Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Heroism one last time
How do you think Tolkien means us to define heroism within his created world of Middle-earth? Are his definitions of heroism multiple? If you think he expects multiple definitions of heroism, what is significant about that concept in terms of literature, history, culture, philosophy, etc.?
8 comments:
Tolkien definitely does not seem to want his readers to define heroism as the cliché noble character who clearly succeeds in accomplishing their admirable goal. I think Tolkien used both imperfect heroes and silent heroes. Frodo seems like an imperfect hero. He is heroic, because he lays aside his own comfort for the benefit of Middle-earth. But he does ultimately fail to accomplish his goal, if we say that his mission was to destroy the Ring. Sam is a silent hero. He is Frodo's support throughout The Lord of the Rings and is always humble and willing to serve. While he doesn't do many "big" heroic acts (except maybe saving Frodo from capture), he is heroic because of his faithfulness even through the hard times. Using different types of heroes sets Tolkien's work aside from other fantasy, because it demonstrates that heroism is not a one-note concept. People do not have to be a specific type of person or perform specific acts to qualify as heroic. Heroes are allowed to be a diverse group of people, and Tolkien demonstrates that by using different types of heroes in his work.
I believe Tolkien intended us to see no true hero between those involved in the destruction of the ring. These characters are flawed and under the influence of this very powerful ring, so they commit mistakes and we often see the worst of them. I feel that this is just a reflection of real people and their relationship with power, even the most noble of heart are often corrupted by power and end up abusing it. However, I definitely believe Aragorn is the real Hero of Middle-earth. I believe Aragorn the true Hero because he is the one to lead the fellowship when Gandalf is gone, or when they're broken apart. He knows splitting is inevitable and takes those left (Legolas and Gimli) with him to gather and army and fight. He is a king, a healer, and a prophet. Had the destruction of the ring been successful without Aragorn acting outside of Mordor there would have been much more destruction, and had the destruction of the ring failed Aragorn would have been the last force standing against Sauron's evil reign.
I feel that Tolkien did not intend for one specific definition of heroism. However, I do not believe that he wanted any of the cliche interpretations of heroism. Not one of his characters is perfect. Not one of his characters did everything perfectly. All of his characters are representative of real people with real flaws. As such I find that the deeper definition of heroism is the overcoming of flaws in a way that allows for a successful completion of whatever journey a character is faced with. I find that this allows for the story to really resonate with the reader, which is an important affect of mythmaking.
After studying each of Tolkien's works more in-depth throughout the semester, it is my belief that Tolkien does not want us to determine a single hero in The Lord of the Rings. More specifically, I think that Tolkien was purposeful in the fact that he did not create a perfect hero in Middle-earth. Tolkien's point in doing this is to reflect reality, to make it clear that in the primary world there are no perfect heroes, but the story can still be enjoyable without them, and that many characters contain heroic and evil qualities together. Throughout all areas of life, I personally believe that the line between good and evil is blurred, and I believe that Tolkien would agree.
-Melian
I think Tolkien intended to force his readers to think about the definition of heroism and what makes a hero. There is no version of the classical hero, though Aragorn does come close in some ways. I don't think there is a single hero in these works, but I think all the qualities of a hero were scattered among the characters to highlight each aspect in its own right. I think this brings a deeper comfort to the reader because it is more realistic. I think Melian makes a good point too with how the line between good and evil is blurred. This is important because in each character, and in each of us, there is both good and evil. Since heroes are typically thought of to be purely good, having none of the characters be a pure hero makes the reader reevaluate what it means to be a hero and see heroism in themselves.
-Uinen
There are a lot of responses here, so I will try my best to not completely rephrase what anyone else had to say.
I think Tolkien's work is one full of heroes: a huge amount of the characters have the potential to be the protagonist in their own stories, and many if not most of the other members of the Fellowship (besides Frodo) make for 'better' traditional heroes. I'm not sure if this was the point Tolkien was trying to make, but I tend to hope that he meant for Frodo, someone so close to any of us who read the stories, to be the real hero; no huge acts of valor, rather many enormous sacrifices that pass by quietly. This kind of hero I think fits the rest of his themes of melancholy and bittersweet results. Aragorn, Feanor, Eowyn, Legolas, Gimli, etc etc are all bold, decisive and brave characters who slay evil and get massive reward while Frodo gets nothing.
If this is the case, that would mean Tolkien views heroes as normal people put into abnormal circumstances who rise up and take on their responsibilities. It's a similar kind of hero as Arien was describing with Sam.
If I'm right, which I think I could be, this would also explain why Merry and Pippin are given similar roles to the big players: they are an even closer comparison to Frodo.
I believe that Tolkien has multiple definitions of heroism. Like others have stated, all of the heroic characters in his works are flawed and put simply, doing the best they can in terrible circumstances. I'm not trying to be too cliche, but Webster's dictionary has four definitions of a hero.
1: a mythological or legendary figure.
2: an illustrious warrior.
3: a person admired for achievements and noble qualities.
4: one who shows great courage.
I believe that Tolkien's definitions are more like the latter of the two definitions. Historically, heroes usually fit the bill of the first two definitions. (At least heroes of early history, which are generally remembered for great courage and feats in battle) However, I think the definition has changed over time. The modern definition of a hero is an individual who is courageous and stands up for what they believe in e.g. human rights, global warming, etc...
I think this change is significant because the title of hero has become easier to attain, encouraging more and more people to speak up for what they believe in. If anyone can be a hero, then why not me? Why can't I change the world? These are the powerful questions that Tolkien helps us ask.
Heroism is never really defined by Tolkien, and I believe this is due to the fact that there are many variants and degrees that may have an impact on who is a hero and why. Consequently, it is likely that this is why Tolkien shows so many kinds of heroes, and never shows preference as to who deserves the most praise, if at all.
To me, heroism is not just making a change toward the common good, or being incredibly brave. It is also an individual choice or a disciplined mindset, which is why sometimes what makes somebody a hero is the ability to hold back and NOT get involved in things, or admitting that they cannot do their tasks alone.
As we have discussed many times, there is not one true hero in Tolkien's works, because everybody makes choices all throughout the story, and not all of them are explicit or have an enormous impact on the main plot. However, we see most characters battle with their morality and allegiance, and the way they face temptation (if not impotence). Because of this, Tolkien's works are not simply a narrative that follows heroes or the quest for "good", but rather, a reflection of the human condition and an emphasis on identity and choices related to ethics
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.