Nobility in the books - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Rhod the Red · 05-10-2006, 06:23 AM

Thank you Legolas. Now, back to the topic. Tuor of Gondolin & Anguirel, do you have anything to say in reply to me?

tom bombariffic · 05-10-2006, 11:20 AM

Thanks legolas, the first was the exact quote I had been thinking of. Hats off to you, sir!

And Rhod,

Quote:

Now, back to the topic. Tuor of Gondolin & Anguirel, do you have anything to say in reply to me?

Personally I dont think anyone will agree with you that Elessar was a tryrant, because tyranny denotes cruelty and oppression. Nowadays we have a tendency to view any individual ruler as having too much power, but in Tolkien's time there wasn't such opposition to royalty, and even he was looking back to a time when kings and lords were celebrated, as various people have argued above.

bombariffic

Legolas · 05-10-2006, 02:15 PM

I think Rhod is calling Aragorn a tyrant in the most neutral, factual sense.

By tyrant, I do not think that negative connotations are intended. A tyrant is "an absolute ruler who governs without restrictions" (www.dictionary.com); not always an oppressive dictator, one who abuses power and treats others with cruelty.

tom bombariffic · 05-10-2006, 04:58 PM

Huh, I suppose it depends which dictionary you read - my heinemann and OED both specify "cruelty" as a trait. Anyway, this is turning into a bit of a moot, sorry I got it all bogged down in semantics. Hoom hoom.

For me, the key factor here is that Tolkien is writing a folklore as if it was an ancient text , and is making it as realistic as possible - very little ancient literature of this sort would dare question a king, because it would result in the poet waking up very very dead, if for no other reason. Unless it was a foreign enemy king, but then they would not be endowed with Aragorn's valour and loyalty beforehand.

Finally, this is sort of stating the obvious, but it's useful to remember that The Lord Of The Rings is - supposedly - taken from Frodo's account of his own journey there and back again. Frodo is unlikely to be at all critical of Aragorn, and Tolkien is equally unlikely to distort what is written in the Red Book.

bombariffic

Thinlómien · 05-11-2006, 01:33 AM

I'd rather call Aragorn a sovereign than a tyrant...

Lalaith · 05-11-2006, 03:49 AM

On the topic of English folklore and myth, and Tolkien's attempt to create a "better" one...
There is definitely an 'everyman' tradition in real English folklore. (Put that in your pipe and

it, Ang, you naughty newbie teaser...) I'm thinking of Jack the Giant Killer, which everyone always points to as the 'classic English' fairy story. Is that the sort of chap-book stuff Tolkien didn't like, I wonder?

And as for Norse literature, which tombombariffic has already mentioned...heredity was I believe even more important than in comparable Mediterranean or Asian works. Every time a new major character is brought into a saga, the first thing you learn about him is his geneaology, going back several generations, this is an essential part of who he was. Sometimes of course heredity could go horribly wrong: the villain of Njalssaga, Mordr Valgardsson, had the most impressive roster of Viking ancestors anyone could wish for. And yet he was an underhand scheming toad.
Also, despite the heredity obsession, Viking society was, as it still is, relatively egalitarian. And Anglo Saxon kings were not usually selected by primogeniture, but by council.
So a Tolkienesque emphasis on lineage doesn't necessarily mean "divine right of kings."
So what is my overall point? I'm not really sure myself, but as for the charge of Tolkien being 'elitist', the verdict seems to me to be the Scottish 'not proven'.

05-10-2006, 06:23 AM	#1
Rhod the Red Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: May 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 257	Giving Thanks Thank you Legolas. Now, back to the topic. Tuor of Gondolin & Anguirel, do you have anything to say in reply to me? __________________ Head of the Fifth Order of the Istari Tenure: Fourth Age(Year 1) - Present Currently operating in Melbourne, Australia

05-10-2006, 02:15 PM	#3
Legolas A Northern Soul Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Valinor Posts: 1,847	I think Rhod is calling Aragorn a tyrant in the most neutral, factual sense. By tyrant, I do not think that negative connotations are intended. A tyrant is "an absolute ruler who governs without restrictions" (www.dictionary.com); not always an oppressive dictator, one who abuses power and treats others with cruelty. __________________ ...take counsel with thyself, and remember who and what thou art.

05-10-2006, 04:58 PM	#4
tom bombariffic Wight Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: In the house of Tom Bombariffic Posts: 196	Huh, I suppose it depends which dictionary you read - my heinemann and OED both specify "cruelty" as a trait. Anyway, this is turning into a bit of a moot, sorry I got it all bogged down in semantics. Hoom hoom. For me, the key factor here is that Tolkien is writing a folklore as if it was an ancient text , and is making it as realistic as possible - very little ancient literature of this sort would dare question a king, because it would result in the poet waking up very very dead, if for no other reason. Unless it was a foreign enemy king, but then they would not be endowed with Aragorn's valour and loyalty beforehand. Finally, this is sort of stating the obvious, but it's useful to remember that The Lord Of The Rings is - supposedly - taken from Frodo's account of his own journey there and back again. Frodo is unlikely to be at all critical of Aragorn, and Tolkien is equally unlikely to distort what is written in the Red Book. bombariffic __________________ The 'hum' generated by an electric car is not in fact the noise of the engine, but that of the driver's self-righteousness oscillating at a high frequency.

05-11-2006, 01:33 AM	#5
Thinlómien Shady She-Penguin Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In a far land beyond the Sea Posts: 8,093	I'd rather call Aragorn a sovereign than a tyrant... __________________ Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer Blood is running deep, some things never sleep Double Fenris

05-11-2006, 03:49 AM	#6
Lalaith Blithe Spirit Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,779	On the topic of English folklore and myth, and Tolkien's attempt to create a "better" one... There is definitely an 'everyman' tradition in real English folklore. (Put that in your pipe and it, Ang, you naughty newbie teaser...) I'm thinking of Jack the Giant Killer, which everyone always points to as the 'classic English' fairy story. Is that the sort of chap-book stuff Tolkien didn't like, I wonder? And as for Norse literature, which tombombariffic has already mentioned...heredity was I believe even more important than in comparable Mediterranean or Asian works. Every time a new major character is brought into a saga, the first thing you learn about him is his geneaology, going back several generations, this is an essential part of who he was. Sometimes of course heredity could go horribly wrong: the villain of Njalssaga, Mordr Valgardsson, had the most impressive roster of Viking ancestors anyone could wish for. And yet he was an underhand scheming toad. Also, despite the heredity obsession, Viking society was, as it still is, relatively egalitarian. And Anglo Saxon kings were not usually selected by primogeniture, but by council. So a Tolkienesque emphasis on lineage doesn't necessarily mean "divine right of kings." So what is my overall point? I'm not really sure myself, but as for the charge of Tolkien being 'elitist', the verdict seems to me to be the Scottish 'not proven'. __________________ Out went the candle, and we were left darkling