Tolkien goes meta.
Perhaps sensing that the world he has immersed his readers into has become entirely too dark and hopeless, Tolkien takes a page from the contemporaneous Postmodernists and decides to call explicit attention to the fact that his characters inhabit a story--and to critique said stories at the same time.
"The brave things in the old tales and songs, Mr. Frodo: adventures, as I used to call them," [emphasis added] says Sam significantly, reminding readers that what passes for the genre of "adventure" in fiction is actually harrowing in real life--and he does this from within a novel!
Sam continues: "I used to think that they were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they wanted them, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of sport, you might say." They had read fictions, and now wished to participate in one themselves--but now Tolkien wishes to remind you why you shouldn't be a naive reader of fiction.
"But that's not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have been just landed in them, usually--their paths were laid that way, as you put it." There is a certain fatalism associated with adventure--a word that shares etymology with "venture"--"to risk the loss of"--that is, to allow one's self to be subject to chance, luck, fate, forces beyond one's own control--you don't compose adventure in real life, as in a novel; no, adventure happens to you.
"But I expect they had lots of chances, like us, of turning back, only they didn't." We may all ultimately be subject to chance, but then, it was our choice to abandon the tranquilizing comfort of routine, of domesticity and the quotidian, to be subject to chance instead.
"And if they had, we shouldn't know, because they'd have been forgotten." Which answers the question as to why anyone would ever let themselves be subject to adventure, to chance, in the first place--do you wish to be memorialized in song and story? Do you desire that sort of surrogate immortality? Is it worth the cost? It is a serious question.
"We hear about those as just went on--and not all to a good end, mind you; at least not to what folk inside a story and not outside it call a good end...But those aren't always the best tales to hear, though they may be the best tales to get landed in! I wonder what sort of a tale we've fallen into?" Surely the readers have asked themselves this same question many times throughout this apparently hopeless text--is this every going to get happier? Or have I fallen into reading a tragedy? Tolkien winks at you--he knows your thoughts.
"You may know, or guess, what kind of a tale it is, happy-ending or sad-ending, but the people in it don't know. And you don't want them to." Establishing your own complicity in Frodo and Sams' sufferings--this is meta-fiction done right, not to pull you out of the text, but to pull you in even deeper.
"And people will say: 'Let's hear about Frodo and the Ring!' And they'll say: 'Yes, that's one of my favourite stories. Frodo was very brave, wasn't he dad?' 'Yes, my boy, the famousest of the hobbits, and that's saying a lot." A bit of braggadocio on the part of Tolkien--he's already counting on this fantasy series of his to eclipse The Hobbit, to in fact go on to dominate the entire genre for the rest of the century! He creates his own self-fulfilling prophecies.
"Why Sam...you've left out one of the chief characters: Samwise the stouthearted. 'I want to hear more about Sam, dad. Why didn't they put in more of his talk, dad? That's what I like, it makes me laugh. And Frodo, wouldn't have got far without Sam, would he, dad?'" But now this is no longer a wink at the reader--now this conversation is evolving back into a genuine character moment between two characters who have needed it for a long time.
"You and I, Sam, are still stuck in the worst places of the story, and it is all too likely that some will say at this point: 'Shut the book now, dad; we don't want to read any more.'" Tolkien was showing boundless self-confidence in his series just a moment ago, but now, just in case, he asks you to please stick with him, to not close the book just yet--yes, it's all very bleak right now, he readily confesses, but have a little faith!
"Maybe...but I wouldn't one to say that. Things done and over and made into part of the great tales are different. Why, even Gollum might be good in a tale, better than he is to have by you, anyway. And he used to like tales himself, by his own account. I wonder if he thinks he's the hero or the villain?" Directly addressing the question every reader has been nursing throughout Book IV: is Gollum good or bad, friend or foe, redeemable or irredeemable? And what is most fascinating is that Tolkien's eventual answer to this question will be--Yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment