpret what we read, and certain parts of a text will resonate more than others; to some extent, the readers construct meaning to a text. But this is not to say that what we read into the text is necessarily correct.

To take the current chapter as an example, I do not read Shelob as Lilith, rather I see her as an immense creature with all the nastier traits of female spiders magnified. To me, she is the ultimate in scary spiders. Relating her to non-arachnid comparisons, my own equivalent to what we see in Shelob would be the black hole, reducing matter to nothing (as Shelob does when she eats), indiscriminate in that she swallows anything just as a black hole does. Ungoliant, her mother, even swallows Light just as a black hole does.

The other example which I read differently is the passage about Sam challenging Shelob:

Sam did not wait to wonder what was to be done, or whether he was brave, or loyal, or filled with rage. He sprang forward with a yell, and seized his master's sword in his left hand. Then he charged. No onslaught more fierce was ever seen in the savage world of beasts, where some desperate small creature armed with little teeth, alone, will spring upon a tower of horn and hide that stands above its fallen mate.

Rather than suggest to me anything about Sam's feelings for Frodo, this instead seems to me to be a metaphor for Sam's courage. A small creature in comparison to Shelob, he is filled with rage as his companion lies apparently dead, and rage often does allow a small creature to launch a fierce attack on a much larger one. Here I see Tolkien bringing in a metaphor from the natural world to describe the ferocity and desperation of Sam's attack. This also serves to explain how Sam manages to pull off the deed. When I read this I often think of how a little cat when cornered by a big dog will suddenly transform from being a ball of fluff to a raging creature.

Just two examples of how the text might be seen differently. Much has also been said here of how Galadriel is equivalent to the virgin Mary, which is again something I do not pick up on. I can see why many parallels are drawn, and though I do not always agree with them, I do like to read what other people see. I suppose it would be impossible to always know exactly what Tolkien's intentions were, so we cannot expect to be reading the 'right' thing into the text all of the time.

From the other point of view, I can also see that it is not always good to delve too deeply; sometimes simple pleasure is what we ought to get from reading, to be carried along with the fantasy. I suppose that this is the danger with such in depth analysis as we have here, it is all too easy to spoil the pleasure of reading by extracting every last drop of meaning. I know for myself that to study literature brought me dangerously close to disliking reading altogether; it took me some years to shake off the theorising (funnily enough it was very much the fashion to look at texts from a Freudian perspective at the time, which is possibly why I dislike Freudian analysis of literature), and thankfully return to the simple pleasure of reading. Now I have a happy balance of being able to read for fun, and analyse when it suits me, and more importantly, find what meaning lies beneath a text for myself, and decide for myself if it is relevant. That's enjoyable, and why I like these discussions on the Downs - nobody is telling us we are wrong.




More on Shelob now... How did she come into being? That she does not have the greed for Light that her mother had, suggests that she was not as powerful as her mother, perhaps the offspring produced when Ungoliant mated with a lesser male?

Far and wide her lesser broods, bastards of the miserable mates, her own offspring, that she slew, spread from glen to glen, from the Ephel Duath to the eastern hills, to Dol Guldur and the fastnesses of Mirkwood.

From what is said about Shelob, she also mates, and her offspring have spread through Middle Earth. Do these males come seeking her, or am I correct to read into this that she could in fact have mated with her own offspring from time to time? It does seem that she killed, maybe even ate, her mates and her offspring.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Since a slowdown of the chapter discussions has been requested, I am postponing the next one for at least a week. You are cordially invited to continue posting on this thread or to catch up on previous ones. Thanks!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I suppose in a way I'm 'arguing' in order to keep the debate going - I think this chapter thread alreay has over three times the number of posts the previous one got.

