Tolkien and Rowling on death; Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo death/resurrection; news and commentary
Update for iTunes subscribers: I upgraded my podpress software, and in the process there was a bug that kept iTunes from learning there was a new podcast. The bug should be fixed, and the podcast should be available through iTunes very soon.
You can subscribe to the Hog’s Head PubCast through iTunes, and VOTE for The Hog’s Head for the month of February at Podcast Alley.
Pub Menu
- Portus 2008!
- HP Progs
- ‘LOTR’ Orcs and Hobbits Take Studio to Court
- The Catholic Imagination of J.R.R. Tolkien
- Quoth the Maven
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Red Rocker on 
Travis Prinzi on 
PotterMom05 on 
Joivre on 
Loading ...
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Another great podcast, Travis. I’ll have to take some time to process it.
One preliminary comment, though. The idea of hero in the story. There’s a vast difference, as you noted in passing, between Frodo & Harry. Frodo struggles forward, through doubts & fear, struggling under the burden of what is as close to ultimate evil as possible in this world, the lure of the ring. And at the end of the struggle he stands on the precipice of success and… fails utterly. But the quest succeeds because of the operation of grace & mercy.
Harry struggles forward, too, bearing a burden of destiny & great evil constantly pursuing him. He’s torn down & built up throughout the series, & finally stands on the precipice of success and…succeeds.
Here’s my question: Why? Love? Or the machinations of Dumbledore? Or pity for Voldemort or a desire to give him a chance? Harry knew full well he could’ve AK’d LV & it would work because all of LV’s horcruxes were gone, but he uses expelliarmus, without knowing whether it’d work or not.
So, the whole idea of hero seems to be different from Tolkien to Rowling, in that in LOTR the heroes are always fighting hopeless battles & succeeding based on divine providence fueled by mercy. Whereas in HP, the heroes are fighting against long odds but succeeding because all the pieces fall into place.
Maybe I’m missing the connection or not expressing it clearly. So, just some thoughts & questions. Nothing big, you know.
revgeorge,
I haven’t had the chance to listen to the podcast yet, but your comment caught my attention.
Do you think that Harry could have killed Voldemort? I don’t mean in the sense of whether he was physically or magically capable of it. I mean in the sense of him as our boy-hero, and the kind of person we know him to be, and how we would have looked at him afterwards, if he had killed.
I know we’ve had endless debates about the need to kill during a war, to take life in order to save lives. But that was not Harry’s way. Harry’s way was to offer his own life. And even after Voldemort had killed him, he had pity for the stunted piece of him he found in King’s Cross. He would have helped him, had he known how.
And at the very end, when he has every reason to kill Voldemort, he refrains. He gives him a chance: repent, I know how bad your future is going to be if you don’t stop this.
I’m not saying Harry’s a saint. But he acted pretty near saintly once he knew what he had to do, didn’t he? Almost Christlike, would you not say?
Frodo, on the other hand, reminds me of the martyrs. He has no power, except to suffer.
Two completely different kinds of characters entirely.
reyhan,
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I’m not saying Harry would’ve killed LV. But I think Harry knew he could’ve done so if he wanted to. That he refrained speaks to all you have said about him.
As for the martyrs having no power except that to suffer, I think you’ve underestimated what martyrdom entails. The power of a martyr is not in their suffering but in their confession of faith against all the powers of the world which seek to force them to recant. Suffering is not what defines a martyr; anybody can suffer. Confessing the faith & suffering for it when one doesn’t have to, that is martyrdom.
As for different characters, yes, I’d say they are. I’d even say Frodo has the harder job. Harry struggles against something that can be defeated; it’s just really really hard. Frodo struggles with something you can’t battle physically. His battle deals with the spiritual level. Frodo struggles with something that can never be killed, i.e. temptation.
revgeorge, good points and questions. That Harry could not use AK at the end was brilliantly set up by Rowling with the basic fact that he’s already used Imperio and Crucio. Would he use the third? That was the big question. He chose expelliarmus.
I think Harry did know that expelliarmus would work. I don’t think he had a doubt in his mind. I think readers are still reeling from that final showdown, because it’s the first time in 7 books that Harry knew more than we did. We’ve been discovering things either with or before Harry for 6.9 books now, and suddenly he has the entire Elder Wand mystery worked out before we do. He knew expelliarmus would work, because he knew that AK with the Elder Wand would not work against its true master, Harry.
Rowling set us up to take this fall brilliantly, too. We had just spent a whole chapter yelling at Harry, “IT’S IN THE ROOM OF REQUIREMENT, YOU IDIOT!!!” as he ran around tracking down ghosts. Suddenly, Harry was a step ahead of us.
