![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#41 | |||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
To take the current chapter as an example, I do not read Shelob as Lilith, rather I see her as an immense creature with all the nastier traits of female spiders magnified. To me, she is the ultimate in scary spiders. Relating her to non-arachnid comparisons, my own equivalent to what we see in Shelob would be the black hole, reducing matter to nothing (as Shelob does when she eats), indiscriminate in that she swallows anything just as a black hole does. Ungoliant, her mother, even swallows Light just as a black hole does. The other example which I read differently is the passage about Sam challenging Shelob: Quote:
Just two examples of how the text might be seen differently. Much has also been said here of how Galadriel is equivalent to the virgin Mary, which is again something I do not pick up on. I can see why many parallels are drawn, and though I do not always agree with them, I do like to read what other people see. I suppose it would be impossible to always know exactly what Tolkien's intentions were, so we cannot expect to be reading the 'right' thing into the text all of the time. From the other point of view, I can also see that it is not always good to delve too deeply; sometimes simple pleasure is what we ought to get from reading, to be carried along with the fantasy. I suppose that this is the danger with such in depth analysis as we have here, it is all too easy to spoil the pleasure of reading by extracting every last drop of meaning. I know for myself that to study literature brought me dangerously close to disliking reading altogether; it took me some years to shake off the theorising (funnily enough it was very much the fashion to look at texts from a Freudian perspective at the time, which is possibly why I dislike Freudian analysis of literature), and thankfully return to the simple pleasure of reading. Now I have a happy balance of being able to read for fun, and analyse when it suits me, and more importantly, find what meaning lies beneath a text for myself, and decide for myself if it is relevant. That's enjoyable, and why I like these discussions on the Downs - nobody is telling us we are wrong. ![]() More on Shelob now... How did she come into being? That she does not have the greed for Light that her mother had, suggests that she was not as powerful as her mother, perhaps the offspring produced when Ungoliant mated with a lesser male? Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
Since a slowdown of the chapter discussions has been requested, I am postponing the next one for at least a week. You are cordially invited to continue posting on this thread or to catch up on previous ones. Thanks!
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 | ||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,990
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
I have yet to see any argument which convinces me that we must "stay in Middle-earth" as we read or risk destroying the truth. Where does one determine when reading/interpretation takes place--in the moment of reading or when one closes the book? It is, I posit, logically impossible to postulate such a split. Interpretation of meaning is an always ongoing process, not start and stop, for we are always reading ahead, to imagine where this leads, how the characters inter-relate. But as for what an author can 'put in' or not, let me give a long quotation, as I know davem loves long quotations. It is about Shakespeare, so I suppose I am having a little bit of fun about Tolkien's opinion of the Bard. Because the idea belongs to George Steiner, I am going to use his words. And because this isn't Freudian, perhaps Lalwendë will forgive me for delving too deeply. Like Aiwendil, I do not believe that good art can be destroyed by too much thought. First, let me quote the passage which Steiner discusses. It is Postumous's rant about the perfidious nature of women when he thinks that Imogen has betrayed him with Iachimo. Act II of Cymbeline. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
![]() I mean, should we even bother trying to understand what the poster intended or should we simply take whatever 'meaning' we as individual readers happen to find in it... ![]() Having said that, I do begin to wonder if Tolkien was able to foresee the way certain words would develop new or even alternate meanings - he did make a lot of use of the words 'gay' & 'queer' after all.....