I don't want to imply that your approach is 'wrong' in any objective sense. I can see 'external' references which were probably put in deliberately by Tolkien - the line 'His weariness was growing but his will hardened all the more.' does seem to echo the famous lines from the Battle of Maldon:"Heart shall be harder, strength the keener, spirit shall be the stronger, as our might lessens." I suspect Tolkien was deliberately referencing this verse, & would have expected any reader who knew the Anglo-Saxon poem to pick up on this. If he was aware of the Lilith legend maybe that was also in his mind, but I see little connection between Lilith & Shelob in their backstories, only a vague similarity in the way they are described. If you make that connection that says more about you than about anything Tolkien was doing, consciously or unconsciously. As we see with some of the 19th century mythographers, virtually any myth can be reduced to a 'solar' myth (I'm again influenced by something Flieger has referenced in her latest book!). I think we have to distingiush between what was in the author's mind (whether he or she was aware of it or not) & what is in our minds as we read. We may bring things to the our reading of the text - its probably inevitable that we do - but we have to keep those things seperate from what the author put in there. Yet

Quote:
Myth & fairy story must, as all art, reflect & contain in solution elements of moral & religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world.


If the Lilith legend is an example of 'moral & religious truth (or error)' - ie if it has some 'archetypal' dimension or aspect then that may well have seeped in to the story Tolkien was writing without him realising it - or it may have been placed in there deliberately, as part of the 'consciously so in the revision' process. But either way it is not there 'in the known form of the primary 'real' world'. Shelob is not Lilith transported lock, stock & barrel to Middle earth, neither is Sam one of Beortnoth's retainers deliberately placed into that secondary world. What I mean is, if we take the approach Shelob=Lilith then we'll be neither in Middle earth, in the ancient Middle east, nor in our own 'primary' world, & our whole experience will crumble away before our eyes. Once we cloe the book & come back to our own world we can analyse & deconstruct to our hearts content, but while we're in Middle earth we have to let the story work on us, climb the Tower & look out on the sea. Within Middle earth at least Shelob is 'an evil thing in spider form', not a Middle eastern demon. In discussing The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe Flieger makes the point that when Aslan sacrifices himself in place of Edmund the story 'no longer has its own life but has been put in the service of another story.' I think this doesn't only happen when a writer deliberately writes allegory, but also when we bring too much of our own ideas & experiences to the stories we read - we put the story to to the service of 'another story' - our own.

Your turn....

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But this is not to say that what we read into the text is necessarily correct.

To take the current chapter as an example, I do not read Shelob as Lilith, rather I see her as an immense creature with all the nastier traits of female spiders magnified. To me, she is the ultimate in scary spiders. Relating her to non-arachnid comparisons, my own equivalent to what we see in Shelob would be the black hole, reducing matter to nothing (as Shelob does when she eats), indiscriminate in that she swallows anything just as a black hole does. Ungoliant, her mother, even swallows Light just as a black hole does.

The other example which I read differently is the passage about Sam challenging Shelob:

Quote:
Sam did not wait to wonder what was to be done, or whether he was brave, or loyal, or filled with rage. He sprang forward with a yell, and seized his master's sword in his left hand. Then he charged. No onslaught more fierce was ever seen in the savage world of beasts, where some desperate small creature armed with little teeth, alone, will spring upon a tower of horn and hide that stands above its fallen mate.


Rather than suggest to me anything about Sam's feelings for Frodo, this instead seems to me to be a metaphor for Sam's courage.

. . . .
I suppose it would be impossible to always know exactly what Tolkien's intentions were, so we cannot expect to be reading the 'right' thing into the text all of the time.

From the other point of view, I can also see that it is not always good to delve too deeply; sometimes simple pleasure is what we ought to get from reading, to be carried along with the fantasy. I suppose that this is the danger with such in depth analysis as we have here, it is all too easy to spoil the pleasure of reading by extracting every last drop of meaning. I know for myself that to study literature brought me dangerously close to disliking reading altogether; it took me some years to shake off the theorising (funnily enough it was very much the fashion to look at texts from a Freudian perspective at the time, which is possibly why I dislike Freudian analysis of literature), and thankfully return to the simple pleasure of reading. Now I have a happy balance of being able to read for fun, and analyse when it suits me, and more importantly, find what meaning lies beneath a text for myself, and decide for myself if it is relevant. That's enjoyable, and why I like these discussions on the Downs - nobody is telling us we are wrong.

Hmm. Let me point out that I have not made any kind of bald "Shelob=Lilith" equation such as both davem and Lalwendë assert. I praise Tolkien for not writing the kind of allegorical equations such as Lewis did in the Narnia series. I have simply suggested a conceptual framework in which to consider the character of Shelob. Nor did I say anything about Sam's feelings for Frodo when I quoted the "fallen mate" passage. I was discussing collocation of words.

