Thanks to both of you for the confirmation!
He doesn’t see it - as soon as Sam blurts out that what undid Boromir was his lust for the Ring, Faramir (not until then having known that the Ring had anything to do with what was going on, nor that it was the “Isildur’s Bane” Boromir had gone to ask about) realizes it was too much temptation for his brother and it will be too much for him if he lets it. So he tells Frodo that he does not want to see it and they will not speak of it any more - and they do not.
Try reading Lord Of The Rings, and you’ll see, if you have any ability to comprehend what you’re reading, that Tolkien isn’t promoting an inflexible class system, and instead is aware that heroes, villains, and ordinary people can come from whatever class.
That you think a man from a lower class background, who fought in the trenches in the First World War and lost most of his friends there, would think that common people couldn’t be heroes, is ridiculous. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you know nothing about him, rather than that you are being idiotic.
Do you seriously think I would have offered that opinion if I hadn’t read Tolkien’s books?
Heck, go get your copy of The Hobbit and reread the second chapter. Three cockney trolls named Bert, Tom, and William? You don’t see any evidence of class issues in that?
And Tolkien was aware that heroes, villains, and ordinary people can come from whatever class? You want to remind me of who the orcs or goblins or trolls were at the Council of Elrond? Seems like Tolkien had some pretty strong dividing lines in his world and certain people were firmly over there on the bad side. Sure, you could fall down into the lower classes, but no orc was ever going to rise up and become the equal of an elf. An Englishman can go native but a native can’t become English.
I will say this. Tolkien was more egalitarian than most of his predecessors. Fantasy heroes had usually been kings and queens and princes and princesses. Tolkien took his heroes from the middle class (his own class - Tolkien would have been horrified to hear you describe his background as lower class). The Bagginses were essentially landed gentry.
I hoped so, but I was obviously wrong.
Yes, it’s humour based around class issues. The opposite situation occurs when the Dwarves meet Beorn, who is about as rustic as it’s possible to get, and he comes off as noble and the upper-class Dwarves as ridiculous.
You are surprised that monsters created by the force of Evil Incarnate are irredeemably evil, and not invited to discuss tactics over tea with their sworn enemies? That has precisely nothing to do with class. You’d have a better chance using that argument to claim there’s inherent racism in the stories.
I’m not sure the names of the trolls mean much. Surely the name “William”, if not the others too, was perfectly “respectable” at the time?
You could also argue that, although Frodo is middle class in the Shire, the Hobbits as a whole represent a lower class and there are several references to Hobbits being underestimated and ignored (see standingwave’s post). They’re generally considered inconsequential, much as the “Proles” in Nineteen Eighty-Four are. The Elves, Men and Dwarves are all intentionally made to look slightly arrogant in their misjudgement of “Halflings”, but if I remember rightly the smart ones normally seemed to end up saying how they finally appreciate Hobbits. And of course in the end they (whether you think it’s Frodo or Sam) save the day.
A quick look at Wikipedia gives this quote, supposedly from Tolkien:
On the other hand, Aragorn is destined to be awesome simply for being the distance heir to a king of the master race.
Either way, although I’m agreeing with Steophan on the class matter I can’t say I agree with his tone.
Mod Note:
People in this thread need to calm down.
- Gukumatz,
(Filling in)
I think that’s actually quite a telling post. If those privates and batsmen were far superior to Tolkien, why was he commanding them instead of them commanding him?
The British Army in Tolkien’s time was very class-based and Tolkien’s statement reflected this. Tolkien wasn’t an officer because he was better than his enlisted men - he admits that wasn’t the case. He was an officer because he was from the middle class and they were enlisted men because they were from the working class. Tolkien and his contemporaries just saw that as natural and never questioned it.
And by the same token, Frodo was the leader and Samwise was the follower, regardless of which of them was more capable. It was just part of the order of the world.
Let me point out the obvious. There were no monsters created by the force of Evil Incarnate. All the monsters in the books were created by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. If there were races or groups that were irredeemably evil by their very nature and had no possibility of good in them, it’s because that’s the way Tolkien imagined them to be. He’s the one who wrote people as being what they are born into and as having no ability to rise above their station in life. That sounds to me like a world that would be invented by somebody who’s a strong believer in a class system.
Except for the whole bit at the end, where Frodo, Samwise, and Gimli all go west by virtue of their deeds and nothing more. If that’s not “rising above their station in life,” I don’t know what is.
Valinor is, after all, the ultimate gated community.
I think you have to acknowledge that some creatures being irredeemably evil is just a trope of folklore that existed long before Tolkien came along. I think he put it into his stories to reflect the standards of folk storytelling. He wasn’t trying to prop up the class system, nor to knock it down.
He doesn’t necessarily mean he viewed them as potentially superior officers. I took it to mean he considered them braver, stronger or generally better people.
Tolkien was brought up by his mother until her death when he was twelve, after his father’s death when Tolkien was an infant. After his mother’s death, he was raised by his Catholic Priest. This was in no way a privileged upbringing, rather the opposite. He excelled at his studies, and won a scholarship to one of the top schools in the country, before going up to Oxford.
