Having heard Michael Drout speak in person, and listened to 'Rings, Swords and Monsters' (have you had a chance to do that yet?), what he said in his essay doesn't come as a surprise (but it makes me admire him even more). It also reflects some things that you and I discussed a long time ago in emails (don't know if you recall) about the Letters and inconsistencies therein (particularly in regard to Sam), and how Tolkien's perceptions/attitudes might have changed in the years since the books were published.
I just wanted to illustrate that Drout’s fairly theoretical consideration of the author’s role can be interesting and encouraging for readers who see a homoerotic subtext in LotR... :) Music to a F/S lover's ears :)))
Personally, I've never liked the 'addiction' theory, and wish that PJ and co. hadn't adopted it for the movie. It seems to me to oversimplify (and cheapen) the Ring's effect and the struggle of Frodo to resist it. It is in and of itself inherently evil, because Sauron put much of his own evil into it. It imposes its will on others, and actively works to return to Sauron. One can't say that about any drug.
It also reflects some things that you and I discussed a long time ago in emails (don't know if you recall) about the Letters and inconsistencies therein (particularly in regard to Sam), and how Tolkien's perceptions/attitudes might have changed in the years since the books were published.
Oh, of course I recall our previous exchange! :) And yes, it's true, Tolkien's diverging & changing views of Sam (and, to some degree, Frodo) really illustrate that the biographical sources don't provide one final, unequivocal meaning. Not to mention that for a lot of intriguing points in the texts no explanation or comment from Tolkien exists (or has been published, at any rate).
Personally, I've never liked the 'addiction' theory, and wish that PJ and co. hadn't adopted it for the movie. It seems to me to oversimplify (and cheapen) the Ring's effect and the struggle of Frodo to resist it.
Yes, same here. I think the differences between the Ring and drugs/addiction by far exceed the few similarities, which just renders the comparison less than useful, IMO. And you're totally right about the way that the 'addiction' concept downplays Frodo's actual and *effective* resistance to the Ring. Shippey and the movies more so suggest that Frodo eventually would have become like Gollum, in the course of the 'addiction process' which levels out the difference between individual attitudes towards the Ring. The book never implies that.
imposes its will on others, and actively works to return to Sauron. One can't say that about any drug.
Yes, that's another very good point. The Ring is far more active and 'sentient' than any drug, and by seeking to impose its will on others, it also engages the bearer's will in a very specific way. In Frodo's case, it's clear that his heightened will to resist is essential to his ability of carrying the Ring as far as he does - in the book, that is, not in the movies, unfortunately.
Anyway, this is a topic I can rant about endlessly... but you already knew that. :)
I just wanted to illustrate that Drout’s fairly theoretical consideration of the author’s role can be interesting and encouraging for readers who see a homoerotic subtext in LotR... :)
Music to a F/S lover's ears :)))
Personally, I've never liked the 'addiction' theory, and wish that PJ and co. hadn't adopted it for the movie. It seems to me to oversimplify (and cheapen) the Ring's effect and the struggle of Frodo to resist it. It is in and of itself inherently evil, because Sauron put much of his own evil into it. It imposes its will on others, and actively works to return to Sauron. One can't say that about any drug.
Thank you, Cara.
Reply
Oh, of course I recall our previous exchange! :) And yes, it's true, Tolkien's diverging & changing views of Sam (and, to some degree, Frodo) really illustrate that the biographical sources don't provide one final, unequivocal meaning. Not to mention that for a lot of intriguing points in the texts no explanation or comment from Tolkien exists (or has been published, at any rate).
Personally, I've never liked the 'addiction' theory, and wish that PJ and co. hadn't adopted it for the movie. It seems to me to oversimplify (and cheapen) the Ring's effect and the struggle of Frodo to resist it.
Yes, same here. I think the differences between the Ring and drugs/addiction by far exceed the few similarities, which just renders the comparison less than useful, IMO. And you're totally right about the way that the 'addiction' concept downplays Frodo's actual and *effective* resistance to the Ring. Shippey and the movies more so suggest that Frodo eventually would have become like Gollum, in the course of the 'addiction process' which levels out the difference between individual attitudes towards the Ring. The book never implies that.
imposes its will on others, and actively works to return to Sauron. One can't say that about any drug.
Yes, that's another very good point. The Ring is far more active and 'sentient' than any drug, and by seeking to impose its will on others, it also engages the bearer's will in a very specific way. In Frodo's case, it's clear that his heightened will to resist is essential to his ability of carrying the Ring as far as he does - in the book, that is, not in the movies, unfortunately.
Anyway, this is a topic I can rant about endlessly... but you already knew that. :)
Reply
Leave a comment