Michael Dirda (The Post)

• Dirda on Books Archive • Book World • Talk: Books & Reading Message board • All Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more More Discussions in this series: • The Hobbit • The Fellowship of the Ring • The Two Towers

Lord of the Rings:
The Return of the King
Hosted by Michael Dirda
Washington Post Book World Senior Editor
Friday, Dec. 14, 2001; 2 p.m. EDT

On December 19th the first of three highly anticipated screen adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's book "The Fellowship of the Rings" will be released nationwide. In anticipation of the films and the rekindled interest in Tolkien's work, Washington Post Book World Senior Editor and Pulitzer Prize winning literary critic Michael Dirda will be hosting a series of online discussions focusing on "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

This week, Dirda wtoo questions on "The Return of the King," the last of Tolkien's books set in Middle-Earth.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Washington, D.C.: I have one question about the book that has always bothered me -- why was Sauron not killed off, but only drastically reduced in power? Was it for a follow up story, or was it that Tolkien really felt that evil could never be defeated completely -- that it would always exist/return?

Michael Dirda: Sorry to be late--I was inadvertently in auditorium 3, having forgotten that we'd started with The Hobbit, so that I should be in auditorium 4. My apologies. You missed out on a great introductoin. But on with this week's questions.

Michael Dirda: Oops. Meant to answer that previous question. Am all discombobulated here.
I think the previous questioner was right in thinking that evil could never be completely destroyed, so Sauron was left alive but weakened. Other opinions?

Bangor, Maine: There are many good questions about the books. Between the time they were published (1937 for the Hobbit) until he died (1973), did Tolkien ever answer any of the questions about some of the meanings, symbolism, etc.? Anyone know where this might be found? Thanks.

Michael Dirda: You might start with The Letters of JRR T; then look at some of the commentaries and guides that exist to the LOTR. Other leads?

Washington, D.C.: Hello,
the language used in the book has a wonderful feel/sound to it - but many words require special pronunciations (for instance, the 'C'in a name is makes the hard or "K' sound.) However, I am confused on how you say the names Eomer and Eowyn - are the "E's" sounded as 'e;' or 'a': i.e. as in 'a' - o-mer and 'a'-o-win?

Michael Dirda: I don't know--does anybody out there?

Baltimore, Md.: Observation: I wish to disagree with the often made claim that the LOTR gives short shift to woman -- the most powerful character, in fact, the only one who was equal to Sauron, was the Elf woman, Galadriel; also, Eowyn was strong, noble and one of the bravest characters in the book (she stood up to/killed the Ring wraith.) Considering the books bases (ancient male dominated northern European stories), I think Tolkien did a great job getting female characters into the story line.

Michael Dirda: Thank you. This is persuasive, except for the fact that there are so few women characters, no matter how admirable.

Boston, Mass.: Read the Lord of the Rings a long time ago. My overriding memory of the work is not of the fantastic ballyhoo but Tolkien's sense of stewardship for the un-perverted natural world. When you reach “The Grey Havens” you feel a profound sense of loss for agrarian sunsets, clear waters, and quiet nights. Heartbreaking stuff.

Michael Dirda: Yes, indeed. No doubt the Britain that was vanishing as 20th-century technology overwhelmed everything.

Arlington, Va.: One part of LOTR that is the most troublesome for me is the somewhat excessive amount of "trudging" passages. Understandably, the whole book is about an extremely long journey on foot, and as the book comes to a close, that journey becomes increasingly difficult.
But ROTK has these very repetitive passages about the heat, the thirst, the hunger, the bad food, the heat, the thirst, the hunger, the bad food, etc. etc. And then there was a mountain, and then a desert, and then a chasm, and then a desert each one higher than the last.

It's now a cliche in other fantasy works. If you were the editor of LOTR today, would you have recommended cutting that a bit?

Michael Dirda: Hard call. Certainly the repetition does build up the sense of deprivation and effort. And were one to start cutting, where might one stop? Leave out the appendices? Tom Bombadil? But I do know what you mean.

