In
class we spent much of the time discussing what constitutes a hero in the world
of Tolkien and what characteristics marked the heroes as heroes. While looking
at the list of characteristics on the board, I started thinking about the hero
arcs of Frodo and Aragorn and why they echoed each other the way they do. As we
discussed in class, they do echo each other by having mysterious beginnings
etc., but what really caught my attention wasn’t how they mirrored each other,
but instead how they differed and why their stories are different in contrast
to their similar beginnings.
They are undoubtedly
different. As Verlyn Flieger explains, they represent the two kinds of heroes
“the extraordinary man whose mighty deeds give epic sweep to great events
(Aragorn) and the common man whose trials lend to his actions a poignancy that
draws the reader into the text to experience events with him (Frodo),” (Verlyn,
122). In simpler terms, Aragorn is a
romantic epic hero and Frodo is a folk tale hero. He is Jack who sold his cow
for magic beans. He is not on his own extraordinary. He is an ordinary man in
extraordinary circumstances. Yet Tolkien goes through so much trouble in making
both of these characters as similar as possible in their origins by giving them
both the beginning of the classic hero. Both have a mysterious beginning, are
raised in a home that is not of their immediate family, and neither is young
when the story begins. There is however one major difference in their
beginning, outside of their personality, that I found very interesting. Frodo
is not of divine or magical ancestry whereas Aragorn is.
In class, I know there
was a discussion trying to turn Frodo into one of divine or magical ancestry,
but I personally disagree with that. Yes he comes from a well-educated, rich
family, but his family is not magical or divine. The only possible divine or
magical figure in his family would be Bilbo, and Bilbo achieved what he did not
through birth but experience. Thus I don’t see that as an indicator of divine
or magical blood. So, if you approach the origins of these two characters from
this lens what appears is a romantic epic hero the form of Aragorn and an
ordinary man in the trappings of a romantic epic hero in the form of Frodo.
The next important heroic
origin moment for both of these characters surrounds the swords. Aragorn
presents the sword that has been forged anew at the council, which as Verlyn
points out resembles the weapons of the dragon slayers rather than those of the
king. It is instead Frodo’s sword, which is drawn from a wooden beam that
imitates the swords of kings such as King Arthur. So at this point they both
continue within the romantic epic hero version of a hero, except for Frodo’s
grumblings of the every day man.
This changes when the group separates and Frodo heads out alone with Sam. Verlyn aptly describes this turn of the story and where it leads the characters as “Aragorn’s is a journey from darkness into light, while Frodo’s is a journey from light into darkness – and out again,” (Verlyn,125). Aragorn rises from the general obscurity of a normal individual into that of the heroic, romantic king in the eyes of the world. Yes he reveals himself with the sword, but only those on the council, many of which already knew who he was are party to this information. Once Aragorn leaves Frodo he tells everyone he comes into contact with and the word spreads. His legend as a hero begins. His fights are with orcs and Sauron, the most recognizable of monsters, the ones that are powerful enough to threaten all of mankind. Frodo on the other hand falls. He wanders into the wilderness and fights himself. That is the moment that Frodo is no longer the epic hero. He becomes the folk hero. He is not fighting with power against power. His monster is Gollum, who as Verlyn explains, is what Frodo could become, his darker self under the influence of the ring. His monster is not a threat to society in so far as its independent power, but Gollum is a threat to Frodo’s self, and Frodo loses.
This changes when the group separates and Frodo heads out alone with Sam. Verlyn aptly describes this turn of the story and where it leads the characters as “Aragorn’s is a journey from darkness into light, while Frodo’s is a journey from light into darkness – and out again,” (Verlyn,125). Aragorn rises from the general obscurity of a normal individual into that of the heroic, romantic king in the eyes of the world. Yes he reveals himself with the sword, but only those on the council, many of which already knew who he was are party to this information. Once Aragorn leaves Frodo he tells everyone he comes into contact with and the word spreads. His legend as a hero begins. His fights are with orcs and Sauron, the most recognizable of monsters, the ones that are powerful enough to threaten all of mankind. Frodo on the other hand falls. He wanders into the wilderness and fights himself. That is the moment that Frodo is no longer the epic hero. He becomes the folk hero. He is not fighting with power against power. His monster is Gollum, who as Verlyn explains, is what Frodo could become, his darker self under the influence of the ring. His monster is not a threat to society in so far as its independent power, but Gollum is a threat to Frodo’s self, and Frodo loses.
Now this part right here
is what really confuses me about the nature of the hero in Aragorn and Frodo.
The epic hero almost always falls in the end, yet it is not Aragorn who falls
but Frodo. So Frodo begins as an ordinary man dressed as an epic hero, turns
into the folk hero we usually associate him with, but he becomes the epic hero
in the end. He came by water and so he leaves by water in the tradition of the
epic hero. Aragorn on the other hand begins in the world as relatively obscure,
even though he seems super human in his leadership, fighting, and healing
abilities. From this obscurity as Strider he turns into the King and wins the
girl. He lives a happily ever after. That is much more the folk tale ending
than Frodo has. Thus I would like to suggest a way of understanding these
changing modes of hero, which I fully admit I may have over thought or am just
blatantly wrong about. If so, please tell me!
I saw these changing
modes of hero as the rise of the humble and the humbling of the great. The
humble Strider becomes a king, but in doing so he changes from a king of epics
to a folk hero who happens to come in the body of an epic king. Frodo on the
other hand, is the epic hero in the body of the ordinary man. He has all the
prerequisites for the epic hero except the divine or magical ancestry, in other
words, the blood. Frodo thus rises from the folk hero to the epic hero in his
ending. This interpretation also helped me come to terms with the roles of
several of the other heroes named in class. This would explain the glorification
of Eowin’s fall from power. She becomes great in her humility. Sam is also the
main hero of the story because he is the humblest of them all. He comes as a
servant and as a friend, not as a king or a hero, folk or epic. Sam is
precisely the hero because the humblest is the highest and he is the humblest
of them all. Unfortunately, I wasn’t quite sure how to fit Merry and Pippin in
this, so maybe they aren’t heroes? I am not fully comfortable with that idea,
but it was the only way I could understand the modes of hero in such a way that
included the majority of the heroes we talked about in class.
-MEC
-MEC
2 comments:
Thanks, MEC, I think the source of your confusion is that Tolkien, mostly gives elements the epic Norse-style hero and the Romantic Arthurian hero to Aragorn and Frodo respectively, but does then switch their “dooms.” Frodo sees Ragnarök and loses, like the Æsir. Aragorn becomes the Once and Future King. I think the interesting question is why he does this. Is he merely countering expectation? Or is he making a statement about the relation of these two types of hero? Are they opposite sides of a coin? Are the happy ending and the mortal doom actually yoked? Or is Aragorn rewarded because he never failed, and Frodo fated to brokenness because he failed? Or he fails because he breaks and may never be fixed, this side of Valinor?
You’ve put your finger on something significant—rather than assuming that you’re confused, look at it as a puzzle to work out! : )
—Bill the Heliotrope
Post a Comment