What I Never Realized About Legolas

[@JasonGabler]

"...known for his astute observation..." ... "A diversion!"

[@mikepants3736]

It should be: A big ass trench!

[@thereishappiness]

Love your takes ✍

[@archetypalwisdom]

Thank you! Happy you're enjoying the channel!

[@macrosense]

Tolkien had to differentiate the elves from humans in some way beyond merely being immortal

[@jamestaylor3805]

A few too many takes in this that rely on dichotomies for my comfort at all.

[@ananarosea]

The script is AI generated with chat gpt. You can tell by the wording. I stopped watching at 2 minutes in.

[@pwmiles56]

Aaargh, more Jung! I don't discount him entirely though I believe the academic world has done so. I love Erich Neumann's (a Jung student's) explanation of Cupid and Psyche. Suffice to say, Jung works great as literary criticism, best kept in that box. Oh and Legolas doesn't track the Uruk-Hai, Aragorn does

[@archetypalwisdom]

I'm a Jungian at heart. :) I've read some of Neumann's work. though not a lot. I'll have to read more! I totally agree, Aragorn was the leader in the tracking of them. However Legolas's long distance sight and perception of what the human eye can't see were essential. The idea I was pointing to metaphorically was the power of an overarching vision to bring together different traits within individuals and collectives. However perhaps I could have clarified that more. Appreciate your input!

[@DoloresJNurss]

How is "The Lord of the Rings" not a fit subject literary criticism? Those three books gave us some of the most seminal contributions to literature of the 20th century! They established the form and structure of trilogies, they elevated fantasy to the status of mature literature, they pioneered new ground in world-building, and that's not even getting into the poetry and complexity of the storytelling itself, the intricate characters, the visceral inspirational content, or the dance of so many moving parts synching together believably. I could go on.

[@pwmiles56]

@@DoloresJNurss I didn't mean Tolkien wasn't literary, far from it! The "Academy" tried to dismiss him; Tom Shippey is very amusing about this (JRR Tolkien, Author of the Century). What I mean by literary criticism is, for example: There came a lady clad in grey in the twilight shining "Shadow-Bride" (Poem 13 in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil) In-world they are Thingol and Melian. In Jungian terms we see the shadowy woman, dream-symbol of the unconscious. Which "explains" this part of Tolkien -- but maybe not all

[@DoloresJNurss]

@@pwmiles56 Thank you--I felt a bit puzzled by the statement but now I understand you. Of course literary criticism should touch on many levels, not least being the effect literature has on one. Archetypal symbolism partly gives us a glimpse as to why a story grabs us so, but so do many other factors, intentional or otherwise, in the writer or in the reader. So I agree with you.

[@pwmiles56]

@@DoloresJNurss Thank you. Oh indeed, Tolkien works on the reader in a very deep way and I find it fascinating to explore this in the light of psychoanalysis (in a positive sense). I'll leave it there, but thanks again.