It's only a matter of time...

[malsperanza]

Sat in a meeting on Friday in a room with no ventilation; on my left someone with wicked flu (coughing and sneezing), and on my right 2 people with bronchitis. Also, my assistant was out for 2 weeks with pneumonia--yes, real pneumonia--and is now bravely dragging herself around, wheezing and wobbling and fainting in coils. And now half my flist is down with thrombotic pulmonary disorders.

I am doomed.

*coughs*

*breathes deeply; listens for telltale signs of emphysema, sarcoidosis, lymphangioleiomyomatosis, or common cold*

OK, nothing nasty yet, but I'm not optimistic.

Well, having grouched about ROTK, I feel bad. Will pause for 5 min. of



1) Mmm. Aragorn.
1a) Mmm: Aragorn with clean hair (briefly). Why is it that Jack Sparrow looks just fine with messy hair, and Aragorn does not? Note to self: pursue interesting male grooming question for 2004 Popular Culture Association Conference panel discussion.

2) Beacons!
Beacons were hot! (Yes, literally and figuratively.)

3) Grond!!
Why has no one mentioned Grond yet? Grond also was veryveryhot! (Yes, literally and figuratively.) Grond was totally excellent.

4) Shelob!
W00t Shelob! Much though I'd enjoy watching POTC Undead Pirates fight ROTK Undead Dead, what I REALLY wants to see, preciouss, is Shelob taking on Mothra. Or the giant ants in "Them." Or both. Shelob would kick Mothra's ass. (But, dude, the POTC Undead Pirates would totally kick the ass of the ROTK Undead glowing vaporous ghosties. I bet Jackson was spitting nails when he saw the quality of the computer work in POTC--made his GreenEctoplasm!Undead look like the phantoms in Caspar the Friendly Ghost.)

(Only more of them, of course.)

Shelob was perfect. In fact, the whole Cirith Ungol part was perfect, despite being (O horrors!) Not Entirely Canonical.

5) Smeagol and Deagol!
Excellent opening gambit for the movie. Such a relief not to get a whole lot of awkward summary of FOTR and TTT frontloaded, but instead the very backstory that we got part-way through the book, in much the same manner. Elegantly done.

6) Absence of Saruman.
Well, I wasn't crazy about Cher!Saruman in TTT, so I didn't miss him. Her. Whatever.

7) Giant Eagles!
And to those who ask how come the Nine Walkers couldn't have flown by EagleAir to Mordor in the first place, I say: Well obviously because the Eagles dint feel like it that day, okay?

I wouldn't mind seeing a Giant Eagles vs. Shelob smackdown either, come to think of it. Or Shelob vs. Grond. Or the Eye of Sauron Meets the Smog Monster. That would be good.

8) Wizard of Oz quotations.
I have decided I like these, though on Wednesday night they made me laugh inappropriately & I pissed off the veryveryserious folks wearing Spock ears (or possibly Bad Santa's Helper ears) in the row in front of us. I liked the Wizard of Oz quotations in Oh Brother Where Art Thou too.

I think all adventure/fantasy/quest/Odyssey movies should quote from The Wizard of Oz; if Cold Mountain includes a horse of a different color, I will be veryveryhappy. Let's not forget the brilliant but subtle auteur moment in The Last Samurai, after the great massacre, when the hero clicks his sparkly red samurai geta clogs together and in the next scene is seen returning home to the village.

And all romance/noir/spy movies should be required to quote from Casablanca.

9) Misc.
Shadowfax. The Nazgul. The way Minas Tirith looked. The palantir. The fact that Merry and Pippin were distinguishable from one another.

10) The general pacing.

11) Did I mention Aragorn?
Mmm.



OK, that's enough of that. What I really want to post about is The Trickster Figure in Literature. Have many quotes and brilliant auteur insights to share, but must first get LOTR out of system a bit.

FWIW, the main Trickster figure in LOTR is Bombadil.

I still can't find one in HP, which I find both curious and interesting.

Have also not forgotten promise (now one month old) to deal Mighty Cold War Humor Death Blow Challenge to black_dog upthread. Am currently researching Judith Exner/Marilyn Monroe/Luttwak connection. Stay tuned.

Comments

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

1a) Mmm: Aragorn with clean hair

He does look so much better. When he returned to the fighting I was saddened by the sweaty hair.

2) Beacons!
Beacons were hot! (Yes, literally and figuratively.)

And I once said to myself that I could never fall prey to panoramic shots and dramatic music which would only leave me unrequited and disturbing to the general populace! *loves beacons madly*

3) Grond!!

Who was Grond? O_o

Well, I wasn't crazy about Cher!Saruman in TTT, so I didn't miss him. Her. Whatever.

Cher!Saruman. Now there's a mental image I didn't need. But I missed his evil craziness. And I missed Wormtongue. Wow, I have really disturbing character preferences, don't I?

7) Giant Eagles!
And to those who ask how come the Nine Walkers couldn't have flown by EagleAir to Mordor in the first place, I say: Well obviously because the Eagles dint feel like it that day, okay?

Well, the Lighthouse of Mordor would have been scanning the skies, you know.

What's with the little dragonfly, though, eh? Just scoots around being a messenger for the eagles? Odd.

8) Wizard of Oz quotations.

Where, where?

The fact that Merry and Pippin were distinguishable from one another.

It was good, wasn't it?

I love all that you write, when I can understand it, and look forward to more! *bows very low, like Tolkien overused phrase*

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Grond is the name of the giant wolf-headed firebreathing battering ram.

Oz movie citations all over the place. The most obvious one is where Sam and Frodo peer over the rocks on the stairs of Cirith Ungol and look down on Minas Morgal and see troops marching out to war. Although this is faithfully filmed exactly as described in the book, it also looks identical to Dorothy and her Companions peering over the rocks at the Winkie Guards marching into the Wicked Witch's castle ("O-Ee-Yah! Eoh-Ah!" remember?)

And then there is Frodo waking up in bed and seeing his friends again, just like Dorothy at the end ("And you were there, and you were there, and you were there!")

And of course there is the poignant ending: "I'm going to miss you most of all, Scarecrow."

I can't really say that this is Peter Jackson's fault; it may be embedded in the books, and indeed it may be embedded in all quest stories. Frodo-as-Dorothy never struck me before, and I confess that I feel a lot less reverent toward the movies than toward the books, so this stuff did make me laugh.

What dragonfly? I missed the dragonfly. *wails* I love dragonflies.

Ditto re your posts btw: you are dead-on about Denethor. Also the Lighthouse of Doom. Orcs do have pets, btw: usually they are smaller orcs. Eventually, they eat them.

And whatup with the strawberries and warm bread?? All of a sudden we are in an episode of Little House on the Plain of Gorgoroth.

Whoever told Peter Jackson he was capable of mimicking Tolkien's writing style must have been high.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I loved the Wizard of Oz stuff at the end--we were just missing Aragorn at the window instead of the door. It's very funny but also just t00by sweet, imo.

Today it struck me that if everybody was there it meant everybody was waiting outside his door. Altogether now: AWWWWW!

I prefer Sam's line in the book to inspire Frodo's speech about not remembering things--I think he just says, "Remember when I saw the oliphaunt?" It seems sort of silly for Sam to ask if Frodo remembers the Shire at that point. You almost expect Frodo to say, "Oh, I don't know, Sam...that was two movies ago. Can I get a recap?"

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

It seems sort of silly for Sam to ask if Frodo remembers the Shire at that point. You almost expect Frodo to say, "Oh, I don't know, Sam...that was two movies ago. Can I get a recap?"

*mops coffee off monitor*

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

What dragonfly? I missed the dragonfly. *wails* I love dragonflies.

That's probably because it wasn't a dragonfly and I'm making stuff up again. I mean the little insect that Gandalf talked to on Orthanc, and flitted past him in ROTK to tell him that the eagles were coming.

All of a sudden we are in an episode of Little House on the Plain of Gorgoroth.

Ahahaha. Now there's a crossover you could sink your teeth into.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

*squints*

I'm guessing butterfly. I'd forgotten it turned up at Orthanc too. Butterflies follow giant eagles around? Like pilotfish with sharks, or egrets who stand on the heads of hippos and pick their nits. Well, why not? The natural history of Middle Earth includes trees that get drunk on growth hormone and carnivorous willows, after all.

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

If it's not a dragonfly, I'd say it's a moth. I thought it was the messenger for the giant eagles, and Gandalf talked to it just before the eagles showed up. It's cute. :)

[anjali-organna.livejournal.com]

7) Giant Eagles!
And to those who ask how come the Nine Walkers couldn't have flown by EagleAir to Mordor in the first place, I say: Well obviously because the Eagles dint feel like it that day, okay?

My friend and I have a theory that the Giant Eagles signify a spot in the story where Tolkien got bored and decided to speed up the action. "Gandalf needs to escape Saruman? Send in the Eagle! Don't really know how to deal with the flying Nazgul? Obviously calls for Eagles! Frodo and Sam stuck on Mt Doom with no way to get back, despite needing to be present in Gondor in a couple days for the crowning? Eagles!"

Anyway. I also thought that Minas Tirith was, liek, teh Coolest Set Ever. Screw Rivendale. Let me live in the Giant Glowing Ice Palace any day.

[anjali-organna.livejournal.com]

And by Minas Tirith I meant Minas Morgul. *smacks self* But the White City was also awesome.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

I like your Eagles theory. It doesn't explain the godawful 1970s rock group (nothing can), but it explains Tolkien's Eagles pretty well.

[lorem_ipsum]

FWIW, the main Trickster figure in LOTR is Bombadil.

I always thought Gandalf and Bilbo were more important Trickster figures because they send Frodo off on the Quest.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

That's interesting. Can you say more? Why is it the Trickster's role to send the hero on his quest? Because the Trickster is a catalyst?

[lorem_ipsum]

Oops. Ambiguity. I meant that they struck me as more significant because they send the hero on the quest, rather than that that is the Trickster's role. (And I think it's interesting because the fact that Frodo is sent on his quest by Tricksters, rather than some other archetype, says something about what kind of quest it is.)

[lorem_ipsum]

Er, you do see what I mean about Gandalf and Bilbo being Tricksters? Aside from Bilbo's disappearing act, their tricksiness isn't all that apparent in LotR, but it's a serious theme in The Hobbit. Oh, and I forgot another really important Trickster in LotR: Gollum. Not as playful a type of Trickster as the other two, but he's even more important, in fact, since he accompanies Frodo most of the way.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Gollum definitely, and I see what you mean about both Bilbo and Gandalf in The Hobbit ("trickssy Hobbitsss!"), but I don't see either Bilbo or Gandalf as retaining their Trickster-archetype character in LOTR. Of course, I haven't bothered yet to define what I think the Trickster is, though I will get around to that one of these days. But I'm v. interested in what you think it is about these two that makes them Tricksters.

Well, actually, Bilbo and the Disappearing Trick at the Party is a sort of Trickster event... yes, I can see that. Hmmm.

It occurs to me that I see both Bilbo and Gandalf as being quite different in LOTR from what they are in The Hobbit--almost new characters, indeed. Esp Gandalf. This is a good excuse to reread The Hobbit.

[lorem_ipsum]

Well, the Disappearing Trick and The Hobbit pretty much *were* all my evidence for G&B-as-Tricksters. I agree that they practically are different characters in LotR; it hurts my brain to try to reconcile them as the same canon. So this is my workaround:

The Hobbit is, more-or-less, a fiction. It's one of the founding myths of Frodo's personality. He's brought up by a Trickster, he thinks he is a Trickster (he's wrong, of course-- he's actually the Anti-Trickster *g*), and he expects Gandalf to act as a Trickster with him. And then Gandalf doesn't, which is kind of a... nasty Trick.

No, I don't know what exactly I mean by Trickster, either. I just know it has something to do with catalysis, between-states, transgressive states, and transformations.

But giving someone a precious gift that has a curse on it (Here, take this Ring, it has the power to rule the world, which is why you're going to DIE) is a classic Trickster action, I think.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Hee. This makes me veryveryhappy. I am going to post more on the Trickster one of these days--hope you'll stick around to respond.

I never really considered how important it is that Frodo is an orphan. I mean, that's a standard hero-attribute, but that he's raised by a funny-uncle is really almost too mythic for words. ClevercleverTolkien.

[lorem_ipsum]

Hee. This makes me veryveryhappy.

*g* Well, I'm glad.

I never really considered how important it is that Frodo is an orphan.

Well, I think I would have read it the same way if Frodo had been Bilbo's son (though not if his name were Bingo Bolger-Baggins *g*). The important thing is that Frodo-- and the other three, for that matter-- grew up with this goofy guy as a major influence.

(I think you can make a case that Merry and Pippin are Tricksters, too. They're just not in the running for Most Important Trickster-Figure In The Book.)

Frodo's being an orphan does make him kind of a changeling, though.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Well, I think I would have read it the same way if Frodo had been Bilbo's son (though not if his name were Bingo Bolger-Baggins *g*). The important thing is that Frodo-- and the other three, for that matter-- grew up with this goofy guy as a major influence.

"Frodo son of Drogo" is bad enough. Tolkien had some reallyreallybad ideas in those early drafts, for sure.

(I think you can make a case that Merry and Pippin are Tricksters, too. They're just not in the running for Most Important Trickster-Figure In The Book.)

Maybe. They are clownish enough (marked as such by their Shakespeare-clown names), though not especially wily and not really transgressive, except in a mild schoolboyish sort of way. I think they are simply kids, relatively normative, but playful and irresponsible. Pippin has a Trickster's uncontrolled curiosity, to be sure. But Trickster is a Boy Forever, Peter Pan who won't grow up, and his whimsy is frequently dangerous, even malicious. Neither Merry nor Pippin is ever malicious in the least.

Frodo's being an orphan does make him kind of a changeling, though.

Child of No One and heir to Everyone.

Odysseus, in one of his most famous Trickster exploits (stealing sheep from the Cyclops), pretends that his name is Outis--No One. Frodo is certainly no Trickster (he has no madness in him, and no folly, and though he loses his home, he is not by nature homeless or rootless); yet he is adoptive son to both Bilbo and Gandalf.

The Trickster is a complicated character, and in his clearest forms he tends to be a childless wanderer(Jack Sparrow and in some ways Odysseus, whose son grows to manhood entirely in his absence). But I suppose that a son of a Trickster might well be a hero, since they are partly but not fully divine.

[lorem_ipsum]

Yeah, I don't think M&P's *characters* are particularly Tricksterish. Merry, especially, I see as a serious and thoughtful guy underneath the humor. And they grow up, which Tricksters don't do. But. Okay, here's my case:

1) In flat-out contradiction of Tolkien's claim that hobbits are homebodies, I think that hobbits are Tricksters, sort of.
a) They play a catalyst role when drawn into the affairs of other peoples.
b) They're "magical" enough that Tolkien feels a need to quarantine them when the Age of Men comes, yet they don't have any magic of their own and consequently are not Faerie enough to just fade/sail away as the Elves do.
c) The very word "Halfling" (and I'll concede I'm going overboard here) is suggestive of Trickster-y in-between-ness.

2) Tooks are coded in Shire-culture as Tricksters, and in the text of The Hobbit.

3) Hobbiton-Bywater mistrust of "those queer Bucklanders" aside, Brandybucks aren't quite so heavily culturally coded as Tricksters, I think. But in the *text* of LotR they are coded that way anyhow.
a) Of all the hobbits caught by surprise by Bilbo's Disappearing Act, it's the Brandybuck paterfamilias who expresses the best intuitive grasp of what Bilbo has done.
b) Bucklanders are of the Shire, and yet they choose to live just outside its borders.
c) Buckland is the bridge between the Shire and Bree.
d) Like the Tooks, the Brandybucks offer significant resistance to Sharkey's Men.

Given 1, 2, and 3, I think M&P have to be considered as possible Tricksters even though their psychology is not Trickster-ish.

1) Pippin. In a culture which prizes predictable homebodies, there is definitely something transgressive about having a name that implies an inclination to wander.

2) For that matter, I think we're missing a lot of the impact of our most familiar hobbit characters' eccentricity. That they would seek adventure at all makes them transgressive by Shire standards, though not by ours.

3) In the TTT abduction sequence, they both show themselves to be quick-witted.

4) And this is really the meat of my thinking: At major points in the plot, they serve as catalysts, getting Aragorn to turn aside from Frodo's quest and setting him on the path to the throne, helping kill the Witch-King, and helping rescue Faramir.

You made the point that Tricksters are usually childless, but, well, I'm going to shuffle my feet, wave my hands, and claim that M&P may literally be fathers, but they aren't archetypically fathers-- contrast what we know about their offspring with what we know about Sam's. No, scratch that, it's a circular argument.

As for rootlessness, I may be misremembering the book, but I never got the impression that M&P suffered quite as much homesickness as F&S. Also, I think the way Tolkien ends each character's story says something significant about them-- and M&P chose to spend their last years as guests in Rohan and Gondor.

Although malicious whimsy is very common to Tricksters, I don't think it's an absolute requirement.

...and, finally, to sort of triangulate on the characters by looking at what others have made of them: PJ et al firmly establish M&P in their first few scenes as pilfering, bacchanalian varmints; while the trend among fanficcers has been to portray them (esp. Pippin) as being about as rule-abiding in their sexuality as minks in heat.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Whee. Here we go...

1) ... I think that hobbits are Tricksters, sort of.
a) They play a catalyst role when drawn into the affairs of other peoples. [snip]...
c) The very word "Halfling" (and I'll concede I'm going overboard here) is suggestive of Trickster-y in-between-ness.

Oh, I don't think that's going too far. "Halfling" is a very resonant and self-conscious term. And I think all of Tolkien's names are available to full-fledged symbolic interpretation (not to mention the false etymologies and the poetic chimes they contain).

It's interesting that the Hobbits themselves are a bit taken aback by the name when they first hear it at Rivendell, and not sure they like it. They call themselves Hobbits or Little Folk (at Bree). Halfling is how the high ancient races--Numenoreans, Elves--see them. The great races, therefore, understand them as liminal--halfway between themselves and human. The Ents, eldest of all, have no name whatever for Hobbits, either because they are outis--No Ones, tricksters, or because they are too new and young to be on Ent radar (which is Treebeard's somewhat disingenuous explanation).

So far, I'm with you.

2) Tooks are coded in Shire-culture as Tricksters, and in the text of The Hobbit.

Here and following, you present a very interesting argument. I agree that Tooks are, among Hobbits, the most tricksterlike and transgressive family (as their wily, self-interested name suggests). So it seems that there is a double argument here: Within the frame of reference of Hobbits, Merry and Pippin approach Tricksterhood. Within the larger framework of Middle-earth as a whole, they at best possess some tricksterlike attributes, but not all. (And not, I would argue, some of the most important ones.)

This raises several questions:

I) Are we, the readers, in the Hobbit framework or not? (The answer to that question, of course, is Yes.) Tolkien implies many times that we--his imagined readers--are more like Hobbits than like the Men of latter days (the men of Bree, for example). E.g., the author of the Red Book of Westmarch, and its readers, are Hobbits. And the Red Book of Westmarch is, of course, LOTR itself.

Yet we also stand outside the Hobbits' framework and see them from a certain distance. If we identify fairly closely with Merry and Pippin, the members of the Company most like ourselves (most in-over-their-heads, least magical, least heroic, least Touched by Fate), we also understand all the ways in which we are not seeing the story from their pov, but above and outside it.

II) Although M&P play a catalyst role (notably in Aragorn's great Crossroads moment), so do all the members of the Company at one time or another. This is where Tolkien's concept of fate, accident, and the combined force (which sistermagpie described) of a collection of individual acts and decisions (each in itself accidental or casual) collectively influences the outcome of the quest. Thus, Boromir's madness splits Frodo and Sam from the others. Gandalf's choice of Moria, against Aragorn's advice, deprives the Company of his counsel at Rauros and forces Aragorn to the Crossroads decision. Only Legolas and Gimli have relatively few such moments. Despite the opinions of the fangirls, they truly are supporting characters.

So while I take note that it is the arrival of M&P that awakens the Ents, and it is Pippin's pebble in the well in Moria that awakens the Balrog (apparently), and it is Pippin's theft of the Palantir at Orthanc that precipitates Sauron's invasion and distracts the Eye from Mordor's own borders, I also note that far more than Pippin's acts, Aragorn's nonaccidental, deliberate decisions do the same thing: showing himself without disguise to Sauron, leading the armies of the West to the Black Gate. Just as M&P rouse the Ents to create an unlooked-for extra army, so too does Aragorn's rousing of the Dead create one. (And one could write a dissertation on Aragorn in the Underworld, which has some lovely parallels to Odysseus in the Underworld, Christ's Harrowing of Hell, and so on.)

So we have Accident (M&P, the accidental members of the company) driving the outcome of the quest on the one hand, and Design (Aragorn) driving it on the other.

Works for me.

Part B to follow.

[lorem_ipsum]

Hm, you answered my two posts with four. Does that mean I should answer back with eight, or with sixteen? *g*

Ents, eldest of all, have no name whatever for Hobbits, [...] because they are too new and young to be on Ent radar (which is Treebeard's somewhat disingenuous explanation).

Why do you think it's disingenuous?

Within the frame of reference of Hobbits, Merry and Pippin approach Tricksterhood. [...] Are we, the readers, in the Hobbit framework or not? (The answer to that question, of course, is Yes.) [...] Yet [...] we also understand all the ways in which we are not seeing the story from their pov, but above and outside it. I read into this the implication that M&P both are and aren't Tricksters-- that is, that they can be validly identified either way. Is that consistent with what you intended to say?

Although M&P play a catalyst role (notably in Aragorn's great Crossroads moment), so do all the members of the Company at one time or another.

Um. Yes. Point conceded. And to add to it, it's occurred to me that in quest-type stories it isn't unusual for hero characters to have catalyzing effects on their surroundings.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Part B.

Nevertheless, M&P are not quite Tricksters in a couple of respects that I think are important.

1) They do not operate outside the Quest. They do not have their own interests at heart. (Compare them with Bombadil here.)

2) While maliciousness is not a requirement for Tricksterdom, whimsy and irrationality are. Pippin perhaps comes close here, with his his careless curiosity, lack of attention to consequences, and taste for pranks. But the reason that the Trickster is whimsical and unpredictable and god-bitten is that the Trickster is a creator. In catalysing events, he brings into being a new situation, a new state of affairs, a new combination of people.

And because that new combination is random, accidental, fortuitous, or occurs merely because the Trickster had something else entirely in mind, the world takes on a new shape. This is the source of art, of poetry, the fount of creativity that animates the world.

(A clear example of this is Jack Sparrow in PotC, who brings about the transgressive, unexpected marriage of the highborn Elizabeth with the lowborn Will merely by sashaying through their story and turning it upside down.)

Much though I love M&P, neither of them is a poet, a maker. (The question of who, in LOTR, is a faber, a poet, is a huge other topic. The clearest answer is: Bilbo and Aragorn. Everyone else is bent on destroying what the great Makers of the previous ages had wrought.)

3) Hobbiton-Bywater mistrust of "those queer Bucklanders" aside, Brandybucks aren't quite so heavily culturally coded as Tricksters, I think. But in the *text* of LotR they are coded that way anyhow. [snip]...
b) Bucklanders are of the Shire, and yet they choose to live just outside its borders.
c) Buckland is the bridge between the Shire and Bree.

And they are Bridgers in another respect: they like boats. The symbolism boats is rife in LOTR: the boat in which Frodo's parents drown; the ferry boat (wreathed in fog and night) by which the Hobbits cross out of the Shire and into the Land o' Quest; the boats that carry them all from Lorien to Amon Hen; and of course the ships of the Grey Havens. (Not to mention Earendil's ship, which enters LOTR only obliquely.)


1) Pippin. In a culture which prizes predictable homebodies, there is definitely something transgressive about having a name that implies an inclination to wander.

2) For that matter, I think we're missing a lot of the impact of our most familiar hobbit characters' eccentricity.

While I agree with you, I also think we miss it inevitably, because we are not, in fact, Hobbits living in Hobbiton. (Sorry; I know it's a painful realization.) So if we are to see them as tricksterlike, we have to shift our perspective from that of Reader to that of Minor Character within the Book (Boffo Proudfoot, perhaps, or Fern Goatee.) Can we do that? And if so, can we equally shift perspective to that of a Gondorian? An Uruk-hai? We wonderss, yess, we does.

Part C to follow.

*Beats unassuming interlocutor over head with sheer volume of posts*

[lorem_ipsum]

1) They do not operate outside the Quest. They do not have their own interests at heart. (Compare them with Bombadil here.)

I'm inclined to agree that this is an important Trickster trait, but it leads me to wonder how you define the difference between a Quest and a personal agenda. Because this seems to imply that a Trickster can't Quest, and it seems to me that I've read stories in which Tricksters have.

But the reason that the Trickster is whimsical and unpredictable and god-bitten is that the Trickster is a creator. In catalysing events, he brings into being a new situation, a new state of affairs, a new combination of people.

Although I agree that creativity is important (and it wasn't something I was taking into account when I made my case for M&P), I'd say the Trickster is creative because he's whimsical, not the other way around.

