Well, I am going to deviate from past practice by posting here at the start of discussion rather than tacking on some heretical observation at the end. And, seeing how
davem does such a stellar job of shadowing
Estelyn's excellent opening remarks,
I shall limit my post to a couple of observations rather than an all encompassing marathon.
First of all, this chapter is the one that I find I must constantly and willfully fight against the urge to read
allegorically. The wretched conditions of the housing, the work, the soulless actions, the rule-mongering all strike me as so very similar to post war conditions in Europe that I find it hard not to see this as an allegory of the materialist and mechanical conditions of the twentieth century--allegorising historical events into the context of the story, rather than the other way round. In the destroyed social bond of the hobbits it is so easy for me to see, for example, the kinds of conditions which currently are at play in the nightly riots in France in the suburbs where immigrants live in hopeless conditions as semi-citizens--or, to bring it closer to Tolkien's home, to the conditions which fomented the recent riots in Birmingham. At the same time that I struggle to resist this allegorical reading, I also recall how Tolkien discussed allegory to his publisher:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Letter 109
Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth. So that the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only full intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. But the two start from opposite ends.
|
Possibly what Tolkien dislikes in allegory is the tendency towards blanket generality and away from particularity, individuality, specific detail. At least, it seems to me in this chapter that the very specificity of the details are what lend themselves to seeing conditions in a certain light.
Secondly, this chapter provides the culmination in Frodo's ethical journey: his triumph over the vindictive meanness of Mordor and dark pursuits. It is here that Frodo eschews violence most directly in favour of mercy and forebearance and he almost wins over Grima. Of course one can say that here the 'allegory' doesn't hold true to historical conditions, but it seems to me that the very point is the failure of historical conditions to achieve Frodo's enlightenment. In fact, it seems most clear to me that Tolkien does not equate Mordor with the Axis powers, but much closer to home. Tolkien's politics might well be conservative and his philosophy downright silly in their wholesale rejection of any development in human knowledge or learning, but nevertheless, it remains obstinately heroic to criticise one's own side so soon after war has made any challenge to one's side a traitorous affair.
Well, I promised a short post. My only other observation is to remark on how similar are the terms Tolkien uses to desribe the pathetic Grima to those he used for Gollem. For both characters Tolkien favours words of depraved bestiality. "Wormtongue" has become merely "Worm" and Grima is a scuffling, crawling dog who is cuffed regularly by his master. I'm not sure what to make of this. Is Tolkien suggesting some kind of relationship between Gollem and Grima or is this merely Tolkien's preferred style for representing depravity--bestial is always and ever animical to light. Remember how Shelob was so repellantly described by her physical, animal attributes. Animals that fly can represent the light, but not animals that walk or crawl.