[ SECRET POST #3261 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3261 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________


11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #466.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Both novels are about the Hobbits as characters and narrators of the conflicts they witness.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I'm not entirely disagreeing. But I don't think that it's accurate to say that the central matter of LotR is limited to what is undergone by the Hobbits. What they witness and take part in is important in its own right, and Aragorn's journey and role is a major, central part of those developments.

Now, obviously, it's not as important as Frodo's Quest. But that doesn't mean that it's tangential - it's still a core element of the work. Aragorn's journey is not important merely because some hobbits happen to witness it; it is an integral part of the thing. Aesthetically, it fits closely into what Tolkien is doing with the heroic epic; morally, thematically, it fits closely into what Tolkien is saying about choice and nobility and goodness.

He is not central in the way that Frodo is, but that does not justify calling him tangential.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

There's just not that much too him other than being the somewhat self-doubtful anointed one. It's rather telling that almost all of his fairy princess romance got stuck in an appendix that J.R.R. was reluctant to include.

[(Anonymous)]

He's an archetypal heroic figure. I don't think that's the same as being slight.

And, again, I just don't see how you can think that choice is a matter of central concern in LotR, and not see Aragorn - especially in the context of the other kingly (or I suppose steward-ly) characters - as important.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I didn't say he wasn't important. Practically everyone in the Fellowship was important with the possible exception of Samwise who became important by virtue of becoming a ringbearer and community leader. I said he was tangential or in your words, "he is not central..." which is tangential by definition.

[(Anonymous)]

If you imagine a series of concentric circles, he is not in the innermost circle - which is why he is not central - but he is in the next one out. He is not the literal most important but he is still very important to the matter of the Lord of the Rings. He fits in with the point of Lord of the Rings.

I mean, when I hear "tangential", that doesn't just mean that he is of secondary importance. That means that he's going off at an angle, unconnected to the important things in the work. And that's just not the case with Aragorn to me, he's absolutely relevant to core thematic and aesthetic concerns. Tom Bombadil is tangential. Aragorn is an important supporting part.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

If you imagine a series of concentric circles, he is not in the innermost circle - which is why he is not central - but he is in the next one out.

Now, you're just fucking about with semantics. Have a good evening.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm open to the possibility that we mean different things by "tangential". That's the whole reason I gave the whole thing about what it means to me.

But I don't really mean to be difficult, and I'm sorry if I come across that way.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Seriously, there's a whole Wagnerian opera to be made around Aragorn's doubt that he's the one, whether he's worthy to claim the love and mortality of one of the noblest of elves, his self-exile into the wilderness, and the resulting fulfillment of that ordainly ordained plan. However almost all of that is dropped tangentially through other scenes, and only fully described well outside of the main body of the novel.

I find Tom Bombadil relevant but clumsy.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're right and we were talking past each other a bit. I don't really disagree with this so much, although I think it's at least heavily hinted at in the text, to the extent that it's justifiable to consider it part of the work.

Out of curiosity what makes Bombadil relevant, in your mind?

[(Anonymous)]

Also, out of curiosity (and on a Tolkien note), have you read any of David Jones' stuff? Particularly In Parenthesis?