I have yet to see any argument which convinces me that we must "stay in Middle-earth" as we read or risk destroying the truth. Where does one determine when reading/interpretation takes place--in the moment of reading or when one closes the book? It is, I posit, logically impossible to postulate such a split. Interpretation of meaning is an always ongoing process, not start and stop, for we are always reading ahead, to imagine where this leads, how the characters inter-relate.

But as for what an author can 'put in' or not, let me give a long quotation, as I know davem loves long quotations. It is about Shakespeare, so I suppose I am having a little bit of fun about Tolkien's opinion of the Bard. Because the idea belongs to George Steiner, I am going to use his words. And because this isn't Freudian, perhaps Lalwendë will forgive me for delving too deeply. Like Aiwendil, I do not believe that good art can be destroyed by too much thought.

First, let me quote the passage which Steiner discusses. It is Postumous's rant about the perfidious nature of women when he thinks that Imogen has betrayed him with Iachimo. Act II of Cymbeline.

Me of my lawful pleasure she restrain'd,
And pray'd me ofte forbearance: did it with
A pudency so rosy the sweet view on't
Might well have warm'd old Saturn; that I thought her
As chaste as unsunn'd snow. Oh, all the devils!
This yellow Iachimo, in an hour, was't not?
Or less; at first? Perchance he spoke not, but
Like a full-acorn'd boar, a German one,
Cried 'O!' and mounted; found no opposition
But what he look'd for should oppose and she
Should from encounter guard. Could I find out
That woman's part in me--for there's no motion
That tends to vice in man, but I affirm
It is the woman's part: be it lying, note it,
The woman's: flattering, hers; deceiving, hers:
Lust, and rank thoughts, hers: revenge, hers:
Ambitious, covetings, change of prides, disdain,
Nice longings, slanders, mutability;
All faults that name, nay that hell knows, why hers
In part, or all: but rather all. For even to vice
They are not constant, but are changing still;

Steiner's close reading (part of his argument that all language interpretation is essentially translation, even in the same language) begins by considering what the meanings of some of these words might have been in 1611. It the phrase 'yellow Iachimo' which is the most interesting. Here's what Steiner has to say:

Yellow Iachimo is arresting. The aura of nastiness is distinct. But what is being inferred? Though 'green' is the more usual appurtenance of jealousy, Middleton in 1602 uses yellow to mean 'affected with jealousy.' Shakespeare does likewise in The Winter's Tale, a play contemporary with Cymbeline, and in The Merry Wifes of Windsor (I.iii) 'yellowness' stands for 'jealousy' (could there be a false etymology somewhere in the background, associating the two words?) Iachomo is jealous, of Posthumus's nobility, of Posthumus's good fortune in enjoying the love and fidelity of Imogen. But does Posthumus know this, or does the dramatic strength of the epithet lie precisely in the fact that it exceeds Posthumus's conscious insight? Much later, and with American overtones, yellow will come to express both cowardice and mendacity--the 'yellow' press. Thought these two nuances are beautifully apposite to Iachimo, neither was, so far as we can tell, available to Shakespeare. What latent undertones in the word and colour give rise to subsequent, negative usage? Shakespeare at times seems to 'hear' inside a word or phrase the history of its future echoes.

I would suggest that Tolkien, as much a genius as Shakespeare in his own way, was able to hear inside mythology its latent echoes. It is like a tree falling in the forest. Who is there to catch that echo? No, no, not a personal imposition of "our own stories."

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

I have yet to see any argument which convinces me that we must "stay in Middle-earth" as we read or risk destroying the truth. Where does one determine when reading/interpretation takes place--in the moment of reading or when one closes the book? It is, I posit, logically impossible to postulate such a split. Interpretation of meaning is an always ongoing process, not start and stop, for we are always reading ahead, to imagine where this leads, how the characters inter-relate.

Does this only apply to fiction, or to 'non-fiction' as well - say, for example, the posts on this particular thread? Is it not possible to read other's posts without imposing our own individual - even idiosyncratic - 'reading' on them?