Princeton, N.J.: What do you think the impact of having a visual interpretation (the films) of the LOTR series will be on future readers?

Michael Dirda: I'm afraid that movies are so powerful a media that only the strongest will be able to resist seeing the film's actors in their mind's eye when they read the books. Is it possible to read a Sherlock Holmes story without the image of Basil Rathbone coming to mind? Or, for younger people, Jeremy Brett?

Destruction of Evil: In Tolkien's "The Simarillion," which in my opinion is his greatest work, "good" is often defeated by "evil" after a noble and valiant struggle. I think Tolkien's view is that "evil" is more potent than "good." Thus, the total destruction of evil is impossible. "Lord of the Rings" is the exception that proves the rule. It is a break in the storm because "good" is victorious. In my view anyway.

Michael Dirda: thanks

Herndon, Va.: Mr. D: The third part of "LOR," has been, to me, always a bit of a let down. Partly, I suppose, because the wonderous tale ends, and partly because so much of volume three is "afterwords" and more "afterwords." The final words of the novel, though, "Well, I'm back," are a wonderful prosaic ending to a marvelous magical saga.

Michael Dirda: Yes, I love that ending too. I'm not sure, though, that the words are as prosaic as they seem. Most of us never get to say "Well, I'm back." We move on and the past and the life we once led is lost to us forever.

Beverly, Mass.: Much has been said on this forum of the dispensability of the Old Forest/Tom Bombadil/Barrow Downs chapters in The Lord of the Rings, but I'd like to suggest that they are a valuable and important part of the work. These episodes demonstrate the importance of the forces of nature that keep on working no matter what else is going on, a significant aspect of Tolkien's artistry at large: Bombadil and Goldberry, the Willow-Man and the Barrow-Wight, aren't any more concerned with the One Ring than significant natural features later in the narrative, such as Mount Caradhras or the trees in Lothlorien. The fear of the Black Riders is put into perspective by this, and so is the power of the Ring. It's no accident that one of Gandalf's last actions in Return of the King is to go have a long talk with Bombadil.

Michael Dirda: Excellent posting.

San Mateo, Calif.: Now that we're on the third volume, this seems like a good time to examine the whole trilogy? What do you think the weaknesses of LOTR are? Ursula LeGuin (who was a huge fan) cited, in her 1974 essay, "The Staring Eye," "the book's peculiar rhythm, its continual alternation of distress and relief (which may not suit a jet-age adult). And there's Aragorn, who is a stuffed shirt; and Sam, who keeps saying "sir" to Frodo until one has mad visions of founding a Hobbit Socialist Party; and there isn't any sex." (Other than Wormtongue leering at Eowyn...) I would add the utter depersonalization of the bad guys, not just the Orcs but their human allies, e.g. "the cruel Haradrim," whose description seems almost racist nowadays. On the other hand, what are the best things about the trilogy? In Vol. III specifically? One of my favorite parts is the growing madness of Denethor and Faramir's struggle to win the respect of the father who clearly always liked his older brother better. Subtle and convincing -- shows that evil is not just an external threat but internal, even in the best of us.

Michael Dirda: ANother great posting. What do others think are the novel's weaknesses and strengths? To me, it's main accomplishment is the creation of a secondary world in which a life of heroism seems not only possible but necessary.

Baltimore, Md.: Why do you think men and boys, in general, are more enamoured of "Lord of the Rings" than women? Is it simply because of the relatively flat treatment given to female characters in the book, do you think?

Michael Dirda: Probably. Also, it's got lots of "guy" things in it--as the previous posting noted, in quoting Le Guin, Tolkien doesn't focus much on intimate or domestic things, either. What kind of fantasy do women like? These are the sorts of questions that lead to accusations of sexism and the like, but I don't know many guys--I am, however, one--who like Georgette Heyer's Regency romances.

Vienna, Va.: I am trying to decide whether to read "The Hobbit" to my 6-year-old. What do you think, is it too dark? Should I wait?