He was an officer because of his education, not his class - unless you consider that this education raised his class, in which case, it’s an argument his belief that class is immutable, and that he assumed people should know their place. Indeed, his stories are full of people who do not know their place, and fight to improve their lot, and they are the heroes. Whether it’s Sam discovering the inner strength to support Frodo on his journey, and later become mayor of the SHire for half his life, Eowyn riding to battle and killing the Witch King, Thorin refusing his status as an exile and fighting - and dying - to reclaim his lands for his people, or Beren stealing the Silmaril from Morgoth to win the hand of Luthien despite him being human and her an Elf, Tolkien’s heroes are all those who succeed despite their background and circumstances.
Even Aragorn didn’t start the journey intending to become King on Gondor, and in fact had previously left a good chance to do that alone. He was a hard-bitten ranger on the outskirts of civilization. Yes, he was a leader among the Rangers, but did not by any stretch look or act much like the Gondorian elite. In fact, his original plan seems to have been to go into Mordor with Frodo, a probable death sentence.
And this is the guy who is most buried in a specific social class. Legolas is an Elven prince but runs around using his skills to fight just like everyone else. Dwarves seem to have rather flexible social rank in any case, but Gimli is definitely connected, and he’s right there down on the field ready to do battle like a common soldier (OK, uncommon soldier).
I’d argue this supports my point. Aragorn didn’t particularly want to be a King and he had other goals in life. But Tolkien didn’t see this as an acceptable outcome. The message of the book is that Aragorn was born to be a King and he should therefore restore the natural order by accepting the role of being a king. It’s a violation of the social order for somebody like act outside their station. Gondor’s problems arose from Denethor and Boromir trying to be kings instead of just stewards. The problem was resolved by Faramir stepping aside and accepting his role as steward to the real king, Aragorn.
And again, this isn’t real history. It all happened because Tolkien wrote it that way. It was Tolkien’s decision to resolve a major plotline by everyone going to the place they were supposed to hold by birth. Tolkien could have just as easily have had Aragorn renounce his claim to the throne and give it to Faramir with a pronouncement that the House of Huron had earned the kingship by their centuries of service to Gondor.
Not at all. He was brought up to know his birthright, and strongly desired to claim it, not least because it would allow him to marry Arwen. There’s no sign of any goals that aren’t tied to this.
Gondor’s problems arose because Denethor was using his Palantir, and Sauron was manipulating what he was seeing to remove all hope of victory from him. Not that there was much hope of victory anyway, and Denethor was facing the loss of Gondor, and with it any hope for freedom for Man. That, combined with the loss of his favourite son, drove him mad at the time Gondor needed the leadership he would otherwise have been able to provide.
Boromir recognised Aragorn as his king from the beginning of their friendship, and again at his death. Neither he nor his father attempted to claim the throne, and Denethor rejects having any right to it - but also considers that Aragorn has to earn his throne, not simply claim it. Which he does.
Aragorn, of course, is superior to other men, by virtue of having Elves and a Goddess in his ancestry, a situation that doesn’t really have a parallel in the real world. The story is not an allegory for anything, and cannot really be forced to be one. It’s a fantastical mythology, and works best when understood as such.
Faramir would have refused. He would have had to let Boromir live for that to happen, then the story would be entirely different. That said, such a story could have worked, but would have shown someone working to rise above their place just as much as the current story does.
Aragorn does not become king because of who he is, but because of what he does. That no-one else could have done it does not mean it is inevitable that he will.
Steophan, you seem to be treating the story as if it was a historical event that Tolkien was merely reporting. As I’m sure you know, this is fiction. Nothing was in the story because it happened that way. Everything that happened is there because Tolkien chose it to happen that way. So it’s not just the way Tolkien wrote about events but the events themselves that indicate Tolkien’s views.
Aragorn isn’t superior to other men because he is partly descended from elves. Aragorn is superior to other men because Tolkien wrote him that way. Aragorn didn’t become king because it was his long-foretold destiny. Aragorn became king because Tolkien wrote that he did on page 304.
And I’m not saying that The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings is an allegory of the British class system. They’re great works and they can’t be reduced to such a simple level. But they’re works that were written by somebody who firmly believed in a class system and they reflect their author’s beliefs.
You’re still only focusing on the parts of the story that support your argument. Plenty of folks in the thread have pointed out lots of plot elements that involve characters acting ‘outside’ their station. What about them?
Saying that context and background don’t matter because “Tolkien wrote him that way” is pretty weak literary criticism.
Obviously. Everyone discussing the books (or, for that matter, any other subject) is obviously going to present the evidence that they feels backs up what they’re saying. How else is a debate supposed to work?
I have addressed several of the particular points others have made. But I don’t want to be one of those people who posts five page long rebuttals where they go through other people’s posts line-by-line. (It’s getting near the edge here and this is only three sections.)
If there’s some particular point you’d like me to address, let me know and I’ll see what I can do.
I very much disagree. I think judging an artistic work in view of its author’s intent is a very important critical approach. I might even argue it should be the primary approach to judging an artistic work.
When you read Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for example, you’re not reading what Huckleberry Finn and Jim and Tom Sawyer did. You’re reading what Samuel Clemens did. That, to me, is an incredibly important point. You can’t forget that novels have no independent existence - they only exist because authors write them.
Ah, so you’ll accept that Tolkien was creating a mythical past with no relevance to modern society, and no applicability to it then? Because that was his stated aim.