I mean, should we even bother trying to understand what the poster intended or should we simply take whatever 'meaning' we as individual readers happen to find in it...

Having said that, I do begin to wonder if Tolkien was able to foresee the way certain words would develop new or even alternate meanings - he did make a lot of use of the words 'gay' & 'queer' after all.....

[Lalwendë]

Shakespeare at times seems to 'hear' inside a word or phrase the history of its future echoes.

This is a fanciful. It does not seek to understand what the author intended, it simply notes odd word usage and makes links to today's language. It is about curiosities of linguistics, about changes in language, not about what the author intended. We can go looking through older texts for odd turns of phrase which have different meanings today and we could find them by the score, and that's interesting. But it tells us nothing about what the author meant when he or she used that word or phrase. It satisifes our own interpretations, but that's as far as it goes.

This is why I do not like much literary criticism or analysis, as it seems to me that the critic is simply pulling apart a text to find what they want to find. I want to know what the author intended, I don't want to reconstruct a text for myself, for my own meaning.

There are many echoes in Tolkien's work, but it is also important to bear in mind what Tolkien himself may have learned, experienced or thought about. If it was simply not possible that he could consider a matter then it is not possible it could pass into his writing, and when I come across an odd word or phrase which seems to have alternate meanings I stop to consider if that could be the case. It's often interesting to bring up such alternate and arresting meanings and consider them, but ultimately it is unsatisfying as to getting towards the deeper meaning. Sometimes what we find in a text says more about us than it does about the author.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Does this only apply to fiction, or to 'non-fiction' as well - say, for example, the posts on this particular thread? Is it not possible to read other's posts without imposing our own individual - even idiosyncratic - 'reading' on them?

I mean, should we even bother trying to understand what the poster intended or should we simply take whatever 'meaning' we as individual readers happen to find in it...

Having said that, I do begin to wonder if Tolkien was able to foresee the way certain words would develop new or even alternate meanings - he did make a lot of use of the words 'gay' & 'queer' after all.....

davem, you are being particularly naughty here. Steiner's observation was,

these two nuances are beautifully apposite to Iachimo

Are you saying the same about 'gay' and 'queer'? (Rhetorical question--you needn't answer obviously. )

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This is a fanciful. It does not seek to understand what the author intended, it simply notes odd word usage and makes links to today's language. It is about curiosities of linguistics, about changes in language, not about what the author intended. We can go looking through older texts for odd turns of phrase which have different meanings today and we could find them by the score, and that's interesting. But it tells us nothing about what the author meant when he or she used that word or phrase. It satisifes our own interpretations, but that's as far as it goes.

This is why I do not like much literary criticism or analysis, as it seems to me that the critic is simply pulling apart a text to find what they want to find. I want to know what the author intended, I don't want to reconstruct a text for myself, for my own meaning.

This is your preference and of course you are entitled to it. It does not really well describe what Steiner is getting at here, as he is not one of these wild post modernists, but if you wish to characterise literary scholars--and remember that Tolkien was one--this way, that is your right here.

But this is bringing us back to the topic of the Canonicity thread and far away from the Chapter by Chapter reading thread, and so I would like to return to some specific comments about this chapter.

I would like to consider lmp's question about Gollem.

Originally Posted by littlmanpoet

But where is Gollum? Hiding? Fallen? Why is he not anywhere to be found at this point, considering that he shows up again later?

It seems to me that Gollem's hand is played out in the preceeding chapter, having led Frodo to Shelob in the great betrayal and then having failed to get the best of Sam. Gollem slinks off, essentially demonstrating his coward-like characteristics.

In terms of plot, though, Gollem cannot stay around, for he could have turned matters against Sam. The battle must, in dramatic terms, be between Sam and Shelob alone. Nor would it suit Gollem's plans to call the Orcs in, for he has no say with them. He wants the Ring. I don't want to look ahead too far, but don't we need him offstage so we don't dwell on his betrayal? This makes his final appearance at Mount Doom all that much more powerful I think as unexpected drama.

Better for Gollem to withdraw and regroup methinks and better for the very dramatic eucatastrophe at the end. Any other thoughts?