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 05-16-2005 at 09:22 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
This is why I do not like much literary criticism or analysis, as it seems to me that the critic is simply pulling apart a text to find what they want to find. I want to know what the author intended, I don't want to reconstruct a text for myself, for my own meaning. There are many echoes in Tolkien's work, but it is also important to bear in mind what Tolkien himself may have learned, experienced or thought about. If it was simply not possible that he could consider a matter then it is not possible it could pass into his writing, and when I come across an odd word or phrase which seems to have alternate meanings I stop to consider if that could be the case. It's often interesting to bring up such alternate and arresting meanings and consider them, but ultimately it is unsatisfying as to getting towards the deeper meaning. Sometimes what we find in a text says more about us than it does about the author.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 | ||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,990
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
But this is bringing us back to the topic of the Canonicity thread and far away from the Chapter by Chapter reading thread, and so I would like to return to some specific comments about this chapter. I would like to consider lmp's question about Gollem. Quote:
In terms of plot, though, Gollem cannot stay around, for he could have turned matters against Sam. The battle must, in dramatic terms, be between Sam and Shelob alone. Nor would it suit Gollem's plans to call the Orcs in, for he has no say with them. He wants the Ring. I don't want to look ahead too far, but don't we need him offstage so we don't dwell on his betrayal? This makes his final appearance at Mount Doom all that much more powerful I think as unexpected drama. Better for Gollem to withdraw and regroup methinks and better for the very dramatic eucatastrophe at the end. Any other thoughts?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
My point about 'gay' & 'queer' was simply that words do change meaning over the centuries, even come to mean something quite different to what they originally meant. It was in response to Steiner's Quote:
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 05-16-2005 at 03:02 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Tolkien was not a literary scholar, he was a scholar of language, and as such approached the meaning of texts from a linguistic background, seeking to find the original meanings of the words and forming his analysis of the meaning on this. In On Fairy Stories he states his case against those critics who seek to deconstruct in order to find evidence to suit their own theories.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,589
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
You two will have very interesting dinner table conversations I think.
Then again, on the other hand, you may use the BD to discuss brainy things and spend dinner discussing Monty Python and Blackadder. ![]()
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,990
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
Well, well, throw a Downer a bone in the shape of a suggestion that not all of Tolkien's writing was consciously so and they will worry it to death!
![]() As I said in my previous post, I think this is getting off topic. That might be for the moderator to decide, but I will briefly suggest some thoughts here and then will retire to suggest that we hash out this particular aspect in PM. As "we" have discussed elsewhere, Tolkien actually thought different things at different times about his Legendarium. Aiwendil argued rather nicely (was it on Canonicity or here in the Chapter by Chapter discussion of the Lothlorien chapters?) that there are three different stages to the characterisation of Galadriel, developed over a substantial period of time, with each stage suggesting rather different interpretations for LotR. Then we have littlemanpoet's The Single Greatest (Publishing) Tragedy in Tolkien's Life thread where we are considering Tolkien's habit, later in his writing life, of revising in order to create an assumed consistency among all his vast works. This is the difficult point about Tolkien and intention: he intended different things at different times in his writing, and each shift created little ripples in the fabric, sometimes requiring greater shifts and sometimes much dike-building. Then there is his attitude towards applicability: Tolkien rejected allegory for the specific reason that it created a purposed domination of the author; in his chosen applicability lay the freedom of the reader ("Foreward to the Second Edition", LotR). (my bolding in place of quotation marks) What was it Tolkien wrote in Letter #213, where he mentions the reader who deduced the similarity of Sam and Gimli's words about Galadriel to Catholic devotion of Mary, or the similarity of lembas under fasting to the Eucharist? Quote:
So the issue is not that I would force my own idiosyncratic reading on a text that cannot bear it. The issue is a 'what if' and if so, how does this colour our understanding of this marvellous fantasy. And, anyways, how sure are you, after all, that your denial of any applicability of the Lilith myth is in fact consistent with Tolkien, that he would have denied such applicability? How do we square "On Fairy Tales" with his later revisions? I don't think we can. Nor should we need to. All I am saying is that my seeing 'applicability' of the Lilith legend to Shelob enhances my reading of Tolkien's myth-making. Just as the applicability of the hero's mystic marriage with the queen goddess brings richness to my reading of Aragorn and Arwen. As an aside about the Steiner passage, davem, Steiner does mention Renaissance meaning in his reference to Middleton, which can be found in the OED. Your search that yellow was traditionally associated with treachery is interesting, but that is a meaning not found in the OED. (Despite Fordim's great admiration for that dictionary, and mine, I must point out that it is not infallible.) And, after all, Steiner was engaged in a large larger argument than that one passage can make clear. Perhaps your problems with the passage show something about interpretation: that context invariably impinges upon passages. This certainly is what happens when I read this chapter, I constantly cross reference it back to things I recall from previous chapters. And at this point, forward too, which takes me far out of bounds of that illusory, imaginary first reading. But, shall we adjourn to PM so this thread can return to the chapter proper?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 05-16-2005 at 10:19 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Lilith carries too much baggage with her, & the danger of allowing that (inevitable?) mental connection to have its head is that we start seeing Shelob as 'nothing but' Lilith, or at least of having our appreciation of Shelob & what Tolkien was doing with her & saying about the nature (or one aspect of it) of evil. Dion Fortune once said 'All the gods are one God & all the goddesses are one Goddess' which is absolutely true on one level, & completely wrong on another. The Romans had a tendency on encountering the deities of another culture, to declare them as being merely versions of their own gods. Any foreign god that might have had an association with battle was immediately declared to be a manifestation of Mars, of love a manifestation of venus, of Smithcraft, of Vulcan, etc. This lead to some complete misallocations & misunderstandings which went on to cause confusion among mythographers of later periods. What do you do with a goddess like Bridget, who is patron of poetry, healing & smithcraft, for instance? I can't help feeling that if you could ask Tolkien about his thoughts on the Shelob/Lilith debate he would acknowledge some similarities, many differences, & then ask you how you felt reading the story he wrote - did it frighten you, inspire you, & most of all, did it 'enchant' you enough that you were 'in the moment' as you read it. If you weren't, if while reading of Shelob you were thinking of Lilith (or the shopping, or what you were going to watch on tv in half an hour) then he's probably feel he'd failed as a writer. Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 | |
Dead Serious
|
To quote from the Foreword (second Edition):
Quote:
There you have it. Tolkien himself admits that one's one life experience and knowledge affect what one writes. But as he states, the way in which it works is very difficult to track. And personally, I am in agreement with that. So while it may be fascinating to read things in to what he wrote, we may be barking up the wrong tree, on the right track, or just plain confused. At the same time, things that, to Tolkien, were obviously drawn from his life, might well be missed by the whole devoted lot of us.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This is a good place in the discussion to point out that we should take general considerations to the Canonicity thread and try to stay with the chapter at hand as much as possible - thanks! Though the posts are enjoyable to read, they are leaving the confines of the CbC discussion...
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Point taken.
Having said that, this thread, while it may have strayed off-topic, currently has 52 replies, while the one for the last chapter, which was strictly on-topic, only got 10...... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME)
Posts: 612
![]() |
I am going to sound extremely ignorant but who/what is Frued?
As for Sam's dependence on Frodo, I believe he actually becomes much more independent from Frodo as LOTR progresses. Especially when Sam is left on his own and as Frodo is becoming increasingly influenced by the ring Sam has no choice but take up the leadership role. Certainly he seems lost, especially after he finds Frodo "dead". But no wonder, he is in a strange country and the quest is now truly in danger. In fact when I look at the whole book I believe that the quest could have the biggest chance of failing in this chapter. If Sam had decided to do something else other than what he did the quest could have failed and the ring could have landed in the enemies hands. At this moment everything comes down to Sam and what he decides hence the chapters title. The fact that Sam leaves Frodo to continue on to Mount Doom makes it clear that although Sam didn't know of the ring's full potential before, he does now and he understands that he has to go on. I think this is a very brave choice, to go into Mordor alone with no idea of what can happen. (That is of course untill he finds out that Frodo is alive) In fact I think it is even braver when sam decides to rescue Frodo. However, it is also slightly foolish since he could have been caught. But that is for the next book.
