Please be warned that the post contains all sorts of spoilers.
If you haven’t read the novels, or seen the films, and are particular about not knowing endings & plot-twists beforehand, reading this will undoubtedly ruin your enjoyment of the source material.
Again, it contains only thoughts evoked by reading the Lotr and Harry Potter series.
These are more like Working Notes, and not some final commentary on two series which are very vast & complex & fascinating.
While reading the Potter books, I was reminded, strangely, of the film The Lion King.
I had seen the 1995 film, donkeys’ years ago, and that’s the only one I’ve seen, once.
In Potterverse, the two main antagonists are Gryffindor and Slytherin – represented each by the Lion and the Serpent, respectively.
Strictly speaking, the Griffin is not a Lion – but it is certainly constitutes a Lion.
The Griffin is mostly Half-Bird/Eagle and Half-Lion, but it’s just fine if Rowling focused on the Feline element in her symbolism.
In The Lion King, the antagonists are Mufasa/Simba, and Scar.
Mufasa & Simba are red-maned and red-eyed.
But Scar has a black mane, and green eyes.
In the HP novels, Harry has black hair & green eyes.
Voldy, alas, has no hair at all (as a youngster, black hair, like Harry) ... but he has red eyes.
Scar has a scar on his face – especially on his left eye.
Harry has a scar – on his head.
Simba is raised by a Meerkat (Timon) – and a Wart-hog (Pumbaa).
Harry is raised (as a wizard) at Hog-warts.
And though I don’t think Meerkats belong to the same family as Weasels ... there are similarities.
Meerkats belong to the Mongoose family, which, at least in India, is the proverbial enemy of the Serpent.
Weasels on the other hand, are mythically associated with the Basilisk ... they are supposed to be fatal to the Basilisk.
So somewhere, there is a distant reflection, in terms of their hostility to the serpent race.
Harry is also deeply associated, almost like an adoptive son, by the Weasleys.
Some elements have been reversed – some have been kept as is – but the fundamental elements are the same.
Harry’s Mother – the true spiritual foundation of the whole series – Lily Potter – has Scar-Harry’s green eyes & Mufasa-Simba’s red hair.
The Weasleys’ red hair has probably more to do with the anathema associated with red-haired people, than anything else (there has been a long-standing stigma attached to red hair in many cultures, throughout the history of mankind, which persists even today).
All of Rowling’s positive characters are outcasts or rejects or underdogs of some sort or the other.
Hagrid is poor & half-Giant.
Lupin is poor & werewolf.
The Weasleys are poor & red-haired.
Dobby – and the other House-Elfs – are all basically slaves.
Hermione & Lily are Muggle-born.
I have a strange feeling that Pumbaa the Wart-Hog has at least something to do with Rowling’s conception of Hog-Warts.
Warthogs are pigs – as everybody knows – as are Boars.
Pig-Boar-Hog symbolism seems to interest Rowling a lot, as I’m sure all her ardent fans have noticed.
The gates to Hogwarts are flanked by two winged boars.
There is the village called Hogs-meade where all the children go, once they enter their 3rd year.
There is a tavern known as Hog’s Head.
Dudley Dursley is constantly compared to a pig.
Hagrid gives Dudley a pig’s tail, in the 1st novel, when he comes to introduce Harry to the wizarding world.
Even the Weasleys’ house – the Burrow – is compared to a pig-pen.
Ron’s owl is named Pigwidgeon – which gets abbreviated to “Pig”.
And for what it’s worth, even Hagrid’s dog – Fang – is a boar-hound.
For whatever reason, Rowling keeps coming back to this porcine imagery.
The colour symbolism is more consistent.
The Avada-Kedavra color is green – the color of Harry & Lily’s eyes – also the signature colour of the Slytherins.
The Expelliarmus color is red – the color of Voldy’s eyes – the signature color of Gryffindor (scarlet merely being a variation of red).
The interesting part is that the exact same set of colours is used in The Lord of the Rings, but again, inverted.
GREEN & SILVER – the colours of Slytherin – are the favourite colors of J.R.R Tolkien and are consistently used in LOTR in relation to Elves, and everything & everyone Tolkien loves.
