What ideas presented in the novel seem most relevant to you, both personally and regarding any current world situations that may be applicable? — 0 thru 9

Have you ever seen Sauron and Trump together in the same room? Saruman and Boris Johnson?

That's what I call 'relevant'. :wink:

I have to clarify first, that I have not read the books, just watched the movies. and to be honest, I never really cared about drawing a connection between ower world to middle earth, but on the top of my mind, selfish desires, perhaps? thats concidered evil right?

What ideas presented in the novel seem most relevant to you, both personally and regarding any current world situations that may be applicable? — 0 thru 9

I really enjoyed that in many ways, the hobbits were the true saviours in their world, even if their not warriors or have a significant role in middle earththey had their good nature and their innocent and pure way of life. its somewhat inspiering to me.

But dont pay me much mind about it...as I said, I have just watched the movies and not the more in-depth writings in the books. Still I wouldnt mind knowing if I have a point or if im complete lost ? :joke:

The One Ring was made to rule over the other rings of (lesser) power, to enslave the wearers. All of Sauron's rings were evil. (Sauron didn't make the sapphire, diamond, or ruby gem stone rings.)

The One Ring gives power according to the strength of the bearer. Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Lady Galadriel would have gained great power from the One Ring -- Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, were made invisible; Frodo could see things otherwise not visible, but being a person of no-power could not take much power from the Ring. Men were somewhere in between Frodo and Gandalf.

The One Ring is a seductive invitation to challenge Sauron for power. Alas, the Ring is also corrupting. Gandalf is powerful, and perhaps could defeat Sauron if he possessed the Ring. Perhaps the same could be said for Lady Galadriel, Elrond, or Cirdan. But no one in Middle Earth is immune to the evil inherent in the One Ring, and Gandalf, Cirdan, or Lady Galadriel would have become evil in victory.

Why was it Frodo's task to destroy the One Ring? According to Gandalf, Frodo was fated to have that task.

The One Ring is a seductive invitation to challenge Sauron for power. Alas, the Ring is also corrupting. Gandalf is powerful, and perhaps could defeat Sauron if he possessed the Ring. Perhaps the same could be said for Lady Galadriel, Elrond, or Cirdan. But no one in Middle Earth is immune to the evil inherent in the One Ring, and Gandalf, Cirdan, or Lady Galadriel would have become evil in victory. — Bitter Crank

That’s it in a nutshell. The Ring is the ultimate in centralized power, archetypal imperialism at its pinnacle, in my estimation. The temptation to be “king of the mountain”, the delusion that it would bring anything except a temporary high, and the insanity to try it. Tolkien was influenced both by his love of fable and languages, and the experience of fighting in one world war and living through another. His attempt to make sense of it, to tie seeming chaos into a narrative, is one of the high points of twentieth century art. It perhaps seems more relevant now, like it is still bearing fruit.

But dont pay me much mind about it...as I said, I have just watched the movies and not the more in-depth writings in the books. Still I wouldnt mind knowing if I have a point or if im complete lost ? :joke: — Aleksander Kvam

The movies helped me get through the books more. Before the movies I had some trouble sorting out the characters and the places and the bad guys. Even Sauron and Saruman on the page can be confusing to the first time reader. The films brought Middle Earth firmly into the consciousness of the present time. Despite some quibbles and changes, the movies were quite a feat.

Yeah, I've always thought of Sam as the main hero. 'The Choices of Master Samwise' is the most pivotal and interesting of the chapters for me. The other characters all have a tough job, but they can confer with each other about the right thing to do, and the right thing to do is usually rather obvious (except for the fact that no one thought to enlist Gwaihir to drop Frodo off at Mount Doom). Sam's stuck on his own in a really shitty spot. I was never wholly convinced of his decision to abandon the quest and follow Frodo's dead (as he thought) body, even though it turned out to be the right thing to do for the quest. It was irrational based on the information he had at the time. Maybe that's the idea - his instincts saw past the rational analysis or something.

Aragorn is a sort of hero, but he doesn't have a whole lot of difficult choices. He just has to do what a king has to do, which he does. To make Aragorn into a more interesting character, you'd have to make him fail at that, and then redeem himself, or not. Boromir is more interesting in that way.

The Akallabeth has to be the best analogy for the rise and fall of earthly civilisations, but that's not in LOTR.

Regarding allegory, Tolkien contrasted it with applicability, and said he preferred the latter. I presume his own application of his work is to Christian myth, but I'm sure he would have been relaxed about others making other applications.

Also there is an analogy with academia. Denethor, Gandalf, Elrond (Roland, I'm only trying to help you Roland), Saruman, are University dons. Frodo's a PhD student. Merry and Pippin are undergraduates. Boromir is head of the Rugby team.