__________________
Back again |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,990
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
There is nothing wrong with asking questions, Lathriel!
lmp has given you some good suggestions. Here is another one: another helpful source is the Wikipedia online encyclopedia: go here for infor on Freud. The Wikipedia is useful for many other topics as well! Really worth bookmarking, I think.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 | |||||||||
Banshee of Camelot
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 5,830
![]() |
I can’t say anything to the discussion above (never having heard about Lilith) but in general I agree very much with what Lalwendë wrote:
Quote:
Btw Tolkien wrote in a letter to Christopher 1944 (#72): Quote:
Quote:
When he takes the starglass he says „It’s too good for me „ and when he finally makes up his mind: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As Faramir already told him : Quote:
I was also very intrigued by the (untranslated) Elvish invocation Sam uttered. In time I found out the meaning, but it still is mysterious how this came to be. About the Orcs: I noticed that their style of speaking seems quite modern , as opposed to the noble speech of the Gondorians and Rohirrim. About spiders: Quote:
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Yes! "wish-fulfilment dreams" we spin to cheat our timid hearts, and ugly Fact defeat! |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 | |
Shade of Carn Dűm
|
![]()
Loved your post, Guinevere! I agree. I also found it interesting what you posted about Tolkien and spiders. I've heard over and over that it was due to his own fear of spiders that Shelob became what she was...But I think I like knowing that he didn't hate them the way I had thought!
This is one of my favorite chapters in the whole of Lord of the Rings. I still cry every time I read it. I know Frodo is not dead, but Sam's heartbroken reaction just gets me. He has to be my favorite character in all of Lord of the Rings...or if not THE favorite, very close...and this chapter is, in my opinion, his finest hour. I love that he moved from being a character who takes a mostly-secondary role to Frodo, into a leading role here. That's certainly not to slight Frodo, or to say that I was glad that he was hurt...but it gives Sam his chance to shine. I could relate to him somewhat because I always second-guess my decisions as he does: Quote:
...(I just realized how hard it is to post on this particular topic. There's so much I want to say, but it's difficult for me to find the words to say it, and it's very frustrating for me. I'm going to take some time to gather my thoughts and maybe continue again later...*sigh*)
__________________
"Wherever I have been, I am back." Last edited by Azaelia of Willowbottom; 05-25-2005 at 07:23 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 | |||||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,990
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
Guinevere, I enjoyed your thoughts about this chapter very much, particularly your thoughtful comments on Sam. It doesn't really matter that you don't know anything about Lilith. You can enjoy the chapter very much as it is without that layering of possibilities; in fact, you provide other, equally rich possibilities. However, in case you are interested in other fantasy writers and in the legend of Lilith, you might want to take a look at George MacDonald's book, Lilith. MacDonald was a powerful influence on C.S. Lewis, less so on Tolkien himself, although Tolkien acknowledged him. MacDonald's interest in the imagination and fantasy anticipates that of Tolkien and Lewis. In many ways, he was a precursor. Readers don't have to know MacDonald's ideas to appreciate Tolkien's, but knowing MacDonald's thoughts on how our imagination creates meaning provides a wonderful context in which to consider Tolkien. Tolkien mentions both MacDonald and Lilith in his famous essay, "On Fairy-Stories". Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I will begin by pointing out that dragons are absent from LotR, but that for Tolkien, dragons were formidable creatures of great evil. In fact, Tolkien's ground-breaking essay on Beowulf owed much to his insistence upon the profound importance of dragons in our imaginative lives. Here's a passage that bears some thinking about in terms of Shelob. Quote:
Those attributes derive from a long history of misogyny, a history which is predominate in literature of the middle ages, but not limited to that time. Most of the attributes refer to bodily functions in their most repellant aspects, such as the stench, the uncontrolled appetite, the vast breeding, the voracious feeding upon others, the despicable way they uspet man's self-control. The Lilith legend is part of this, (although, as I say, MacDonald's Lilith is not given the extensive sensory imagery which Tolkien gives Shelob, even though MacDonald's Lilith has a fearful animal form. MacDonald's Lilith is Victorian, which Tolkien's is not. The Angel in the House cast a long shadow). Tolkien I think was brilliant in clothing this legendary aspect of early literature in animal form and not in human female form, but the tradition of fear of the female body is nonetheless made available in his story. I'm not by any means saying that Tolkien's Shelob = MacDonald's Lilith. There are great differences! Yet the concept of the loathsome, self-loving and self-serving female who describes all manner of evil self-indulgence and threat to lawful order links the two. Why does this matter to me? What does it add to my understanding of Tolkien? It allows me to see how his ideological framework works its way out in LotR. In that ideology, the pure, beautiful, and muse-like female, worshipped on the pedastle, counterbalances the disgusting, fearful female of chaotic impulse. Does Tolkien's Shelob have to be read this way? By no means! Yet for me this supplies another layer of wonder to the richness of Tolkien's imaginative creation. This is, to me, thoroughly in keeping with Tolkien's thoughts about how the imagination gathers, chooses, combines material to bring forth new revelation. Last edited by Bęthberry; 05-31-2005 at 10:57 AM. Reason: correcting codes and typos. added a reference |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#61 |
Illusionary Holbytla
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,547
![]() |
This is definitely one of my favorite chapter. I was absolutely stunned the first time I read it. After all, how could Frodo be dead? (Of course, being the fairly gullible reader I still am, I fell for it, even after Gandalf turned up alive...) Then, to my great relief, Frodo is still alive... but then what!? I was fortunate enough to have taken both TTT and RotK out from the library at the same time, but that didn't help, as the storyline switched back to the other characters to my disappointment. Anyway.