And while he doesn’t hate gold or the golden colour – he certainly sees it with certain distrust, with ambivalence – and he definitely dislikes Red.
On a whole, Tolkien maybe said to dislike RED & GOLD – the colours of Gryffindor – and tends to associate them with evil – or, at any rate, something fearful & amiss.
He can’t altogether hate gold, because, for one he loves blonde hair – which, incidentally, Rowling seems to target with certain relish – but without becoming a “hair-colourist” (as in “racist” or “ageist”) :)
(Dudley, Lockhart, Draco, Narcissa, Rita Skeeter, Slughorn, the big blonde death-eater in the 6th novel, & Bartemius Crouch Junior – all have variations of blonde hair.
So do Luna & Neville – Luna is basically ridiculous, to the point of being clownish; the case of Neville is deeply complicated.)
(28th December, 2023:
Oh yes, and Gellert Grindelwald is also blonde-haired.
So is the pompous & annoying Hufflepuff boy Zacharias Smith, and the affable, rather charming, bungling fraudster, Ludo Bagman.
Of course, so are Fleur & Firenze – as I said, Rowling doesn’t descend to “hair-colourism” 
– but there’s an astonishing number of negative or problematic characters with blonde hair.
The entire Malfoy family is blonde.)
He lavishes some love on the metal, usually by subordinating it to a host of other colours, particularly silver.
In Tolkien’s universe, green, silver & white dominate as the colors of positivity – followed by grey & blue.
He is obsessed with silver-green – which Rowling directly transfers to the Slytherin, the Slytherin Common Room and Slytherin’s Chamber of Secrets.
She consistently associates Green with evil and unhealthiness.
However, like Voldy’s eyes, Sauron’s Eye – (like that of Mufasa-Simba) – is also – Red.
(One should note that Gollum’s eyes tend to be greenish.)
Tolkien views gold with a certain degree of fear: after all, the One Ring is golden.
Part of this passion for silver & white might come from Tolkien’s rather deep & unusual love for star-light.
Literally, the light of stars.
Tolkien doesn’t care much about Moonlight – and almost dislikes the Sun – but his love for starlight is a persistent theme, in Lotr.
Throughout the history of mankind, poets have glorified the Sun & its effulgence – and the Moon & its soothing radiance – but Tolkien has built a whole poetic vision around the unobtrusive, distant night light of stars.
His distaste for red & gold is undoubtedly linked to his denial of the Volcanic-monster, Sauron.
More broadly speaking, his ambivalent view of Fire.
Red & gold are the quintessential colours, not just of Fire, but also of the Sun, and of the Volcano.
The Volcano-god – in this case Sauron – is merely the most visible, the most terrifying & awe-inspiring, and most potent symbol of terrestrial, earthy fire.
There is no fire per se, around man, in nature.
There is water, earth, wind, and space, all the time, everywhere, around us.
But fire?
Where does man get to know, of fire?
Primarily from Lightning.
Lightning is a way more common, universal form, symbol & source of fire than the forest fire.
I can only wonder how frequently did man encounter forest conflagrations – they might have been quite common thousands of years ago.
But certainly, they were less common than lightning.
Hence, the special importance of lightning in all ancient symbolism.
While the Sun heats, it does not directly generate fire.
But lightning directly sets trees on fire.
Apart from lightning & forest fires – which are occasional, seasonal, or fitful – the only source & symbol of fire in man’s environment was the volcano.
It’s possible that the volcano was seen as a vent for a massive ball or realm of fire envisioned either inside the earth, at its center, or beneath it.
At any rate, the Volcano is equated with Fire, in man’s mind.
This would be fire in its dark, destructive aspect.
This is what Tolkien fears the most.
Satan-Lucifer are nothing but Fire which was brought down, or hurled down, from Heaven, and imprisoned deep within the Earth – of which the most powerful & tangible symbol is the Volcano.
Quite obviously, Sauron represents the same array of concepts.
Rowling connects Gryffindor with the element Fire too – but she uses this colour-symbolism in a diametrically opposite sense.
It maybe said that both are correct, partially – and one focuses on the negative aspect of fire, and the other focuses on the positive aspect.
