XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: joseph@nospam.com
"Morgil" wrote in message
news:digtqd$b6r$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> One would think that if the point of destroying the Ring was
> to prove that Men were worthy to rule the Middle-earth, it
> would make sense that the job would be given to one of those
Right, and that would have failed, chiefly *because* it would have been the
approach which made sense. If it makes sense to you, don't you think it
would have made sense to Sauron as well? The strategy succeeded principally
because it did *not* make sense.
"Morgil"
> who *were* going to rule it, and not a member of a tiny sub-
> group of Humans, distantly related to the Men, who had never
> and would never rule anyone :-)
It wan't about rulership. The ring was about rulership. The entire quest was
about responsibility and cooperation. Don't you see the subthread to the
story which was the unity of the three primary races to the *assistance* of
the lowliest among them to acheive the primary goal? Don't discount the
benefit of this 'spirit of cooperation' which left mankind in the position
to inherit custodianship (I don't use the word rulership) of ME.
Basically, in order for men to succed with their inheritance of ME, they'd
need to be formed into a more effective team. We've all see the scenario of
a team which experiences problems despite the fact that one or two
superstars are on the team. The problems occur because the superstars won't
cooperate with each other or with anyone else on the team. Such a team won't
succeed. This was the state of mankind during the events leading up to the
destruction of the ring. There was very little cooperation among mankind
under those circumstances men would never succeed with or even without the
threat of Suaron. So the quest of the ring had one primary goal, but a
number of secondary goals were involved and acheived as well. All of these
threads and themes were woven together by one masterful storytelly into one
masterful story.
"Morgil"
> it would make sense that the job would be given to one of those
> who *were* going to rule it...
(It's like passing the ball to the worst member of the team 1 second before
the buzzer. He may be the worst member on the team, and you may be the best,
but if you're on the other side of midcourt and he's under the basket, it's
going to take the spirit of cooperation to win the game. If you're watching
this spectacular win, you can say all you want "it doesn't make sense" but
if that's the way it went down, that's the way it went down.)
On a personal note, I have always enjoyed books more than television or
movies (which I very rarely watch anyway) because a book is so much more
personal and 'customizable'. The experience of reading a book is integrated
via a person't own imagination which shouldn't make it suprising that two
people can read the same book and come away with a different experience.
I've always been interested when discussing a book to hear about someone
else's different journey through the pages of the same book I journeyed
through. This is really the first such conversation I've had where there is
such an emphasis placed on convincing me that I've taken a wrong turn along
the way. It's my read, my journey, and this is the trip I took through
Tolkien's fascinating tale. I'm glad you enjoyed yours, but why do you
begrudge me mine?
Quite frankly, and I hope you don't find this offensive, I think that the
facination on 'chapter and verse' which seems to be so popular in this NG
detracts from the subtleties of Tolkien's plot which can only be picked up
by looking at the big picture.
- Joseph
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