He enjoyed several of the Narnia books but we stopped halfway through The Magician's Nephew because the witch was too scary. He has read many, many volumes of fairy tales, and we have been reading Greek and Roman myths lately.

Michael Dirda: No. It's not dark at all. Occasionally a little spooky. You might try a bit and see if he or she is "getting" the story. You might need to wait a year or two. But if he liked Lewis, he should like his friend JRRT.

Tolkien commentary:

1. "The Annotated Hobbit" by Douglas Anderson (a new edition will be published next June)
2. "Tolkien's Legendarium: Essays on the History of Middle-earth" by Verlyn Flieger and Carl HHostetter
3. "Meditations on Middle-earth" edited by Karen Haber

Michael Dirda: Many thanks for the short bibliography.

Houston, Tex.: I feel that "Lord of the Rings" is one of the few stories that has an ending that doesn't feel disappointingly anticlimatic. The additional battles in the Shire and the detailed description of the futures of Samwise and Frodo are great and lets the reader down easy. Also, in regards to lengthy physical descriptions of landscapes and weather mentioned in previous chats; these are one of the most important elements in the story for me. I spend a lot of time outdoors and find that my moods and approaches to people are highly dependent upon what I happened across in the woods or the day's weather. It is the same when I read passages in the book. These physical descriptions are a vital framing for the character's actions.

Michael Dirda: Yes. But I also love that the book ends throughout on a relatively autumnal note. Good may win, but the cost in spiritual fatigue seems enormous.

Cincinnati, Ohio: Especially considering the title of the third volume, I always felt that the true hero of The Lord of the Rings was Aragorn, not Frodo. Certainly Frodo's role as Ringbearer was crucial not only to the plot of the story but also to the success of the War itself. Yet Tolkien used hobbits as both characters and literary devices, characters who both participated and allowed the reader to see through their eyes the larger events in the world around. Who do you see as the real hero of the book?

Michael Dirda: One could argue that the main hero is any of three or four characters: Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn, even Sam or Gollum. For me the book takes off when the fellowship hooks up with Strider, and one of its most exciting moments is when Aragorn calls the spirits of the dead to join him in the final great battle: And the dead followed.

Baltimore, Md: In response to the observation by Boston: Tolkien did state in his bio that very idea about the corruption of nature and that is why he carried that theme through the books.

Michael Dirda: thanks

Chicago, Ill.: I have been reading these discussions with great interest and pleasure. I was a little surprised that no one asked about the Ents when you were discussing The Two Towers. They illustrate for me most poignantly a theme you have addressed a number of times in these discussions, that again and again the good characters choose to fight Sauron even though they are well aware that their way of life is coming to an end no matter what they do. The Ents, forgotten by most of the world, nearly extinct, singing songs of their long-lost Entwives, always break my heart, and their triumph over Saruman is the most bittersweet of all. But all that aside, I think the Ents are a magnificent creation. Tolkien was known to be a great lover of trees, and descriptions of trees abound in all his works. The imaginitive extension he makes by creating a race of people whose consciousness partakes as much of treeness as of peopleness leads to some of the most interesting and lively writing in the trilogy. And the relationship among Treebeard and Merry and Pippin has a warmth and tenderness that resonates strongly through the rest of the books.

Michael Dirda: Lovely comment.

Washington, D.C.: Responding to the poster from Arlington's complaint about Tolkien's repetitive use of "trudging" passages in Lord of the Rings, as someone who writes fiction, it is occasionally dramatically useful to simulate in the writing style what the characters are feeling, and in so doing, communicate in more than mere words to the reader what it feels like to be in the story.

In the case of Lord of the Rings, the characters, many of whom had never prepared for this sort of ordeal, have embarked on a terribly arduous journey. How to convey that to easy-chair bound readers? Put the drudgery of the journey into the fabric of how you write the story. There's a very fine balance between illustrating in words the detailed ambiance of what's going on without going over the edge and turning off readers, but in Lord of the Rings I think it works.