One may add that Rowling utilizes the Red versus Green colour schematic even in the Quidditch World Cup – in which the Bulgarians are dressed in Red, and the Irish in Green – though we are expected to see the Green in a more positive light, here.
The best drawn character in the HP series: perhaps Harry himself, though all – Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Dumbledore, are excellently portrayed.
The worst drawn character: Severus Snape.
Sorry, Severus Snape never added up, for me.
My least favorite character: Severus Snape.
Seriously, tormenting a child – an orphan – an abused & neglected orphan – an orphan kept hungry & denied the basic joys of life by his relatives – a child whose parents were murdered when he was a baby – a child who has been marked out by a dangerous criminal from before birth – a child who constantly faces the prospect of being murdered, not just by one terrifying sorcerer, by a horde of said magician’s zealot followers – I repeat, tormenting an abused orphan for something which his father (whom the child never knew) did (which is not known to the child either) – is simply despicable.
I FIND SEVERUS SNAPE THE MOST DESPICABLE CHARACTER IN THE ENTIRE SERIES.
Worse than the Dursleys, who are actually believable.
Snape isn’t.
Honestly, you keep trying to expel an ill-treated, friendless orphan from his school, and ruin his entire life?
Shunt him back into the Muggle world where he’ll be penniless, lonely, and abused by his blood-relatives?
He has a chance for happiness, a normal life, for doing what his nature has wired him to do – in the Wizarding world – but Snape tries to kick him back into the Muggle world, where he’d be totally miserable & ruined.
How horrible can a man be?
What had Harry ever done to Snape?
As for Snape’s constant bickering about “rules” – if he had HALF the brains that he’s supposed to have, he should have understood that an obedient, humble kid who timorously abides by all the “rules” – CANNOT survive the repeated attempts to be murdered by one of the most evil & dangerous Dark Wizards of all time & his demented cohorts.
Only someone who is intrepid, even reckless – who has gumption, who is even brazen – who is resourceful & feisty – who is gutsy & defiant – who takes risks nobody else takes – who isn’t scared to break the rules – who isn’t put off by paltry detentions & the fear of losing House-points – who isn’t afraid of making a fool of himself – CAN face & fight such a terrible threat.
Harry is all those things, and Dumbledore understands that very well.
That part was projected with consummate psychological insight & mastery, by the author.
So what is Snape complaining of?
One can understand his rancour towards Sirius... perhaps even Lupin... but Harry?
To “save” someone reluctantly & bitterly – to do good to someone without wanting to do it – to do favours to someone while hating them – is undoubtedly worse than being openly horrible.
Rowling took the greatest twist in the history of literature – took a character who could have been one of the great tragic heroes of world literature – and made it all profoundly unconvincing & unacceptable.
A man ridden by grudges, resentment, and hatred – a man without introspection (we see none of it, at least) – like Snape, CANNOT make the sacrifices that Snape made.
The films, in toning down his viciousness & vindictiveness – and making him merely stern & grumpy – have altogether CHANGED the character.
He even compliments Harry (!) in one of the earlier films – something which is impossible to Snape of the books.
In the novels, Snape is mean, prejudiced and petty in the extreme – he CANNOT be the man Rowling wants him to be.
At any rate, I – one reader – am not convinced at all.
A man who takes every opportunity to dock points from a competing House, and shows such rancid favouritism, cannot be a martyr, or indeed, even brave.
Rowling attempted something very profound & complex – but she attempted the impossible: trying to make a detestable, horrible man with no sense of justice or compassion GREAT – and, in my opinion, failed.
I hate using that word, and it probably reflects my disappointment, more than anything else – but there’s no other way to put it.
The films tried to correct the error, sentimentalized the whole thing (unsuccessfully, since Snape evidently left baby Harry to die in the ruins of his house after his parents were killed! to be picked up later by Hagrid!), and churned out a different individual altogether.
(28th December, 2023:
Snape’s relationship to Harry with respect to James, is pretty similar to Petunia’s relationship with Harry w.r.t. Lily.
Snape, like Petunia, is basically keeping Harry alive, while hating him because of the jealousy he felt for James (Lily, in case of Petunia) – and otherwise tormenting him in every possible way.
