Skip to main content

Why are Gollum, Worntongue, and Saruman made to be so horribly forlorn of support

I mean, Gandalf talks so much shit to Wormtongue... but it is almost precisely similar to Sarumon's shit-talking of him at the finish of the novel, an action that lead to Wormtongue's smiting of him with a sword, delivered, it is made to seem, righteously -- one is almost meant to feel momentarily good for Worntongue, in that he refused to be further degraded. Does Gandalf abjure total rejection of Gollum, Wormtongue and Saruman because he, being a Tolkien representative, knows each one of them is going to endure a period of being totally alone, of being naked, vulnerable, hounded, hated, and friendless -- and thus a far worse fate than any of the Fellowship has to endure, for none of them is ever THAT alone -- and that this fate is somehow actually undeserved for their representing a "crime" that is in everyone... that is in HIM?

What is Gollum? -- the most inquisitive and curious of his kind, so the text explicitly states. What is Saruman? -- the most heedless of established authority; the most modern. What is Wormtongue? -- an ambitious intellect, who makes a grab at things that ought to be available to all, but whom some proclaim -- the stupid and stodgy, that is -- absolute ownership of. Tolkien was chastising part of himself, the part that wanted to grow outside of constraints... and almost too much: verged on being conspicuous, drawing too much attention as to why so much over-hate?... as if the "guilty" party had to be punished to absolve the punisher any suspicious co-ownership of the same motives/motivations.

There's a bit at the end of the destruction of Sarumon's tower by the Ents, where Treebeard begins to identify with Saruman, saying, "you know, if someone did the same to me -- destroyed all of my home -- I might try and hide out in a hole too," and Gandalf replies, "No, you are not the least bit like him, for you would never destroy --" and I thought, what's going on here is that Tolkien is performing a kind of pseudo-empathy, pseudo-identification, through Treebeard, so that he can convince himself that he tried that... he tried to get really inside their head, when the truth is he has to keep some firm distance from them else go down the hellish hole of merciless punishment -- handed out by Middle Earth, if not by Gandalf -- they exist in the narrative to be destroyed within.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...