So that brings up another question – is there really a difference in using AK vs. expelliarmus if Harry knew it would kill Voldemort anyway? Symbollically, I think the answer is yes. Ultimately, Voldemort was killed by his own attempt at murder. Voldemort had to be defeated, of course. But Harry’s use of the killing curse shows the fundamental difference between Harry and Voldemort.
I’ve drifted away from your questions, but I had to get those thoughts out….anyway, yes, it comes down to two fundamentally different heroes. Frodo’s entire quest and its resolution is far more nuanced, and in many ways, realistic than Harry’s, I think. For Rowling, Harry is “just good.”
Actually, Travis, only 14% of SoG regulars agree with you that Harry is “just good”.
I for one disagree. Not that he’s good, but that he’s “just” good. To me the word “just” reeks of predestination and simplicity, and lack of conflict or struggle with one’s baser emotions. To me it says that goodness comes easily to Harry. And that’s just not fair.
The boy struggles – to understand, to know what the right thing to do is, to overcome the emotions which drive him in other directions. He grows in his understanding – and maturity, of course – until at King’s Cross he’s got the whole thing pretty near worked out, and can even forgive his duplicitious mentor, Dumbledore, for all of his sins of omission.
Don’t know what you’ve been reading, but that sounds pretty nuanced to me.
Frodo’s quest is a lot bigger than he is, unlike Harry’s. Frodo’s quest is to destroy the ring. Harry’s quest, once he understands it, is to destroy himself. We’ve talked about this before: one story is an archetypal epic; the other a personal tale of sacrifice, death and resurrection.
How do you reach the conclusion that Frodo dragging his sorry self fom one end of Middle-Earth to
the other is more realistic than Harry growing into knowledge and the power that knowledge brings?
Whoah. Ok, lots of clarifying to do here.
First, I agree with you that Harry is not “just good.” I was quoting Rowling herself there. I think Rowling’s wrong. Of course, so does she, as she’s said elsewhere that Harry is flawed “like Snape.” Which may just mean she chose bad wording when she inserted “just,” but she seemed pretty adamant about it at the time.
Second, I think I need to be clearer: I think Frodo’s overall quest and its euchatastrophe represents the messy-ness of life better than Harry’s growth to the point of courageous defeat over evil. In other words, I think we fail more often than not, and that the forces “other than evil” that are “at work in this world” come through for us in those moments.
I think “far more nuanced” was too strong. “More nuanced” is better. Really, they’re just different, and maybe “nuanced” wasn’t the right word at all. I’m more of a fan of archetypal literature, so perhaps I’m just drawn to Tolkien’s good vs. evil portrayal just a bit more than Rowling’s. Although after reading Purtill, I’m much less inclined to think of Tolkien’s work as “archetypal” and find that his characters are much deeper and more complex than I initially thought.
The reality is I’m biased, because I’m much more Frodo than Harry. I wish I could do what Harry did; I’m much more apt to do what Frodo did.
I mean, I’m sorry for Frodo and all, but in the end, what is he but a man with an itch he dare not scratch?
Which is realistic enough, I guess, although not very heroic.
After having written that, I looked up Romantic hero in Wikipedia, and imagine my surprise when I ran into Harry Potter as a modern example of the Romantic hero. And looking further, ran into Frodo (and Bilbo) as modern examples of the reluctant hero.
I prefer Romantic to reluctant.
I prefer Romantic to reluctant.
Well, there you have it. I prefer reluctant to romantic. Difference of preference
Frodo is far more than “a man with an itch he dare not scratch.” He’s a hobbit, who’s never known anything outside of the Shire, who takes the worst of all evil upon himself to the fires of Mordor, and is there saved from his greatest failure by his own greatest act of mercy.
Well, I’m glad you two got everything worked out before I had to respond.
As you may have noticed, I too prefer reluctant hero to romantic hero. But that doesn’t mean I love Harry & his story any less.
I perhaps prefer Frodo, even though he may not be as fully fleshed out a character as Harry, because Frodo actually struggles with temptations.
Harry never really does. He struggles, yes, but not with the temptation to fall away from goodness. He never goes to the dark side, not once, as DD notes. He always remains the hero, even when he’s doing all his yelling in OOTP.
Frodo, on the other hand, does not remain the hero; he falls, but then is redeemed. He’s the Luke Skywalker of LOTR.
Harry, though he may always undergo the alchemical process of dying & rising to life again in each book, never really has to be redeemed.
