tragi-comedy

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 32951

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:

> Yeah, tragi-comedy, that's the stuff.  There's one JKR/Tolkien 
comparison even the most rabid Tolkien fans would have to concede - 
JKR is much lighter and funnier, which takes the edge off her 
grimness.  There are very few light moments in LOTR (more in The 
Hobbit), and as the story progresses it just get darker and darker.  
Thank Gandalf for Tom Bombadil and Treebeard!  I personally agree 
with Cindy here... all comedy gets too fluffy, all tragedy gets too 
bleak.  I can happily read fluff or bleakness (provided the fluff is 
genuinely funny and the bleakness is powerful and moving), but I like 
an author that can successfully combine the two.>

Tolkien not funny? /me almost faints. But what about Sam cooking the 
rabbits? Merry and Aragorn in the Houses of Healing? Pippin in Minas 
Tirith? Treebeard? Ioreth and the Master of the Houses of Healing? 
Gandalf, himself. Barliman Butterbur? Merry and Pippin re-righting 
the Shire? The Long Expected Party? Gimli and Legolas fighting over 
who's killed the most orcs at Helm's Deep?  Rosie Cotton's reunion 
with Sam? So I'm a rabid Tolkien fan, and I don't concede. I 
think "The Lord of the Rings" has very many light moments, and they 
effectively meld with the dark ones. True, Frodo doesn't have any 
fun, unlike Harry, but there is laughter as well as crying in Middle 
Earth. But perhaps you don't like Hobbit humour? I admit that a lot 
of people don't. C.S. Lewis, for example, made Tolkien cut out a 
whole load of it, and his publishers forbade him to end the book with 
a scene where Sam tells a long story to his too-cute children, and 
they ask infuriatingly silly questions about Rohan, and Gondor, and 
Mordor? 

>Nope, the Gollum scene I found most touching was the scene when he 
comes back to camp and gazes dotingly at Frodo ("Nice master") and 
almost turns into a sad, weary hobbit lived long past his years when 
Sam wakes and snarls and destroys his very last chance of 
redemption.  I know Sam means well, but his stodgily humble loyalty 
gets on my nerves.  Wasn't it Ursula Le Guin who commented that Sam's 
servile "Sir"-ing and "Master"-ing of Frodo is enough to make one 
want to start a Hobbit Socialist Party?>
> Now, Hagrid is of the same ilk as Sam in some ways (bumbling 
loyalty, great man Dumbledore, etc.), but he's *funny*, and that 
makes all the difference> 

You don't like Sam? /me looks reproachfully at Tabouli, but decides 
to forgive. Sam is the quintessential hobbit, after all, and that can 
be a hard taste to acquire. ;-) For myself, I find Sam funnier than 
Hagrid any day, perhaps it has something to do with his humour being 
firmly rooted in common sense. 

About Sam's "Sir"s and "Master"s, I believe Tolkien felt the same way 
and wished he'd shut up. In fact, there is a legend circulating that 
Tolkien hated Sam. No, he would insist, just some of his mannerisms. 
Those are inextricably part of Sam, but unlike a certain Harry Potter 
with the name of Dobby ;-), Sam gets pretty much over them. He still 
retains the "Mr. Frodo's" etc., but they end the book as best friends 
and practical equals. Sam takes over the Baggins legacy (and finishes 
the Lord of the Rings!) and becomes mayor of Hobbiton time after 
time. And then, at last, he heads to Valinor. What a change from the 
servant in every way from the beginning! Will we see such a change in 
Dobby or Winky? I would hope so. 

Eileen