Lord of the Rings is not what I expected it to be. I
actually enjoyed reading it and discussing it in class, which was a very big
shock to me. I am usually not really into science fiction and fantasy things,
but Lord of the Rings kind of made me change my mind.
My favorite discussion we had in class was about why a ring
was chose as the object of magic rather than a person. The theory I agree with
most is that a ring is a very generic object, and it is easy to view it as
encompassing all temptation rather than just one. If the story depicted a
person as possessing all the magic, first of all, the name of the story would
make no sense, but that character would also most likely have one fatal flaw,
and that one fatal flaw would correspond with one specific temptation. Having a
ring be the magical object makes it easy to align it with any temptation, and
not just have it focus on one temptation in general.
I think the use of the ring also plays an important role in
human decency as well. People do not want to believe that another person can be
inherently evil like the ring it, and giving someone the powers the ring has
would make that a true case. Instead, the story has someone who is meant to
destroy the ring. Giving someone the mission of destroying something evil
paints humanity in a better light than having the person be the thing that is
so evil.
I also like that the story has a very clear cut view of good
and evil. It is so easy to see who is good and who is bad, and I think that is
one of the reasons the story is so popular. People like having someone to root
for, an underdog that they hope will be the victor at the end of the story.
This concept of good and evil can also translate to the real world because
people want to believe that if they do the right thing and make the right decisions,
good things will happen to them and they will live a happy life. I think these
concepts are what have kept this story going for so long and why it is so
popular. At least, they are what won me over.
Personally I think LOTR could have used anything as their object of magic. a ring works but so does really anything, like they dont even really use it as a ring anyways. it could have been a necklace or a shirt or even like a magical genie lamp looking thing.
ReplyDeleteI think that a ring was chosen to be the object because, frankly, "Lord of the Rings" sounds like a BADASS title. It's kinda like "Game of Thrones". It tells you everything you need to know about the series in a compact manner that also doesn't minimize what's happening. "Game of Chairs" doesn't sound like anything with OOMPH, and neither would like, "Lord of the Necklace".
ReplyDelete"Lord" establishes a kind of medieval sense to it all, without having to root it to any particular point in time, but we already know that this is going to be about someone or something important- a leader.
Rings? The most significant symbolism behind a ring is still probably marriage, but even that is a thing of power and binding.
It's a powerful title, that carries its strength into the story, even if the ring could have been pretty much anything within the narrative.
I also believe that in LOTR really any object could have be used. However it sounds so much more intense when all of this amazing power is put down in this ring. Something that seems so small and simple, yet holds some of the greatest power. Good things come in small packages? Maybe. Eh.
ReplyDeleteThe theme of Good and Evil is what I like about the story too. This is one story (and in this case when I say story I mean movie) most of the bad guys clearly look like bad guys. Motives are presented outright, and the underdog is supported by a strong group of men, wizards, elves, and dwarves in order to destroy this tiny object of evil. What's not to like?
ReplyDelete