You're viewing a single thread.
The fellowship, especially the human members were made up of aristocrats doing things for honor and Valor. But most humans in 4th age me were living in squalor, a shell of a former great empire and people. Even the movies did a decent job of showing the distrust, violence and squalor and curruptability of average men.
All that said yes show less toxicity and more role model responses to hard situations is a good idea. But drama sells.
Excuse me? Doing it for honor and valor?
They were doing it to save middle earth from a tyrant who would have enslaved everyone under his rule.
That was one of Tolkien's concepts, that a king should protect his people and lead by example. There is no battle in which Aragorn didn't lead from the front.
The 4th age was one of peace and prosperity. Please share the source for the peoples of middle earth living in squalor.
If a king can't protect and take care of his people then they are better off without him, that's what got heads rolling around Europe at a certain point
Well you definitely right about the motivation. I guess my thoughts were 1. all the elves could have just bailed on ME but some stuck around. 2. Aragon in the books always intended on being king and was further motivated by elronds requirement to marry his daughter so as much as he may have done it to lead from the front it was still a game of houses. 3. Overall you absolutely right about the forth being prosperous i had the industrialisation of bag end in mind in particular. Yes sams family fixes it over 3 generations and it was 1 town trading with sauromon, but it def was the exploitative example I thought of. 4.Other than the wizard and hobbits it was all nobility in the fellowship etc... last is the "height of humanity" were the early numenorians so what was left of civilization by the lotr saga anyway was diminished
Thanks for checking my generalization I should be more careful not to twist tokens intent
No worries. I appreciate you coming back to reiterate and elaborate on your thoughts. And having a civil discourse on Tolkien.
I just want to add on some details about Aragorn for those coming to know more.
That whilst he did intend to reclaim the throne, the way he went about it was about as noble and selflessly as possible. He didn't do it by conquering or by force. He did it by proving he was worthy of being king. He rescued Gondor from certain destruction. He healed people " the hands of the king are the hands of a healer. " Then when he finally does reclaim it, he ruled in a way basically the opposite of the last millennium of rulership. And worked to undo a thousand years or more of gradual decay.
"Kings made tombs more splendid than the houses of the living and counted the names of their descent dearer than the names of their sons."
Beautifully said. And honestly I kind of forgot about this and its a major theme. I got prrtty hung up on magic leaving/dying and the fact there were still humans like the haradrim or Easterling. I think aaragon made peace with them? I really dont know how I managed to not weight his reign with more importance, guess it shows my own bias pessimism. He was basically the perfect archetype and all the symbolism of him planting the 4th tree, etc making him more a messiah than hungry for power. I didnt really think he purged humanity of sin though .. did he ever go so far to suggest that?
Yeah he was borderlining on messiah-ish but I think given Tolkien's distaste for allegories, he didn't want to make any character too messianic.
My reading of Aragorn is not of a messianic figure, but more of an example of what a true leader should strive towards. He left no one behind, " we will not abandon merry and pippin to torment and death." He knew when things were beyond him, parting ways with Frodo, knowing he would eventually be a risk to Frodo. Most of all, putting his kingship for the betterment of the people.
I think it resonates even louder for me now because of the current geo-political situation.