The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 08-26-2002, 05:21 PM   #1
Mirkgirl
Haunting Spirit
 
Mirkgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 84
Mirkgirl has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via Skype™ to Mirkgirl
Sting The significance of Merry and Pippin - the real hobbit ambassadors

When the theme is Merry’s importance the usual argument is Witch King. I’ve seen a lot of polls and threads arguing who actually killed the Witch King. I won't go into that 'murki' water, my goal is simply to emphasize on the link between Merry and the Nazgul through the whole book.

First of all we have the vital role of Merry in the beginning, he basically saved the absolutely unprepared journey (walk is the word maybe).

In the book we have three grand evils - Sauron, Saruman and the Nazgul, or the Witch-King in particular. If we link Sauron to Frodo and Saruman to Gandalf as direct oppositions, we have the Nazgul and?
Aragorn - that would spoil the idea of him as the one who must gather all the men and lead them against the dark lord.
Boromir is out of the game, Legolas and Gimli are representing their people and this task would overburden the character.
Eowyn is a good choice, but after all we need a fellowship member.
And so Merry is the perfect choice.

Merry and the Nazgul are deeply bounded throughout the book - first he is mistaken for one, which represents them as poles. Then he has a close encounter with a Nazgul in Bree. Also he's the first one to notice the Nazgul from Weathertop, but that's not so important.

And the amusing play with prophecy - first, not man but woman, second not man but hobbit, third not one but two...

One other frequently debated question is Pippin and Merry.
Yes, I see a lot of duality in these two. The way I see it that the two other hobbits represented the adventurous spirit of hobbits - Merry for the more mature and responsible one and Pippin for the touching enthusiasm, that is so appealing in the young ones. So there was no need IMO to separate the characters who are just the two sides of the same coin.

We have the two rulers death and especially they are the rulers of two strongly connected countries. The two fellow countries as we see from UT where is the tale where Cirion gives Eorl land to establish his country in new, better land paying back for his aid against the Colessairs(sp).

Here we have something which is strange at first glance - the older country, the main as we might say has a secretly mad ruler, who is discovered in public just when he crosses the line. While the new one has a ruler whose insanity is well seen and able to cover. I'm not forgetting that Gondor does not have its rightful ruler, but a Steward but that's not something that important as the only thing that holds the rulers being still Stewards after all those years is the single fact that this is Gondor (and maybe someone wise, name Galadriel, Gandalf?) and even Cirion is a Steward, the twelfth ruling. So this is a way to show how the older the established country is better in everything, even in covering the problems, which makes it harder to be helped.

The old and the new country have something to do with Merry and Pippin, I'm haven't lost the main as you might think. Pippin being the representative of young is in the old country, in Gondor and, as we see, he's the one who saves the country from the ruler, who suffers from the side effects of the established ruler whose problems are ignored because they cannot exist. So the old has something to study from the young one, even though for Pippin for the young one, the encounter is a lesson which he learns, and not teaches.

We cannot say that Merry, the most mature from the four hobbits (sorry all, it's not Frodo) has exactly the same relationship with the younger country, Rohan taken with the opposite sign. He just has the proper environment for him not be burdened with the country's (ruler's) troubles more than being... a friend. So infront of him lies the opportunity to be a hero in the actual battle.

Now I'd like just to say one more thing on this, though the post is way too long already and thought I have a lot more to say at the same time. Merry and Pippin are the actual representatives of the hobbits, of the hobbits' spirit - the spirit of friendship mainly. Because Frodo is burdened with a responsibility, which demands a lot of character but it is not so evident for the hobbits as whole. And Sam is the servant, other feelings trigger his actions. Merry and Pippin are the friends, who'd go anywhere for the friendship (and this was so neglected in the movie btw. I can't go without a critic to the movie, you know) and for the inner lust for adventures too. That's what explains their growth in height too - they are the next evolution step of hobbits, they are the selected ones who have to improve the species (way too biological I know).

(A bit pointless maybe, but don’t be too harsh I like Literature classes (; )
__________________
"Hobbits! Well, what next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's something mighty queer behind this."
Mirkgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:20 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.