This chapter was kind of difficult to get into. As soon as I saw the title Beowulf my focus shifted a little bit because that was not among my favorite books to read in high school. I do like that we finally find out why Tolkien doesn’t like allegory. Tolkien thinks that allegory can be accepted as long as it can be filled in. As long as each symbol had what it was equal to, then it can be allegory. I think that this is true and I think about it in the same way. So many people say that The Lord of the Rings is an allegorical work, but I don’t really think so any more because not all of the symbols can be filled in with what they equal and what happens with them. For example, if the ring did represent nuclear weapons, then why wasn’t it captured and used in the story. If the story had been an allegory, then it would be a completely different story as Shippey points out. If left up to the reader, then yes the story does look like allegory. But Tolkien says directly that it is not. Since he disliked allegory and he wrote the trilogy, I think that we should listen to him and try to find ways that the story is not allegory instead of the other way around. The examples of pipeweed and mail have come up in discussion. My response to this is that even though these two symbols seem out of place in Middle-earth, they don’t necessarily point at allegory. Tolkien lived in England. Of course things that he had experienced would creep their way into his writings, but he probably did not mean for there to be an allegorical connection.
I think the ‘Sandyman’s disease’ on page 171 is interesting. It caught my interest because it explains how Saruman became so corrupt. It explains the ‘disease’ of becoming an evil being from a completely good one. First you just start out a little curious. The curiosity turns into skills and then greed. The next level is a hatred of naturalness. I would hate to be going through a process like this and not being able to catch it before I turned into a bad creature. As Shippey talked about Denethor and his prophecy of a fire and everything going up in ash and smoke, I was almost convinced that there was some kind of allegory or application there. However, I still say that even though Tolkien implies certain symbols, it is his word on whether it is truly allegorical or not. Besides, even though there are a bunch of allegorical details, they need to fit into the grand scheme of the allegory. As Shippey has already discussed, The Lord of the Rings would not be this particular story if they did all fit correctly.
The Lord of the Rings is clearly a religious trilogy. Tolkien even said himself that his work was one of Catholicism once you get into it. Even though Tolkien claims this himself, Shippey seems to be questioning it in the mythic mediation section of the chapter. I agree with Shippey that the suicide that Denethor created goes against the Catholic traditions and views, but it is still just a choice in free will. Shippey discusses that whether it is Heaven or not, there is something further beyond Middle-earth. Also, I know that it says that none of the characters seem to be wholly religious, but if you look at the characters in terms of Catholicism, you see something more. For instance, Sauran can be seen as Lucifer in a religious sense because they have both fallen to evil and try to take over and enslave others. Even though Shippey provides evidence that the trilogy may not be quite as Catholic as it is said to be, if you look further into the story, it truly is more than what it looks like.
I really think that it is interesting that Frodo, seen by many as the most important hobbit in The Lord of the Rings, doesn’t have an explanation in the Shire-names in the Appendix. So far, every word that comes up Shippey has been able to give us a load of information on where, how, and why Tolkien used the name that he used for characters and places. Frodo (or rather Froda for masculinity), of all of the characters should have been explained by Shippey. Shippey has to go into a myth form the Old Norse just to give us what Frodo (Frothi) really is. From this myth, I agree with who Frodo really is: “…a mediation: and so is Tolkien’s Frodo, the middle-most character in all of Middle-earth” (187). Frodo is the wise hobbit trying to battle through a journey so he can help save the Shire and his world. He is the center of the story while there are many other important aspects focusing around him. I think the explanation on the origin of Frodo by Shippey is incredibly interesting.
Shippey helped me to understand eucatastrophe a little bit more than I did before. Before, I had no idea what the word even meant. Now I realize that it is a turn of events in the end that help the well-being of the characters. I think it is cool that this was applied to Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, the Ents, and the Elves. I’m glad that I know a little bit more about the subject now though because when I first read On Fairy-stories, I had no clue what Tolkien was even talking about. It’s nice to feel enlightened.
Keilah Bradley November 04, 2008, at 06:44 PM