Michael Dirda: Yes, but one must be wary of the Fallacy of Imitative Form--i.e. when describing something boring, one needn't be boring in doing it.

Boulder, Colo.: Have you noticed a gender split between fans and non-fans of "Lord of the Rings?" I've polled about 25-30 friends, family, and colleagues over the last month: NONE of the women ever made it through the first book (though a couple liked the Hobbit); ALL of the men read all three books and liked them. Otherwise, we have some women who do read fantasy/sci-fi, men who don't, and no other apparent gender-based reading preferences. Also, if this is true, I wonder if it will affect movie tix sales. --A female non-fan

Michael Dirda: We'll see how the movie fares.

Downey, Calif.: In response to the discussion of color at the end of the last session, I think Boston is putting too much into color as a unified theme, rather than taking it in the various contexts in which it arises. Tolkien clearly makes great use of light and dark shadings in the tradition of art, but there are also a number of systems of colors used, which cannot all be white and black. These sorts of colors are applied to clothing or symbols, and not to the people and creatures which tend to vary in color as among modern people and animals. The innkeeper's "black man" comment clearly referred to the color of the garb and horses of the black riders who had been "visiting".

Tolkein's use of heraldic color terminology in various places (e.g. argent for white), I think is a clue that colors such as the elves' grey are those that would have been chosen by the groups' founders for their flags, etc. I assume Tolkein intended the elves' color as more of a silvery light grey -- grey after all is the most ambiguous of color words, but this clearly would have been a specific color.

The wizards' colors are traditional indicators of their rank and function within their council, with white being the leader's color, and no doubt symbolizing the good purpose of the council that was in fact being betrayed by Sauron. By changing his color to a polychome that was not part of that tradition, Sauron had signified his betrayal of the council, and Gandalf then adopted white as his color since he became the council's leader.

Michael Dirda: Thanks. Do you mean Saruman in your last graf?

Fairfax, Va.: Is Samwise a totally devoted servent and friend of Frodo's or his lover? I remember you saying in a previous chat on Lord of the Rings that you thought Tolkien's description of the relationship between Frodo and Sam was more "master/servant," but I still can't help but wonder if Tolkien was using that particular (then-acceptable) language to describe the relationship as something else entirely.

I wonder of J.R.R. did this on purpose just to leave it a bit murky. Your thoughts?

Michael Dirda: I think it unlikely that JRRT was suggesting their relationship was anything homosexual. But one might be able to generate some interesting readings as a result--and some over the top ones too: Witness all the fan activity around the notion that Kirk and Spock were lovers.

Re: strengths and weaknesses: I love how clearly Tolkien portrayed the costs of heroism. No victory in the book is untainted by sorrow, and none is won without incredible cost to body and heart. The stunningly beautiful passage when the eagle comes to Minas Tirith with the tidings of victory, which echo the early church's Easter hymns, is as close as the book really gets to a "happily ever after" moment, and it is the more joyful for being surrounded by sorrow. Although the book shows the choice between good and evil as being more polarized than other stories do, Tolkien drives home the point that heroism is not a one-way ticket to an easy life.

Michael Dirda: Indeed it is not. Just making the right moral choice is often not only difficult, but sometimes just a matter of luck or chance. Think of the final destruction of the Ring.

Boston, Mass.: One explanation for the fact that "Lord of the Rings" is so eagerly reread is the opportunity to identify and follow new vehicles for understanding and interpreting the narrative. One metaphor that I have not seen discussed here is the characterization of the sympathetic characters as identifiable Europeans Christians (hobbits as the English, elves as the Irish, etc.) and the forces of Sauron as the Eastern, Islamic world. It requires accepting a somewhat benighted view of cultural diversity, but seems closely alligned to traditional stereotypes.

One other comment: I agree wholeheartedly with the posting describing the importance of singing the poetry to appreciate it, and would stress the value of reading the entire text out loud. If there is a better way to spend a snowy Sunday in New England than sitting by a fire and reading LotR aloud to your family and looking up to see four people in tears.