Some comments on Shagrat and Gorbag. Up until this point, there hasn't been a lot to say that Orcs are any more than basically evil beings, mostly characterized by greed, selfish ambition, cruelty, (in some cases, intelligence, though in itself this is neither good nor evil) and loyalty to his own respective (bad) side, whether Saruman, Sauron, or themselves as is the case with the Moria Orcs. Basically your ordinary, evil minions of the bad guy (very simplified, I know). In Shagrat and Gorbag, however, we see two fairly reasonable characters. Though they do exhibit a few of the aforesaid traits, all each of them is doing is looking out for his own skin. They clearly have no particular affinity for either Sauron or the Nazgűl, and even though their service is more or less willing, what they really want is to "set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads... and no big bosses." The only reason they would seem to want to win the war is because if Sauron is done for, so are they. Lalwendë's comparison (post #7) to middle-managers is a good one, I think - they don't really know what's going on, and can't really affect it, but they're concerned about it in how much it affects them. From what we can see of these two from this chapter, they seem to be of a fairly decent sort, even likable. On to Sam. This really is Sam's chapter. We've had glimpses into Sam's character, and we have a pretty good idea of Sam's personality, but this is a great chapter. Frodo is a very passive character in this chapter, and this shifts all the light onto Sam, who has hitherto always been rather in the background, both in the writing of the story and in his own actions - after all, his whole purpose for even being there was because of his loyalty to Frodo. So now, Sam is in the limelight and we get to see him at his best, despite his honest mistake of believing Frodo dead. We are told once again that Sam does not have and has never had any real hope, but his will, determination, and loyalty are enough to keep him going. Let there be no doubt: Sam's subservience to Frodo is not because of weakness of character. This just occurred to me: in many ways, Sam is very like to Faramir. Consider this quote of Faramir's: "War must be while we defend our lives against a destroyer that would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor." Now consider Sam. Sam is not one to go seek war and glory by victory, though not for lack of courage. His love and loyalty is to Frodo, and to defend what he thinks to be Frodo's dead body he is completely willing to take on some eighty Orcs - despite certain death to him and a failure of the Quest. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
It is quite possible to view Shelob/Galadriel as the light & dark aspects of the Goddess (Lilith or one of her sisters), as it is possible to see in the Gandalf/Sauron pairing the twin aspects of Odin - wandering wizard//necromancer, but this leads to confusion, in my opinion, because just as Gandalf & Sauron are autonomous figures, with histories & motivations which do not correspond in any way to the history & motivations of Odin, so Shelob & Galadriel do not partake of the myth of Lilith in any significant way. Shelob is, first & foremost, a big monster, & the role she plays is not that of Lilith, but of the 'killer' of Frodo & the nemesis of Sam. She is made as ugly & threatening, as monstrous in every aspect, as possible - mostly, I would say, for very simple reasons - the main one being that the confrontation with her creates a magnificent climax to the Frodo/Sam/Gollum storyline. Yes, Shelob is female, but that was dictated, I think, by Ungoliant being female. Ungoliant was the manifestation of 'unlight', of the void, that which consumes & absorbs into itself all light. But, it could be argued, that's only pushing the Shelob/Lilith 'equality' back a stage, & that it actually strengthens the argument of equivalence by 'doubling' it. Perhaps. But there is a very ancient tradition that the deity that initiates the apocalypse is female. This can be seen in the Prophecies of Merlin in Geoffrey's History of the Kings of Britain, where the Goddess 'Ariadne' 'unweaves' the cosmos she created in the beginning & takes back everything into the void. She creates (or 'weaves) all things into being at the Beginning, & destroys ('unweaves') all things at the End. So, we have both aspects of the primal Goddess manifest, the