In this chapter Shippey raised some really interesting arguments that I hadn’t thought of before. He has done this in every previous chapter that I’ve read, and I’m always really surprised with the connections and observations he makes concerning The Lord of the Rings. I thought I had a fairly comprehensive understanding of the text when I read it, but what I have come to realize is that I really just read the story. I did not extract all the different interpretations that Shippey has been able to pull out. However, I’ve only read The Lord of the Rings once, and I feel that is a decent excuse. Shippey has probably read and reread the text countless times. Whatever he did it worked. I think he understands The Lord of the Rings from a viewpoint that is a peculiar combination of a super fan and a scholar. I assume that this is why he is one of the leading Tolkien experts.
I was really interested by the segment The Myth of Frodo. I have learned from past English classes that most names in literary texts have a meaning associated with them that reflects something about the character. However, I never did any research on the characters from The Lord of the Rings. I read through the appendices after I finished reading The Return of the King, but I read it really quickly. I never noticed that Frodo’s name wasn’t mentioned in the appendix about Hobbits. This is really interesting, because it creates the sense that Tolkien didn’t write the appendices, but some Shire historian did. The reader knows from the ending of The Return of the King that Frodo is never praised in the Shire for his quest, or anti-quest, however the reader interprets his journey, and wasn’t regarded as a local hero the way Merry, Pippin, and Sam are. Therefore, it makes sense that there wouldn’t be any mention of Frodo Baggins in the appendix, because he was not remembered in the Shire. (Well, maybe Sam’s descendants may have heard a story about him once in a while. Sam did talk about Frodo quite a bit.)
I thought it was brilliant how Tolkien drew Frodo’s name from another forgotten character and equally brilliant how Shippey was able to make the connection. Shippey writes of Frodo’s name “it is a name from heroic literature of the past, though it is one which, significantly, and appropriately to Frodo’s character, has been all but entirely forgotten” (183). It’s a weird connection however, because Frodo is forgotten by characters, and this other character was forgotten by actual people. This creates a strange sense that Middle Earth is a realistic world of its own. Tolkien’s work is very dense. It is almost as if he hides huge pieces of meaning in tiny details. Those who are dedicated to the text enough to study it are rewarded with a greater understanding.
I also found the section about his Shakespearean influences really informative. Shippey mentions that Tolkien “‘dislike cordially’ Shakespeare’s plays” (192). Tolkien may not have liked Shakespeare’s work, but Shippey presents a persuasive argument that he both comprehended his work and alluded to it in The Lord of the Rings. I remembered from one of the documentaries we watched in class that Tolkien’s March of the Ents had been inspired by the march of the tree in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, but I didn’t pick up on the other similarities from Macbeth. There’s a reason for that however. I didn’t pay attention in my tenth grade English class. I read parts of Macbeth, but I didn’t understand it, and now I don’t remember it.
I thought Shippey’s argument about the tricky nature of prophecies was interesting as well. Macbeth is killed, but not by someone who came from a natural birth. Shippey points out that this event is echoed in The Lord of the Rings when the Nazgul isn’t killed by a man, but by a woman. I don’t think this devious nature of prophecies can be traced back just through Shakespeare, however. Prophecies always have an interesting sort of twist. Perhaps there is one text this characteristic can be traced back to, but I don’t think it is one of Shakespeare. I’m not trying to insult Shakespeare’s brilliance, only to point out that he referenced other texts in his writing as well.
Annika Laughlin? November 06, 2008, at 05:01 PM
