Childrens' book philosophy 18: Retributive justice in Lord of the Rings
[Frodo:] "I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let [Gollum] live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death."
[Gandalf:] "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- From JRR Tolkien, "Fellowship of the Ring"
In reply to I don't think the Lord of the by Danko
Yes, I wondered about that
Yes, I wondered about that actually - I mean whether it is "childrens' literature." I decided that it is because I read it when I was 12 or 13 or something. But like much childrens' literature it is also good for adults.
Sorry about the misspelling though! I'll fix that.
In reply to Yes, I wondered about that by Peter Adamson
No worry :) I think the
No worry :)
I think the spelling was what unnerved the author very very much.
I think it isn't, but aside from that, it is actually a sort of a reception of medieval literature. Hence it is very often commented (and admired) chiefly by medieval scholars.
For instance, a point has been made that there is a dual vision of the nature of evil - evil as deviation from the good; and evil as something substantial itself. It being a work of literature, the interplay allows for various interpretations which is always a good thing.
This particular example is for example tied in with specific sense of providence: had they killed Gollum at that particular point, he would not have been able to later "help" in destroying the ring. Hence, some sort of mercy led to salvation, but it is all complicated by the fact that Gandalf says that even the wisest 'cannot see all ends'. So whether it was really predestined or not is also another question which is not easily resolved.
I am saying all these not to brag about my knowledge of Tolkien, but because I think that 'childrens' literature' at least for me implies easy reading, formative reading, and preparation for 'serious literature' in the future. Whereas, Tolkien himself was a medievalist and a renowned scholar, and his work springs from a dialogue with medieval tradition.
On a wholly different note, I have to say that I admire your podcast, and all your effort, that I have been following it since last year, and that your style of presentation is excellent, so I always enjoy every episode, and look forward to listening to this podcast.
And also I might add that I really hope you do mention Chinese philosophy of which I am a great fan.
Cheers!
Add new comment
- Add new comment
- 8168 views
Blog Archive
- September 2017 (2)
- August 2017 (3)
- July 2017 (3)
- June 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (4)
- April 2017 (4)
- February 2017 (5)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (3)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (3)
- June 2016 (3)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (1)
- March 2016 (3)
- February 2016 (1)
- December 2015 (5)
- November 2015 (2)
- October 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (2)
- August 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (1)
- June 2015 (4)
- May 2015 (1)
- April 2015 (4)
- March 2015 (2)
- February 2015 (2)
- January 2015 (2)
- December 2014 (6)
- November 2014 (2)
- October 2014 (6)
- September 2014 (11)
- August 2014 (3)
- July 2014 (1)
- June 2014 (4)
- May 2014 (3)
I don't think the Lord of the
I don't think the Lord of the Rings is a book for children. But I think the greater sin is misspelling Tolkien's name, he is 'kein Tol' but it comes from "tollkühn", foolhardy, too daring etc. :)
However, I like this quote, it is a good response to those who are quick to judge.