Hacker News Reader

Comment by ledauphin | Hacker News Reader

I'm equal parts amused and bewildered that this author with so many interesting thoughts has managed not to see what pretty much every other serious reader of Lord of the Rings has pointed out over decades - the entire story is about a weak and almost completely unknown set of people who were "chosen" only by the most inexplicable series of events anyone could imagine - who through no inherent power of their own manage to save the world by nothing more or less than the choice to be kind to a pitiful (though clearly treacherous) creature... and who then go right back home where they belong, dismissing any notion of chosenness beyond the ordinary sort where everyone is chosen to do what is good for their neighbors.

the Hobbits pursued not greatness or destiny, but took the only path toward life available to them and then returned to let the rest of the world get on with living.

View on HN

My favorite analysis of lotr is this:

> good does not need to destroy evil; good needs only to resist evil, and when it does that, evil destroys itself

In LotR, good did indeed destroy evil (or rather its boss) by destroying the one ring.

If you read Tolkien’s other works, you’ll find that evil cannot be destroyed as Melkor/Morgoth corrupted the very nature of the world and that evil will remain until the end of the world.

You have to go deeper than that, though. Eru Ilúvatar said this to Melkor:

> No theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.

The idea being that the evil that Melkor commits ultimately just builds towards the creators greater and secret purpose. It's kind of an attempt to deal with the "problem of evil".

Worth mentioning that Tolkien was a devout Catholic and the idea you are talking about is something Catholic theologians would probably agree with.

(I’m not a Christian though so somebody please correct me if I am wrong)

The work is mysterious and important. (-Severence, the motto of the business/cult enslaving people on the show)

No. Good took the ring all the way to Mount Doom, resisting its Evil all the way up until the end, and then once more the Good person failed to destroy the Ring. Frodo stood at the precipice and took the Ring for himself.

The only way the Ring was destroyed was by accident when Gollum attacked Frodo to claim the Ring. The Evil that the ring stoked in the hearts of those it touched is what ended up destroying it in the end, not the Good people who took it to Mount Doom.

Interestingly, the author of my quote also mentions this:

> Tolkien in his letters insists that Frodo did not fail – that his captivity to the Ring was inevitable

Gollum took back the ring after Frodo - possessed by the spirit of the ring and in its voice - cursed him with death if he should ever break his oath. Gollum did so the ring did, bringing about his downfall.

> and who then go right back home where they belong, dismissing any notion of chosenness

Well, except for Aragorn, who turns out to be the true king of Gondor.

And Gandalf, who is not a man, but rather an angelic being or minor god (Maiar) sent to Middle Earth to oppose Sauron.

> And Gandalf, who is not a man, but rather an angelic being (Maiar) sent to Middle Earth to sort out Sauron

But that’s just what all wizards are and always have been. It’s the only way to be a wizard. It isn’t, like, a hidden fact or anything. Wizard is a race not a profession. Like elf or dwarf or hobbit.

My point is to contradict the notion that

>the entire story is about a weak and almost completely unknown set of people who were "chosen" only by the most inexplicable series of events anyone could imagine.

I don't know what your point is.

> It isn’t, like, a hidden fact or anything.

It really is, in-universe. Almost noone knows this save other maiar. The wizards are perceived as men by most people, them being maiar is far from common knowledge.

Their point seems to be strengthened by these facts. The story is about these people without any inherently powerful qualities performing a duty and going home without aggrandizing themselves. The fact that this happens in a world which has a “true King of Gondor” and these angel-wizards drives home how mundane and down-to-Middle-Earth Hobbits are.

I mean, yes, the hobbits go back home where Sam becomes the mayor of the Shire for 50 years, and Gimli and Legolas sail off together into the sunset.

But it's also unambiguous that Aragorn, who was previously a nobody raised by elves, turns out to be the long-lost king and definitely does not just go back to whatever he was doing previously.

> does not just go back to whatever he was doing previously.

He absolutely does. Being the future king was a core part of his character, everything in his life was preparing him for it. The book version of Aragorn doesn't have the hesitance to accept his duty that the films portray, he doesn't have to be prodded into it: his whole life has revolved around his future kingship.

In a lot of ways the book Aragorn is just as superhuman as Gandalf is. He's an archetype, not a perspective character. The hobbits are the only normal humans.

Aragorn begins Fellowship as the reigning monarch of "the rangers," actually a dispersed nation. They call him Chief to outsiders but his people know who he is and what he hopes to become. I reread the books pretty recently and this was one of the most surprising things that I forgot/got overwritten by movie characterization. He was never a nobody, by the time we meet him he is 40 years into the project of preparing himself for a great trial and then kingship.

Aragorn can't defeat Sauron, though, and he knows it. His role in the final victory is to distract Sauron, who assumes that the ring will be used against him by a "somebody" like Aragorn, rather than destroyed by nobodies.

This exactly.

Interesting to note that Peter Thiel has never named a company "Hobbiton"

The entire LOTR trilogy is meant to be “unapologetically Christian”. The intended point was basically the concept of having a cross to bear, as well as the importance of apost— er, friends.

There's a whole lot more going on in the story than just the hobbits.

And I think movie-LOTR-fans in particular are there at least as much for the Great Big Hero Chosen People Of Destiny aspects and battles as for the hobbits.

In terms of the positions of the characters in the narrative, yes, you're right. but in terms of the worldview you take home with you after reading... (or well rather a worldview that tech bros alledgedly leech themselves onto, if you will, because i don't necessarily agree that LOTR is all that bad)

Anyway. my take of tfa: in discworld, the whole system is designed for pluralism and messy progress. in middle earth, the entire universe is designed for epic quests and magical solutions from wise old wizards.

frodo might be a humble hobbit, but he's still caught in a deterministic prophecy machine where the fate of the world depends on ONE RING and ONE QUEST

I think its got to do more with the whole "Im a sad king in exile" thing Aragorn has going on rather than the hobbits story.

And all this gentle falk bent before the chosen king and sang his praises, and some of them went to live in the immortal land of the god's chosen people beyond the curve of the world. Let's be honest, there are both heroes of might and humble hobbits in the book, but if Tolkin published only the Frodo chapters from books 2 and 3, Lotr wouldn't be the legend it is today.

Possibly the best description of why I find the story so appealing. Thank you

Reply on news.ycombinator.com