Michael Dirda: Ah, we would all like to have such fires, such books, such audiences.

Pleasanton, Calif.: After reading the entire trilogy, I've always wondered what exactly happened to the elves? I know Galadriel and Elron and the rest left from the Gray havens, but Tolkien isn't very clear as to what happened to the rest of the elves. Did they leave with them or did some stay and kinda fade away as the Age of Men rose? Also, I'd just like to make the statement that the whole Lord of the Rings story is a real downer. Did Tolkien have any message in the somewhat depressing ending?

Michael Dirda: See some of the previous postings about the ambiguous costs of heroism, even in the cause of good. Life is a downer: No one here gets out alive, as The Doors once observed.

Pensacola, Fla.: My favorite part of the last book in the trilogy is when the Lady Galadriel, Elrond, and Gandalf sit around and telepathically communicate after the hobbits had gone to bed. They evidently discussed their parts in the whole history of Middle Earth. Is there any evidence where this ability came from? Is it solely because they wore the three great rings of the Elf Lords? or was it an inherent ability of Elves and Wizards undocumented elsewhere? I have read the trilogy many, many times, and have wondered long where three of my favorite characters came by this magic means of communication.

Michael Dirda: I presumed that such power came with great wisdom or possibly from the rings. Does anyone have another explanation?

Washingon, D.C.: Tokien's trilogy is not about a mythology of physical wars, but more of a spiritual tug-of-war decision, within the conscience, to do what's good or evil. And good can only conquer evil if the sinful weaknesses can be overcome. It is this spiritual concept that makes his books so beautiful and timeless. Tolkien created his Middle-Earth with different communities of creatures (perhaps, races as we define them today?) We see a leader from each group elected to the Fellowship. And yet, the Fellowship is not shutting out simple and ordinary "folks," like Sam, Merry and Pippin. Creatures, whether born to lead or not, are shown to have their moral flaws (the unconcious/sub-conscious evil in them) and it is their ability to overcome their weaknesses that brought the success of Frodo's mission. As I read and re-read the Trilogy, I'm convinced that Sam is a truly vital character to the extent that it raises a question whether Sam should be regarded as the rightful ring-bearer. He is with Frodo all the way, loyal, supportive and saving Frodo in several occasions. I can only conclude that, without Sam, Frodo's spiritual and physical struggles, and mission, would be at a loss. Am I reading the book right?

Michael Dirda: Well, Sam is ultimately crucial to the final destruction of the ring. In fact, in the end one needs a simple good soul like his, and a corrupted evil one like Gollum's--both, in a sense, aspects of Frodo, who is finanlly torn between these two sides of himself.

Arlington, Va.: Do you plan on seeing the films?

Michael Dirda: Eventually. I don't go to the movies much. I have such mixed feelings aobut them--both loving film and actually knowing a fair amount about older movies, and disliking how much they dominate our cultural thinking. I am, after all, a book man.

Crystal City, Va.: Something has always bothered me about THE RETURN OF THE KING. I'll never forget my dismay when I read the synopsis at the beginning: it revealed the fate of the Ring. Whose idea was this?

Michael Dirda: Don't know. ANyone?

Arlington, Va.: To those with pronunciation questions (or just about any other questions about Middle-Earth lore), I recommend 'The Encylopedia of Arda,' which contains pronunciation guidelines with each entry. The link is: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm

Michael Dirda: Manyh, many thanks.

Washington, D.C.: Do the Entwives ever reappear? Do any of Tolkien's other writings mention the Entwives? Do you think they represent more than just the passing of Middle Earth? I found the whole thread very sad, I kept waiting for them to reappear and save the day or some other traditional plot device.

Michael Dirda: Sad, yes. It's interesting how much we keep coming back to the wistfulness, regret and sorrows of this heroic tale. In that sense, it is true to life and no fantasy at all. There are no clear victories, one must always pay the price.

Washington, D.C.: The love story of Arwen and Aragorn has a terrible ending (if you read the appendix.) What is your read -- is there something Tolkien was really saying about love's final chapter in life?