creator & the destroyer, the one who builds up & the one who breaks down. Ultimately She manifests the forces of both anabolism & catabolism. This also accounts for 'her' association with the spider. Now, Tolkien has presented us with multiple 'light' 'goddesses', principally Elbereth & her 'avatars' Galadriel & Melian, & also with 'dark' goddesses, again principally Shelob & Ungoliant. As with Odin, these 'Light' & 'Dark' aspects are split off, & seen from that perspective both aspects lose somthing of the depth, conflict & mystery of the original archetypes, but this is what we have from the hand of Tolkien. As I said in another thread, Shelob & Galadriel (as Gandalf & Sauron) must stand by what they are within the world they inhabit. The more external, primary world, input that is necessary to elucidate them the less effective they are as characters in their own right, & the more they become cyphers or 'allegories'. Now, it could be argued that the root cause of this 'split' was Tolkien's own attitude to death, his desire to understand & make sense of the 'gift' of death. Death becomes a problem to be solved, or at the least an ugly thing which must be explained & shown to have purpose in a universe created & ruled over by a loving God. The original myths from which the Lilith stories derive saw life & death as aspects of each other, with the Goddess standing at each 'gate', giving life & being & taking it away. Once the division of life=good & death=evil comes into play such archetypes fragment & no longer serve a useful purpose. So, there you have it - my interminable ramblings on why Lilith isn't Shelob - which I know isn't what you claimed at all, but I'm posting it for what its worth... |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 |
Dead Serious
|
A rather flippant, and to me amusing, thought occurred to me in reading this thread.
Perhaps the reason that Shelob is a she-lob (female spider) has to do with the simple fact that in nature, the female spiders are the larger and more dangerous ones, often eating their own mates. Perhaps Galadriel was female for the same reasons: Celeborn could not be married to a male elf. ![]()
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 |
Wight
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the Lepetomaine Gambling Casino For The Insane
Posts: 157
![]() |
The cleverest post I've made yet.
In both the books and the movies, the "duel" between Sam and Shelob is my favorite part. there's also somthing very interresting in the description of the fight (not that, you freaudian dignified pervs). there's a lot of superlatives and "never before"s, not what you' expect in the Sam and Frodo story arc. Why? perhaps Tolkien realized that book four would be a long drout for the fight-thirsty, and worked to find a way to fit in a fight at the end, perhaps there's some other reason, perhaps I'm just looking deep in shallow water.
__________________
I support...something. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
![]() ![]() |
I bet Tolkien put in a fight because it was the only way they were going to survive Shelob.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 |
Wight
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the Lepetomaine Gambling Casino For The Insane
Posts: 157
![]() |
I mean Shelob herself.
__________________
I support...something. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#67 |
Dead Serious
|
It's fascinating to me that this thread focuses mostly on Shelob when I find Shagrat and Gorbag to be at least as fascinating. When much younger, I didn't think much of them: they were just Ugluk and Grishnakh 2.0, but that doesn't really fit to me anymore: Shagrat and Gorbag have personalities as distinct from each other and from Ugluk and Grishnakh as much as Merry and Pippin do from each and from Frodo and Sam. And their relationship (though it goes elsewhere in the RotK) is far more genial, if one may usr that word of orks.
The Ring is also fascinating here. Because of its inherent dangers, we so rarely see it used, and all our other experience with it is with Frodo (Bilbo in The Hobbit really doesn't count). Seeing it here, after so long AND being used by someone else, is almost like a revelation of what a powerful magic object it is. And it's really the Ring's last hurrah as anything other than a burden and psychological pressure.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |