Bruce N H
Active Member
Hi all,
I missed Exploring for the past few weeks but was just listening to session 239 from two weeks ago and Corey was discussing the point of view. Back when I was in high school I wrote a paper on LotR for my AP English class*, and I was really proud of my insight that the POV was almost always that of the "lowest" character - either a hobbit, or when no hobbits were around that of Gimli. I'll call this the "hobbit POV". Even in Mordor, while Frodo is becoming "higher" through his sacrifice the POV is pretty much Sam. In class Corey discussed this from Michael Drout's framework of the epistemic regime - that if we see a scene through the eyes of the character with the least knowledge, we the readers learn what is going on along with them. Corey suggested but did not elaborate that he thinks it's more about "high" vs "low" than about level of knowledge. I think there are three inter-related reasons why Tolkien uses the hobbit POV.
1. Epistemic regime - it allows us, the readers, to learn along with the POV character. For another example, Harry Potter is new to the wizarding world, so when he goes to Hogwarts, new things like the rules of Quiddich get explained to him, and alongside him, us.
2. Humility - Corey hinted, and this was the thesis of that paper I wrote, that Tolkien is trying to make a point about the importance of humility. The most important character trait is not awesome sword-fighting skills, powerful wizardry, or great learning. Frodo is successful for as long as he is (minor slip up at the end there) because he doesn't want to take the ring to dominate others. This is the whole idea of "Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." Even the great are greatest in their humility - think Gandalf vs Saruman, Faramir vs Boromir, Aragorn vs Denethor - all of these are similar pairings of "greats", but the greater is always the more humble in each pair.
3. And this is kind of a combination of 1 and 2 - relatability. We the readers can relate more to the hobbits than we can to the wizards and warriors, both because we know less and also because we aren't the great heroes of the age (unless you are, in which case I apologize for downgrading you).
Tolkien's use of the hobbit POV is some combination of all of these. I'll throw in a fourth, which is more an illustration of the importance. Tolkien was asked to write a Hobbit sequel (hobbit POV) and his publishers had zero interest in his Silmarillion stuff (high-elven POV). Because the Hobbit had really clicked with readers.
*Sadly my high school English LotR paper is lost to the ages. But there are some floppy disks in a box in my basement, so if anyone has a 5 1/4 disk drive and whatever OS and word processing system I was using back in the mid-80's, it might be there somewhere. I think my main point was about the significance of the humble, but probably a more complete analysis would be about the interplay between the great and the humble. This post is getting way too long for me to develop the ideas, but here are some relevant picks from Letters:
"without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless" - Letters of JRRT #131
"There are of course certain things and themes that move me specially. The inter-relations between the 'noble' and the 'simple' (or common, vulgar) for instance. The ennoblement of the ignoble I find specially moving. " - Letters of JRRT #165
"primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble" Letters of JRRT #181
A couple of last thoughts. First, this is all just tied in with the whole hero's journey thing. Second, there are two related but divergent paths these stories can take. In some, the hero starts out from humble origins but through his adventure is revealed to be the chosen one and super powerful after all - Luke starts out on a backwater planet but becomes one of the most powerful Jedi's. Ender starts out as a dirty "third" but is actually the genius who saves the world. Neo is just some shlub working in a cubicle and surfing the web at night but is the hero who can learn to control the Matrix. Along the way they lose some of their humility and humanity. Others start humble, but at the end of their adventures they retain that humility. Frodo and Sam. Maybe Ged? He does rise to become Archmage but in the end loses his powers and returns to Gont (spoiler alert). Maybe Harry Potter? He was the chosen one of the prophesy but in the end gives up the Elder Wand and just becomes one more parent sending his kids off to Hogwarts.
Anyway, sorry for the long ramble. If you read to this point share any thoughts or rebuttals.
Buce
I missed Exploring for the past few weeks but was just listening to session 239 from two weeks ago and Corey was discussing the point of view. Back when I was in high school I wrote a paper on LotR for my AP English class*, and I was really proud of my insight that the POV was almost always that of the "lowest" character - either a hobbit, or when no hobbits were around that of Gimli. I'll call this the "hobbit POV". Even in Mordor, while Frodo is becoming "higher" through his sacrifice the POV is pretty much Sam. In class Corey discussed this from Michael Drout's framework of the epistemic regime - that if we see a scene through the eyes of the character with the least knowledge, we the readers learn what is going on along with them. Corey suggested but did not elaborate that he thinks it's more about "high" vs "low" than about level of knowledge. I think there are three inter-related reasons why Tolkien uses the hobbit POV.
1. Epistemic regime - it allows us, the readers, to learn along with the POV character. For another example, Harry Potter is new to the wizarding world, so when he goes to Hogwarts, new things like the rules of Quiddich get explained to him, and alongside him, us.
2. Humility - Corey hinted, and this was the thesis of that paper I wrote, that Tolkien is trying to make a point about the importance of humility. The most important character trait is not awesome sword-fighting skills, powerful wizardry, or great learning. Frodo is successful for as long as he is (minor slip up at the end there) because he doesn't want to take the ring to dominate others. This is the whole idea of "Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." Even the great are greatest in their humility - think Gandalf vs Saruman, Faramir vs Boromir, Aragorn vs Denethor - all of these are similar pairings of "greats", but the greater is always the more humble in each pair.
3. And this is kind of a combination of 1 and 2 - relatability. We the readers can relate more to the hobbits than we can to the wizards and warriors, both because we know less and also because we aren't the great heroes of the age (unless you are, in which case I apologize for downgrading you).
Tolkien's use of the hobbit POV is some combination of all of these. I'll throw in a fourth, which is more an illustration of the importance. Tolkien was asked to write a Hobbit sequel (hobbit POV) and his publishers had zero interest in his Silmarillion stuff (high-elven POV). Because the Hobbit had really clicked with readers.
*Sadly my high school English LotR paper is lost to the ages. But there are some floppy disks in a box in my basement, so if anyone has a 5 1/4 disk drive and whatever OS and word processing system I was using back in the mid-80's, it might be there somewhere. I think my main point was about the significance of the humble, but probably a more complete analysis would be about the interplay between the great and the humble. This post is getting way too long for me to develop the ideas, but here are some relevant picks from Letters:
"without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless" - Letters of JRRT #131
"There are of course certain things and themes that move me specially. The inter-relations between the 'noble' and the 'simple' (or common, vulgar) for instance. The ennoblement of the ignoble I find specially moving. " - Letters of JRRT #165
"primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble" Letters of JRRT #181
A couple of last thoughts. First, this is all just tied in with the whole hero's journey thing. Second, there are two related but divergent paths these stories can take. In some, the hero starts out from humble origins but through his adventure is revealed to be the chosen one and super powerful after all - Luke starts out on a backwater planet but becomes one of the most powerful Jedi's. Ender starts out as a dirty "third" but is actually the genius who saves the world. Neo is just some shlub working in a cubicle and surfing the web at night but is the hero who can learn to control the Matrix. Along the way they lose some of their humility and humanity. Others start humble, but at the end of their adventures they retain that humility. Frodo and Sam. Maybe Ged? He does rise to become Archmage but in the end loses his powers and returns to Gont (spoiler alert). Maybe Harry Potter? He was the chosen one of the prophesy but in the end gives up the Elder Wand and just becomes one more parent sending his kids off to Hogwarts.
Anyway, sorry for the long ramble. If you read to this point share any thoughts or rebuttals.
Buce
