I was more interested in this chapter than any of the previous ones because I feel it deals with a topic that is very important to the novel and raises some really interesting arguments. Evil comes up again and again in The Lord of the Rings and Shippey pointed out that Tolkien’s understanding of evil disagrees in some aspects with his Anglo Saxon sources. I agree with Shippey when he asserts that The Lord of the Rings is “a work of the twentieth century” (Shippey 159). Even though Tolkien draws heavily from Anglo Saxon sources, some of his ideas, especially his representations of evil, belong in the twentieth century.
Shippey is continually defending Tolkien’s work against critics in this text, and I’d suppose outside of it too. He complains that critics often argue opposite points but still manage to condemn Tolkien’s work from both viewpoints. Shippey writes the effect of this is “just to show that any stick would do to beat some dogs” (Shippey 147). I thought this was very funny because it does seem that critics insult Tolkien for any reason they can come up with, even though there are usually suitable arguments to the contrary within the text. Some of these critics haven’t even read The Lord of the Rings, as Tolkien explained in an earlier chapter. I thought it was very interesting, in light of these observations, when Shippey pointed out that no one disagrees with Gandalf’s ideas about the ring’s power because it is now commonly assumed that power corrupts. This is another example of Tolkien’s break with his aged sources. Evil isn’t something that is naturally in a character, but it is a trait that develops. Shippey points out that his experience in war prompted Tolkien to explore evil within humanity, something that a lot of other veteran authors did.
The ring’s corruptive power seems to contradict itself at moments because some characters are not affected at all by it and others who do wear the ring are able to give it away. This is another characteristic attacked by critics, yet Shippey does a more than adequate job of addressing this complication. He suggests that the ring is addictive and that the more a character uses it the stronger its effect will be. I really liked this interpretation because it accounts for why Sam is able to give the ring up and why Gollum, at moments, seems to recover some of his former self. Perhaps this addictive force, even though that word is never used in The Lord of the Rings, is one of the reasons the text is still popular. Different sorts of addictions are discussed more openly in society and people are more aware of their existence. It provides for a more contemporary understanding of the nature of the ring.
One of the things I’ve gathered from Shippey is that a dictionary is necessary to have nearby when reading The Lord of the Rings, and actually any text. Individual words and their etymology are incredibly important. Shippey frequently references the Oxford English Dictionary and from those definitions forms his argument. This importance of words and their meanings is seen a lot in his discussion on wraiths. The ideas extend beyond just the wraiths themselves and into other related words like wreaths. I used to think that analysis such as this was going too far and that the author couldn’t possibly put that much thought into each sentence and every word. But, when you consider Tolkien’s extensive revision process and his own love of words, it’s more difficult to believe that he didn’t.
Shippey compared Frodo to a forgotten veteran because his actions in destroying the ring aren’t honored by the Shire. I really liked this comparison because it hints again of the influence of the war on Tolkien. Shippey’s book, the documentaries we watched in class, and Tolkien himself continually emphasize that The Lord of the Rings is not an allegory for the war. Even though the text is not an allegory, it is undeniable that Tolkien’s writing was heavily influence by his experiences in World War One.
Annika Laughlin? October 29, 2008, at 07:49 PM