Michael Dirda: SEe previous comment.

Washington, D.C.: It seems to me that criticism like Le Guin's is more about what political baggage the critic brings to the table than the book. Tolkien wrote the "Lord of the Rings," not the "Lord of the Left Hand of Darkness." If she wants sexual ambiguity, etc. well, that's what she's there to write about in her own books.

The only critique I can see as valid is the "queasy" treatment of the Haradrim, etc. But even then, remember this was written based on the content and style of old European tales, by a man who grew up throughout the height of the British Empire. People are limited by their own life experiences, and I think it's a bit much to pull a late 20th century 'tude into it. After all, Shakespeare has all sorts of nasty stereotyping, but you can't expect him to have sounded like a modern graduate of Berkely.

Michael Dirda: Good point: one does need to bear in mind historical period. But Le Guin's point is that Tolkien's world-view is somewhat narrowed and we should be aware of what isn't there as well as what is.

Washington, D.C.: In the Return of the King, I got the feeling that JR was considering a follow on book -- that is, the evil character Sauron was only defeated, not killed -- was this just wishful thinking on my part? Why didn't JR just kill off the bad guy?

Michael Dirda: Thoughts anyone?

Richmond, Va.: Why, when Aragorn and his Dunadan brethren enter the "Storm of Mordor" does the map in the front of "The Return of the King" not show the path taken from the Stone of Erech to the shores of Lebannon and Umbar?

Michael Dirda: Got me.

Somewhere, USA: Why do you like LOTR so much?

Michael Dirda: I like it because of the poem at the beginning--I remember a kid reciting it in my freshman dorm and I could feel the hairs on the back of my neck tingle when he came to the words about the One ring that would bind all the others. It's also a good and moving story. And I love medieval literature--especially northern stuff like the sagas--and the LoTR draws on this same sensibility and tradition. W.P. Ker once defined the essence of epic as "the defence of a narrow place against odds."

Arlington, Va.: I am showing my ignorance here, but is there anything else, not relating to Middle Earth, that Tolkien wrote that I should look into?

Michael Dirda: He wrote the best essay ever on Beowulf: "The Monsters and the Critics." Also a terrific piece On Fairy Stories. There are lesser stories of some interest too, from Leaf by Niggle to the Unfinished Tales. He also edited my favorite work of MIddle English literature: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Washington, D.C.: Sauron didn't die because Sauron didn't die. Seriously, look at the sheer volume of materials, notes, and other such items Tolkien developed that he never intended for publication. There's at least 3 different variations on every story published.

This wasn't a novel, in the way one might think of the latest piece of well reviewed modern novels about a middle aged man dealing with his life and attraction to a younger woman (okay, soryy about the sarcasm). This was an obsession, an alternate mythology, whatever developed over an entire life. The novels published are almost an afterthought.

I highly doubt Tolkien even though much about such considerations. By the point this was weritten, he simply "knew" what happened.

Michael Dirda: Yes, I htink you're right.

Springfield, Va.: Michael, after reading your three discussions regarding LOTR I feel that I missed out on a lot of the deeper meanings that JRRT possibly had when he wrote the books. However, I still am reluctant to re-read them because it will spoil the absolute joy that I had when I first read them.

Michael Dirda: I think yhou'll find that you will recapture that joy, or at least some of it, by rereading the books. There is a wonderful pleasure in returning to the books we loved when young. Don't deny yourself.

Michael Dirda: Well, Tolkien fans, this brings us to an end to our four part discussion of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. It's been fun and enlightening for me, and I hope for you as well. It'll be interesting to see how the movie fares, though I must say I don't like the look of Frodo. Better to read the real thing. Let me add too that if you've enjoyed talking about Tolkien you might want to check out my weekly book discussion Dirda on Books--each Thursday at 2 PM on washingtonpost.com. WE range wide and far and have lots of fun. Do stop by sometime.
The road goes ever on.

   |      |