(The question of who, in LOTR, is a faber, a poet, is a huge other topic. The clearest answer is: Bilbo and Aragorn. Everyone else is bent on destroying what the great Makers of the previous ages had wrought.)

I'm reluctant to seek a clear and simple answer to that question, because I think that the text elevates those who have both maker and destroyer within them over those who are mostly one or the other. (And I wouldn't necessarily constrain myself out of respect for what the text elevates, but in this case it's an idea that appeals to me.)

Digression: I'd put Sam in the poet/maker category; even though he spends most of his time helping Frodo destroy the Ring, he also spends a majority of the story in a state of symbolic pregnancy [carrying Galadriel's seed], the completion of which is the symbol of a new golden age in the Shire. I think the meta-message of this is something along the lines of, "within death, life, and vice-versa".

While I agree with you, I also think we miss it inevitably, because we are not, in fact, Hobbits living in Hobbiton. (Sorry; I know it's a painful realization.)

[blink] What do these words mean? [blank stare]

Anyway, yes, it is inevitable. The only way around it that I can imagine is if Tolkien had written a book which took place entirely within the Shire and did not deal exclusively with eccentric hobbits, and if readers typically read it before reading LotR.

So if we are to see them as tricksterlike, we have to shift our perspective from that of Reader to that of Minor Character within the Book [...] Can we do that? And if so, can we equally shift perspective to that of a Gondorian? An Uruk-hai? We wonderss, yess, we does.

Since we know much less about Gondorians [okay, maybe that's debatable; truthfully, I haven't read all of the Appendices], and Uruk-hai, I'd say we cannot shift to those perspectives so easily.

I suspect the contrast between our main hobbit characters and the ordinary hobbits is very important, else both the Prologue and the Scouring would be either much shorter or nonexistent.

*Beats unassuming interlocutor over head with sheer volume of posts*

[ducks] You missed me! [points] HA-ha!

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Part C. Hey, it's my LJ, I can spam me if I wanna.

Early in FOTR, when Tolkien’s style is still fairly close to that of The Hobbit, he gives us the perspective of a fox passing in the forest. It's anomalous enough to quote:

"A fox passing through the wood on business of his own stopped several minutes and sniffed. 'Hobbits!' he thought. '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.' He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it."

Other than the Eagles, I believe this is the only animal in LOTR whose thoughts we are given. (Compare him with Farmer Maggot's wholly ordinary dogs.) His tone of voice is almost identical to that of a Hobbit, or indeed of Tolkien himself. He sounds like a country gentleman on an evening stroll.

This is one of Tolkien’s few concessions to the idea of placing us in a pov within Middle-earth. For one flickering moment we have access to the sentient, animate mind of nature. Compare it with the Old Man Willow scene, in which Merry tells us that Willow-man spoke to him (and threatened to cut him in two), but we ourselves do not hear him speak. We hear Willow’s voice only as Readers from outside Middle-earth: that is, we hear sighing and creaking, forming what sound *almost* like words. We are on the edge of access to that world, but not in it. And for the rest of LOTR we remain, tantalized, on that threshold. I think after the fox, Tolkien decided not to allow us that far inside the mind and heart of Middle-earth again. The purpose of the fox is to set us in that threshold status. And there we stay.

3) In the TTT abduction, they show themselves to be quick-witted.

Hm. Quick-wittedness is an attribute of many heroes, sidekicks, and adventurers. But Trickster is more quick-witted than everyone else. (Cf. Harlequin, Jack Sparrow, Bugs Bunny, Brer Rabbit, Odysseus.) Trickster is one step ahead.

4)At major points in the plot, they serve as catalysts, getting Aragorn to turn aside from Frodo's quest and setting him on the path to the throne, helping kill the Witch-King, and helping rescue Faramir.

I agree with you; Pippin especially.

As for rootlessness, I may be misremembering the book, but I never got the impression that M&P suffered quite as much homesickness as F&S.

True, but not because they are without homes or families. Merely, they are young and not ready to settle down yet. But a great deal is made of their rather illustrious lineage and the great homes they belong to (and eventually inherit and rule). Home is waiting for them, whenever they are done roving. As it is waiting for Sam and Frodo (though as we know he is Uprooted in the end), and indeed for Aragorn.

One could, I suppose, argue that the Elves are a collective Trickster. Despite their long residence in Rivendell and Lorien and other places of Middle-earth, they are essentially transients. Home, for them, is Eressea, Otherwhere. And they are certainly the great catalytic creative force in Middle-earth.

Also, I think the way Tolkien ends each character's story says something significant about them-- and M&P chose to spend their last years as guests in Rohan and Gondor.

Well… sort of; but I took that to mean as frequent guests. More important, I think, is that each inherits a House and a position at home that is described with meticulous care right up front at the beginning of the story (Brandy Hall and Tookland).

...and, finally, to triangulate on the characters by looking at what others have made of them: PJ et al firmly establish M&P in their first few scenes as pilfering, bacchanalian varmints; while the trend among fanficcers has been to portray them (esp. Pippin) as being about as rule-abiding in their sexuality as minks in heat.

:D Though, in fairness, fanfic does that with everyone, including Sauron (that affair-gone-bad with Morgoth really warped him) and Gollum (who occasionally has mad sexual congress with Smeagol). This, I feel, says more about the Trickster qualities of fanfic than it does about LOTR. As for PJ, well, I accept his rather crude sketch of M&P, but it’s a thin effort, no?

[lorem_ipsum]

We are on the edge of access to that world, but not in it. [...] And there we stay.

Do you think-- er. Not sure what I'm trying to ask. I guess I'd like to hear your thoughts about point of view and narrative distance in LotR, if you have any more.

Quick-wittedness is an attribute of many heroes, sidekicks, and adventurers. But Trickster is more quick-witted than everyone else.

True. Point conceded.

I took that to mean as frequent guests.

Well, they didn't come back to the Shire after Eomer died, so they were permanently uprooted then.

This, I feel, says more about the Trickster qualities of fanfic than it does about LOTR.

Yeah, fanfic is Tricksterish, but I was speaking of fanfic trends-- in which most non-Fellowship characters are ignored. And of the Fellowship, it's the Elf [as you observed, Elves are a bit Tricksterish] and M&P who are most often portrayed that way. Mainly, I was thinking of M&P versus F&S.

[lorem_ipsum]

The only trick of Odysseus' that I remember with any specificity is how he summoned Achilles to the Trojan War. Okay, and the whole wooden horse thing was his idea.

Frodo is certainly no Trickster (he has no madness in him, and no folly, and though he loses his home, he is not by nature homeless or rootless);

Yeah. Poor little guy, he tries. I think the closest he ever really got was the table-dancing scene in the Prancing Pony. From Weathertop on out, he's clearly operating on a different wavelength from Bilbo.

~

Just to pretend for awhile that I am not totally maniacally hobbit-obsessed, let me see if I can remember my Trickster mythology from college:

Brer Rabbit (African-American) and Rabbit (African) and Bugs Bunny; Reynard (French) and kitsune (Japanese); Coyote (Native American)... Hyena, I think, but I can't remember where that came from.

From Genesis, there's Jacob and his mother and Rachel and her father (our major texts that semester were Genesis, Mann's _Joseph and His Brothers_, Wagner's Ring Cycle, and a couple other things that didn't really have Tricksters in them afaicr).

Shinto mythology has some funny story about Amaterasu (sun goddess) sulking in her cave, and none of the other deities can lure her out. The Trickster (whose name I can't remember, but who iirc is an old hag) sneaks into Amaterasu's cave and flashes her pussy to make the goddess laugh.

Erm. I suspect I'm getting that one mixed up with one about the Egyptian gods. I don't know.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

No, that's right, I think. She is related to an obscure archaic Greek goddess named Baubo, who also flashes. Also Sheela-na-gig.

Odysseus has a whole bag of tricks in The Odyssey--sneaking out of the Cyclops' cave and stealing his sheep, tricking the Sirens, etc. He is called "polytropos" in the first line of the poem, usually translated as "man of many ways," or "many minds." The word (poly + trope: many turns, or many figures) implies clever, tricksy, multifarious, complex, many-masked, even sly or slippish.

[lorem_ipsum]

In my senior year of college, I took a one-semester eight-unit course on the Greeks (mostly lit and phil), which I got through by the skin of my teeth. I had had a pretty good grounding in the classics, which is what saved me. I was pretty depressed at the time, so my memory of the Iliad & Odyssey is pretty much a blur.