I must confess, I have little patience for Frodo. But even less patience for everyone else at the Concil of Elrond: did none of those great men and dwarves and elves and wizards have the wherewithal to step up to the plate? The relief with which they greet Frodo’s offer is palpable – and shameful.
And then the abandonment of Frodo post Lorien, Aragorn’s self-serving logic as to why he should track Merry and Pippin rather than the one carrying the destiny of Middle Earth around his neck.
Plot requirements, I know. But they carry a strong sense of destiny or doom – it doesn’t seem to much matter what anyone wants, what will be will be.
Whereas Harry has a choice every step of the way. As does Voldemort. Voldemort chooses to make Harry into his nemesis. Harry chooses to challenge Voldemort – repeatedly. And at the end he makes three great choices: to die to save the world from evil; to return to the world to finish his task; and to give his enemy one last chance so he won’t literally go to hell.
I think we can all be thankful for Middle-Earth that Iluvatar had more patience with Frodo than reyhan would have
But I’m just as guilty. At the end of Half-Blood Prince, I told many of my friends and family, “I don’t really care what happens to Harry himself, because I don’t much care for him.” Deathly Hallows changed that for me.
I’m desperately in need of a re-read of LOTR, but I never saw those things as mere “plot requirements.” And the fact that it’s Frodo, and not some great warrior, who chooses to carry the ring, is sort of the point. Tolkien says LOTR is fundamentally concerned with the exaltation of humility.
Paging Matthew and Mary Jo – we need a few more Tolkien experts in this one…
revgeorge, that’s exactly it. Harry is never even believably tempted to the Dark Side; Dumbledore is adamant about that. Frodo goes farther than anyone would ever imagine a hobbit could go, “completely expends himself there” (Tolkien…though the quote might be a bit loose), and is saved by mercy. Like I said, I’m much more like Frodo than Harry. Lord knows we need more Harrys. But Lord also knows there are a lot of Frodos among us.
reyhan,
It’s obvious that we’re not going to agree on this. Which is fine, since it’s not the first time.
But I do want to put in a little apologia for LOTR. Frodo did have choices, too, as did Boromir & all the other great ones at the council. The great ones, to quote Dirty Harry, knew their limitations. They knew the ring spoke to a man’s deepest cravings, even twisting his desires to do good. As Gandalf said, the temptation of the ring to him was through pity & mercy. Galadriel’s temptation was for defense & the preservation of her race. It was only those who did not desire dominion over others that the ring had less power over, but even then it eventually would corrupt them.
As for destiny & plot devices, well, Voldemort never had any choices either. Why? Because Jo made him that way. She drew LV as such a despicable, corrupt, unredeemable character that at the end it kind of rung hollow for me for there now to be a possibility for him to repent.
Same way with the Slytherins in general. Jo kept insisting that not all of them were bad. Yet we’re never given a chance to see otherwise. Slughorn is the only one we really see in a little different light & he doesn’t come off as likable. And when Slytherins are shown in a good light it’s by going against the nature of their character. I think it was Rachael from Snapecast who said that Snape doesn’t really redeem Slytherin house, he just turns out to be a Gryffindor in hiding.
In the end, though, I think we’re comparing apples to oranges.
In the end, though, I think we’re comparing apples to oranges.
And I think that’s probably quite true, as has been emphasized throughout. There are a lot of thematic similarities, and they both address many of the same questions. In the podcast, I tried to avoid saying that one was “better than” or “more X than” another on a particular issue (I can’t remember if I succeeded in that or not), but I didn’t manage to do that in the comments, hence our present discussion.
But it’s still a good one, and it’s important to think about the differences in the way they tackle their themes and even debate which is better, perhaps. But in the end, I’m glad we have both.
Travis,
Excellent points in your one post above. Frodo is much more of an everyman figure than Harry is. Harry is, as Reyhan pointed out, a Christ like figure. Which we need, of course, since none of us would be saved without Christ. But Frodo is much more like us, saved only by grace in the end.
I think the problem we may be running into is that we’re trying to pit one against the other. As I so often tell my congregation members in regard to matters of faith & life, the answer to most questions is not “either/or” it’s “both/and.”
Well, all this Tolkien talk has inspired me to watch the animated LOTR again. So, I’ll be busy for awhile.
reyhan,
I’m not really with you on your assessment of the Council of Elrond and the motivations of Aragorn. Frodo was the only one who took up the main mission and the other were companions who were free to bail out when they wanted EXCEPT Boromir and Aragorn. They were both going to Minas Tirith from the outset. The prophetic dream that Faramir had on occasions and Boromir had once about “Seek the Sword that was broken…” was taken by Aragorn as a summons to war and to strive with Sauron for the mastery. His decision to not chase after Frodo was made initially beacuse Frodo was not in any immediate peril and Merry and Pippin had no other help available to them. Plus Boromir had put him under a geas to save Minas Tirith. I think he came to the decision early that his best way of helping Frodo was to draw Sauron’s attention from his own boarders. I don’t see this as self-seeking but extremely selfless.
“did none of those great men and dwarves and elves and wizards have the wherewithal to step up to the plate? The relief with which they greet Frodo’s offer is palpable – and shameful.”
Yes they did, Aragorn, Gandalf, Gimli, Legolas and 4 hobbits all step up to the plate. Elrond said taking the Ring to Mordor was such a huge and difficult task that no-one could lay it on another but since Frodo offered to take it up why should they not relieved. They don’t just say “thanks Frodo, see you when you get back” but offer they best help they can.
reyhan, you seem quite upset about Tolkien from time to time. Other times you’re not. What’s the beef?
Matthew
Travis, The pubcast was great. You appear to have sorted all the sound issues out too.
You seemed to be refreshed with the coffee and not all slarmy and slurred like you normally are with that filthy elderflower stuff you get from Aberforth.
Here’s some more info about New Line and the Tolkien Estate.
revgeorge,
How’d Bakshi’s effort sit with you again? Glad to have scary Nazgul again?
Or is Anthony Daniel’s voice for Legolas reminding you too much of CP3-0?
Matthew
Matthew,
Bakshi’s effort still sits well with me. Sure, stuff was left out but nothing was unnecessarily changed to fit the director’s ‘vision.’ I wish Bakshi was the one who had gone on & did the animated ROTK. Ah well!
Yes, it is nice to have scary Nazgul again! The music they put together for the Nazgul is just chilling. About the only scene with the Nazgul in Jackson’s LOTR was when they were attacking the hobbit’s empty beds in Bree. Reminded me of the Bakshi version.
No, Daniel’s voice for Legolas isn’t bothering me too much. Although some of the facial expressions for Legolas, & well, for all the characters, are pretty comical at times.
I also like how the movie weaves in the way the ring tempts people to use it for good & would thus corrupt & twist those good desires in the end into power & dominion. The Rankin/Bass ROTK did that too, showing Samwise the Gardener conquering the hosts of Mordor.
Great stuff. It’s amazing what people can do when they actually stick to the vision of the books. But I guessed we’ve hashed out that argument pretty well. Oh well.
I have not seen the animated ROTK. Never even seen it available.
THe parts of Jackson’s version that most reminded me of Bakshi’s were when the hobbits were hiding next to the road from the black rider and Frodo was fighting the urge to put the ring on. Also, the bolster bashing and stabbing by the Nazgul in the Prancing Pony and the bridge of Khazad Dum.
I loved Bakshi’s interpretation of the Nazgul- deformed, grotesque and menacing. Reminded me of Lewis’ description of the White Witch’s minions after the Stone Table incident in LWW.
I didn’t like how Bakshi treated Samwise ie. dumb hobbit and comic relief. And the clarinet theme that goes along with him makes me cringe. I have the same response to the Philosopher’s stone movie score. It is so intrusive and make me feel that it is saying “ok, now you should think this is funny! Now you’re scared. Laugh now!”
I have a recording of Tolkien reading passages of LOTR and I love how he envisions Sam. A real salt of the earth character with a Cornish accent.
I thought the ‘Rotoscope’ technique that Bakshi used was interesting. There was another epic fantasy story he did called Fire and Ice where the same technique was used. It had some good aspects too.
Matthew
Matthew,
You may feel yourself well avenged for any slurs I’ve cast on LOTR: I didn’t know that Anthony Daniels voiced Legolas in the Bakshi animation. Now I do. Ugh.
I too love the way Bakshi did the Nazgul. The scene where the hobbits hide under the bank while the Nazgul go by, the way the Nazgul sniffs the air, sensing the ring, the bolster stabbing scene at the inn, the Balrog, are all high points. But the very best of all for me is the least dramatic: Gandalf driving into the Shire. It is a distilled essence of all fairy tales moment for me. Adventure and mystery and magic are riding into town.
I am not upset at Tolkien. However, I’ve always felt that it was a cop out in plotting about how Frodo and Sam ended up carrying the major burden of the quest, while the others went off their different ways. Equipping Frodo with the Fellowship wasn’t too bad. But abandoning him, particularly after Gandalf had (supposedly) died, was not a reasonable thing to do. What difference would securing Rohan or Minas Tirith or any place in Middle Earth have made if Sauron got the ring? Wouldn’t common sense dictate that you try to help the ring bearer rather than rescue two comic-relief hobbits?
Of course I don’t blame Aragorn or Elrond or any character for the decision to abandon Frodo. Tolkien wanted Frodo to travel alone, save for his faithful companion. He wanted him to suffer and be stripped of everything except for his burden. It reminds me of the scourging of Christ. And perhaps that was the intent. It’s just that – and here we go with shades of Lewis! – he didn’t set it up very well or very plausibly.
You must know how much I love LOTR, for more reasons than I can fit in this comment. But the way Frodo was selected to bear the ring, and how he was left alone with it, has always felt contrived to me.
Travis,
Does going to Portus mean you won’t come to Terminus? I hope it doesn’t!
I never thought of Aragorn et al. as abandoning Frodo – rather, Frodo decided to finish the Quest on his own, and everyone (except Sam!) chose to respect his decision. Remember Gandalf’s “The Ring has passed on, Bilbo. It would do no good to you or to others, if you tried to meddle with it again.” Aragorn realized that the same applied to him.
Marmee, I’m afraid it may very well mean that. The problem is that I’m really low on funds for trips right now, and Portus is the only one with a plan in place that I was able to take advantage of that got me in for free. If I can figure out a way to get to Terminus, I’ll do it, but it’s not looking good…I’ll keep you posted.
I went back and read “The Breaking of the Fellowship” from FOTR and “The Departure of Boromir” from TT.
This is how Frodo choooses:
“‘I will do now what I must,’he said. ‘This at least is plain: the evil of the Ring is already at work even in the Company, and the Ring must leave them before it does more harm. I will go alone. Some I cannot trust,and those I can trust are too dear to me: poor old Sam, and Merry and Pippin. Strider, too: his heart yearns for Minas Tirith, and he will be needed there, now Boromir has fallen into evil. I will go alone. At once.’
This is how Aragorn chooses:
“‘Let me think !” said Aragorn. ‘And now may I make a right choice and change the evil fate of this unhappy day !’ He stood silent for a moment. ‘I will follow the Orcs,’ he said at last. ‘I would have guided Frodo to Mordor and gone with him to the end; but if I seek him now into he wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played its part. Yet we that remain cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left.’”
Either way, the welfare of the comic-relief hobbits comes first. But not before, in Aragorn’s case, not before he sings a funeral dirge. And not just one stanza, either. First he sings, then Legolas sings, and then he sings again.
So the priorities are: comic-relief hobbits before the fate of Middle Earth, but funeral dirges before comic-relief hobbits.
I guess “torment and death” have to wait their turn.
reyhan, I don’t know…when you frame it that way, sure, it sounds silly and forced. I’d frame it this way:
1. The funeral dirge is a priority, because a warrior has just fallen. It’s a matter of honor and virtue.
“Torment and death” didn’t really wait their turn…Boromir’s torment and death were first honored, and then the move was made to rescue the hobbits from the same.
2. “Comic-relief” hobbits is one thing we can call them. Brave, courageous, loyal hobbits – well beyond what one would expect from such small people – is another. I prefer the latter, even if they are funny as well.
3. Aragorn was listening to his heart, and I think the text assumes he’s listening for understanding outside his own. In any event, I don’t think the choice puts the hobbits above the fate of Middle-Earth; I think it assumes that you go rescue hobbits that are about to be tortured and killed before following ones who are alive and well and have clearly chosen on their own to part from the company.
Pippin may have started off as comic relief but he didn’t stay that way. Merry never really was comic relief. He was always the more serious of the two, even down to planning the conspiracy to go with Frodo & taking time in Rivendell to look at maps & such.
Perhaps the book hobbits are being confused with the movie hobbits?
Another reason Aragorn perhaps hesitated to follow Frodo is that he feared his own temptation to use the ring to save Gondor, just as Boromir did. If brave, noble Boromir could succumb so to the ring, how much more could Aragorn, scion of kings, born & bred to power? I know that’s extra-textual but it makes sense, as opposed to “Oh, I’m going to run off & abandon Frodo first chance I get.”
Travis,
Of course I understand about honoring a fallen warrior, and that it’s what’s in your heart that’s important, not how tall you are, and that Merry and Pippin should be rescued; to abandon them would not be a nice thing.
I also understand that in making this choice for Aragorn, Tolkien shows himself either to be a sentimentalist (which I don’t think he is) or someone whose plans for his heroes don’t involve sending Aragorn to Mordor or for anyone except his faithful man-servant to accompany Frodo into Mordor.
I would have preferred it if he’d done it in a more plausible way, is all.