RE: [mythsoc] bilious
- And to add to what Wendell and others have been saying -- Aragorn is not
just worthy to be king because of his birth. There were generations of Heirs
of Isildur before him who did not seek the kingship. Aragorn proves himself
over and over again -- he serves in disguise in Rohan and Gondor in his
youth, and later wanders in the wilderness on missions we know nothing
about. We see him making tactical decisions and learning how to lead in his
own name. Even in a society without aristocrats, his actions and character
would have led him to a high leadership position; he goes through what the
republican Romans called a cursus honorum, being trained in military and
civilian leadership by his experiences.
So in comparison I'm not that bothered by fantasy novels where noble birth
treated as if it actually mattered. But in any case _The Lord of the Rings_
is not like that. It's made clear in Tolkien that anybody, no matter how
minor, can affect the outcome of the story. Aragorn is only one character
the novel, and in the beginning he's not even living in a castle. He's a
wanderer who looks like a thief.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Would you really "cheer in real life if the peasants revolted and killedI know I wouldn't. Especially since in the eyes of the majority of the
>all the aristocrats"?
world, the average American or European IS an aristocrat. We have the
education, riches and privileges (and assumption of superiority) that rivals
any aristo in history. If aristos are the enemy, then the enemy is us.