![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#11 | ||||
Wight of the Old Forest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall
Posts: 3,329
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
More nice comments by everybody. We certainly don't have to keep this focused on Sauron and Frodo exclusively, and I agree that Gollum makes a much better example for D's theory than Sauron - Frodo under the influence of the Ring is in serious danger of becoming Gollum, much more than he is of becoming Sauron; which is precisely what enables him to understand and pity Gollum.
About the character development thing - yes, I think D has a very strong point here. Generally, in the literature of adventure, characters are studied and developed through action rather than introspective analysis, but in fantasy, everything that happens, everything a character does or encounters is, or can become, characterization - even scenery: think of Aragorn under the Argonath, or Gimli and the Glittering Caves. Boro does a nice job applying the theory to Boromir (as could be expected ![]() Morth, while I agree that Frodo certainly didn't lust for power the way Sauron did, I'm not so sure he utterly lacked a will or need to dominate - nor the capacity, even though in him this was much more limited than in Sauron, or e.g. Gandalf or even Aragorn. There are a few interesting moments in Frodo's interaction with Gollum, starting in Book IV, The Taming of Sméagol: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Morsul lays his finger on what I feel to be the main flaw with applying D's theory to LotR (literally, at least): Quote:
(This is going on really nicely, thanks to everybody for contributing!)
__________________
Und aus dem Erebos kamen viele seelen herauf der abgeschiedenen toten.- Homer, Odyssey, Canto XI |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |