http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=67444I know this is not new ground, but I felt inspired to try again to show why I think the filmmakers portrayal of Aragorn was appropriate.
In order to understand my position, one must first review where Aragorn, the archetypal King-in-waiting, came from. For much of the drafting of the LOTR, of course, there was no Aragorn. His role in the story was played by Trotter the Hobbit, a mysterious "ranger" whose origins Tolkien was never quite sure about (the most developed concept was that he was one Peregrine Boffin, a Hobbit befriended by Bilbo who disappeared from the Shire the day he came of age and eventually was tortured in Mordor). However, as the sequel to The Hobbit more and more became subsumed by the greater depth of Tolkien’s mythology, it became more and more apparent that this was not appropriate and that this character had a much more important role to play in the story.
Before embarking on the effort to create a sequel to The Hobbit, the major new component of Tolkien’s mythology was the story of the Fall of Númenor. This was a critically important conception for Tolkien, and in hindsight provided the perfect bridge between the older mythology of the Elder Days that would become the Silmarillion, and the more modern (but still ancient) story of the end of the Third Age that was the Lord of the Rings. For anyone not familiar with the story of the development of the Númenor legends, I highly recommend reading volume 5 of the HOME series - “The Lost Road and Other Writings.” It is a fascinating story and really shows how critical the conception of the Fall of Númenor was to Tolkien.
This is obviously not the place for a synopsis of that story (well known, I am sure, to most of you). Suffice it to say that it details how even the noblest of mankind (eventually conceived as the Children of Lúthien) can fall to the temptation of power unbridled. But included in this tragic tale is the idea that like the Phoenix, from the ashes will rise again a new hope, which became the Numenorian realms in exile. Yet we would later see in the story of Isildur the tragic flaw raise its ugly head again.
To make a very long story short, Tolkien eventually realized that this mysterious ranger character that he had created, but had such trouble identifying, actually was the culmination of this tale, which reached its tentacles back into the old tales and incorporated the conception of a touch of a ‘higher spirit’ elevating mankind, and that Trotter the Hobbit was actually Aragorn, son of Arathorn, descendent of the King of Men. Aragorn came to represent the redemption of mankind (the new New Hope) and ultimately, to quote Legolas “is he not of the children of Lúthien? Never shall that line fail, though the years may lengthen beyond count.”
In the book, enough of this backstory is captured (in the text and appendicies) so that Aragorn makes sense, even without the benefit of reading Tolkien’s other work (though Tolkien was absolutely right in believing that the Wars of the Jewels and the Ring should have been published together as they ultimately told one long connected story with Aragorn as in many ways the culmination of that story). However, in the context of the film, it is simply impossible to include enough of this back story to make such an archetypal portrayal make sense to anyone other than us Tolkien fanatics. This part of the story is largely told (a least so far) entirely through Isildur’s failure and Aragorn’s redemption of that failure, through his own journey of acceptance of his destiny.
I love the breadth and width of the tale that Tolkien weaved, and expect to find new patterns and seams in the fabric for the rest of my life. I don’t need to see the same exact story on the screen that I already have in the book(s); indeed, I believe an attempt to duplicate it would inevitably fail. It would have been futile for PJ to try to repeat with crochet what Tolkien created with fine needlepoint. Instead, he (IMHO correctly) he took the same themes and colors that Tolkien used and weaved them into a new pattern that is complementary of the original pattern. I for one am thrilled that he took this approach.
Aragorn vs movie Aragorn
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46167
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Siberian, I'm going to repost for your benefit something that I wrote exactly six years ago today (!! !!) at TORC, before ROTK was released. I don't expect you to agree with it (I'm not sure that I agree with it, at least fully), but you may at least find it interesting.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Yes.yovargas wrote:Interesting point. But is it wrong to question whether your duty is the right thing to do?
If you are Aragorn, that is.
One of the greatest strengths of Tolkien's stories, IMO, is that the characters are not mimics of self-indulgent and self-centered 21st Century Westerners, . It had become accepted that a modern hero will only act for the public good if the matter is "personal" - his wife kidnapped, his child sick, his puppy was kicked by the bad guy. Fantasy is the genre where we have our best chance to look through the eyes of someone who may not share the same values.
Aragorn is, clearly, not a modern American, just as Middle-earth is not Kansas. To bend him into the same shape as every other angstmuffin in fiction is to rob the ME of one of the key elements that contribute to its magical "otherness."
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
What I want to know is why Voronwë's post wasn't there when my post first went up. I'm pretty sure it used to be the first post on the page. V, are you using your majik thain powers?
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Probably.
Imp, I was only trying to describe how I see Aragorn in LotR, not how I think everyone does or should see him. We all resonate to different things in this amazing book. For me the hobbits are the very heart of the story. For you, not so much. But isn't it grand that one book can be so many things to so many very different people?
Imp, I was only trying to describe how I see Aragorn in LotR, not how I think everyone does or should see him. We all resonate to different things in this amazing book. For me the hobbits are the very heart of the story. For you, not so much. But isn't it grand that one book can be so many things to so many very different people?
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46167
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Prim, yes, it is.
V, I can see it too. I just seem to remember that when I first posted it, it was the first one on the page. Not that it matters.
V, I can see it too. I just seem to remember that when I first posted it, it was the first one on the page. Not that it matters.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
-
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
Wot Frelga sed.One of the greatest strengths of Tolkien's stories, IMO, is that the characters are not mimics of self-indulgent and self-centered 21st Century Westerners, . It had become accepted that a modern hero will only act for the public good if the matter is "personal" - his wife kidnapped, his child sick, his puppy was kicked by the bad guy. Fantasy is the genre where we have our best chance to look through the eyes of someone who may not share the same values.
Aragorn is, clearly, not a modern American, just as Middle-earth is not Kansas. To bend him into the same shape as every other angstmuffin in fiction is to rob the ME of one of the key elements that contribute to its magical "otherness."
<a><img></a>
- Dave_LF
- Wrong within normal parameters
- Posts: 6810
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
- Location: The other side of Michigan
I don't have any problems with Tolkien's Aragorn at all. I know this is abnormal, but I don't think I have ever read a book for the characters; neither would characterization appear on my list of reasons for liking any book. Certainly in the Silmarillion and at least part of the time in LotR, Tolkien is writing mythology. I don't want his mythical heroes to be flawed and identifiable; real life is already full of people like that. I want them to be larger than life. I want their actions for good or ill to be spectacular. I certainly don't want them to get hung up on the thousands of practical constraints we real, unmythical people have to deal with (e.g. "I'm probably going to die if I try to fight that balrog").
The hobbits qualify as complex characters, and that it because they represent the unmythical, modern portion of the tale. The little bit of 19th-century England transposed into the idealized age of courage, chivalry, and the warrior-poet. That's ok too, but the fact that Aragorn isn't developed the same way isn't a failure; just a consequence of the fact that he occupies a different storytelling niche.
The hobbits qualify as complex characters, and that it because they represent the unmythical, modern portion of the tale. The little bit of 19th-century England transposed into the idealized age of courage, chivalry, and the warrior-poet. That's ok too, but the fact that Aragorn isn't developed the same way isn't a failure; just a consequence of the fact that he occupies a different storytelling niche.
I agree that the movie couldn't have included all of Aragorn's backstory. I was ready for simplification. But no one is going to convince me that making him a whining jerk was serving some higher purposeVoronwë_the_Faithful wrote:Siberian, I'm going to repost for your benefit something that I wrote exactly six years ago today (!! !!) at TORC, before ROTK was released. I don't expect you to agree with it (I'm not sure that I agree with it, at least fully), but you may at least find it interesting.
It seems that the screenwriters confused simplification with dumbing down. Look what they did with Gimli, Denethor, Faramir...
What can I say, in some cultures thrashing everyone around is still the best way to gain respect. It's just not the Dúnedain's way. Orcs, maybe?yovargas wrote:And no one is going to convince me that he was a whining jerk.But no one is going to convince me that making him a whining jerk was serving some higher purpose
I can see now why books' Aragorn is boring. He's simply too polite
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46167
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
I did in fact go ahead and split the discussion Are Tolkien's Characters Archetypes with no "Souls"
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I discussed the matter with my son during lunch today. He vouchsafed that Aragorn is his favorite character in the books, and that movie Aragorn is "boring." Which, I believe, settles the matter once and for all.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46167
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
There is, in the new issue of Tolkien Studies an essay entitled "Councils and Kings: Aragorn's Journey Towards Kingship in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings" by Judy Ann Ford and Robin Anne Reid. I know nothing about the authors, and I haven't been able to read the essay yet, but it sounds like it could be quite relevant to this thread. I'll report back once I've had a chance to read it.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7261
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
Or that my boy has the mind of a wise woman?
Ax, I do know what you mean. It takes maturity to appreciate Frodo's quest. But it also takes maturity to discern and appreciate Aragorn's journey. Not to say that my son has done so.
Ax, I do know what you mean. It takes maturity to appreciate Frodo's quest. But it also takes maturity to discern and appreciate Aragorn's journey. Not to say that my son has done so.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!