However, there are important differences.
It maybe said, though, that Snape is conscious of the fact that keeping Harry alive, and helping him fight Voldy Thingy, has much wider implications for the whole wizarding world.
Yet, a man who torments an abused orphan, a boy constantly facing the threat of death, cannot have a moral compass.
Petunia doesn’t, and faces & takes no risks, in her life.
She isn’t fighting for anyone or anything.
She’s not facing one of the greatest & most evil & dangerous Black Magicians of all times, and risking being punished in the most gruesome manner possible, every moment of her life.
She’s part of no crusade or plan: she’s simply another woman leading her life.
One needs to have a very strong moral compass, to do what Snape was doing: and a person driven by such a deep moral values, will not torment & harass young children relentlessly, let alone an orphan kid pining away for his parents.
Snape not only targets Harry, but also Neville.
Very disgusting.
One can see this moral compass operating in Hermione & Ron – particularly Hermione.
While thinking about this, I was reminded of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables ... about Jean Valjean & the young man Marius.
Despite my ideological differences with Hugo (and however great a hypocrite he might have been), Les Mis is undoubtedly one of the most powerful & wonderful novels ever written.
Snape-Harry reminded me of Valjean-Marius – how Jean Valjean saved Marius, carrying his unconscious body through the sewers of Paris, almost risking death, while hating him all the time, because somewhere he was in love with his adoptive daughter, Cossette, who was in love with Marius.
Would love to revisit that beautiful novel sometime... it’s a massive tome!
Jean Valjean, though, is nothing like the vicious & rancourous Severus Snape!!
He is the exact opposite.)
My most favorite character: Peeves!!
Also, points to be noted:
1. Why does Albus Dumbledore always address Moldy Baldy as Lord Voldemort?
2. I do NOT want to imagine how did Hagrid’s midget father (who seems to be not a centimeter more than 4 feet tall) – mate with a Giantess (looming at least 18 feet).
I DON’T want even an inchoate picture of this ... um, sweet union ... floating hazily inside my brain!!
3. The magical power of House-Elfs.
It is obviously much greater than that of wizards.
If Rowling had to return to that world, it would’ve been very interesting to delve into the history & mystery of the House-Elfs.
Though I don’t know what has been done in the Fantastic Beasts... film series, I’m inclined to think that Rowling CANNOT delve into the fascinating mystery of House-Elf enslavement by Wizardkind.
Because, it is actually impossible.
The whole House-Elf enslavement thing is is one of the greatest flaws in the Potter-Universe, and Rowling managed to tarnish the otherwise fantastic character of Hermione Granger with her Spew obsession.
The whole “Exploitation”, “Oppression”, and “Invasion” by Wizards dimension was HORRIBLE, to say the least – whether in relation to Goblins, Centaurs, or Elfs.
What is worse, Rowling goes on to almost prove WHY Wizards should be mortally afraid of Giants & Werewolves, and then goes on & on about “discrimination”.
Indeed, her advocacy for Muggle-borns itself is a contradiction in terms: if Muggles are so wonderful, then why are Wizards & Witches so paranoid about living in hiding, and spend their entire lives concealing their existence from Muggles?
Why not declare themselves in the open, and live in harmony with the Muggles?
This core issue is never addressed in the entire series.
The root of the fact of their concealment, and all the rules & laws which shape & direct the course of the story.
Which is FEAR OF PERSECUTION & ANNIHILATION by Muggles.
Logically analyzed, the Death-Eaters have reason & common sense on their side, NOT the Dumbledore group.
Another important point: Rowling for some reason associates the Wizarding equivalent of Racism with the “Dark Arts” (which seems to be nothing but “Black Magic”).
What has maintaining Blood-Purity got to do with the “Dark Arts”?
Nothing that I can think of.
One may at best say that the Pure-Blood Supremacists are compelled to use violence & crime, to get rid of their enemies.
In the process, magicians & sorcerers may use “Black Magic”.
But there’s no necessary, logical connection at all between “Dark Arts” and being Pure-Blooded.
ANY magician or sorcerer – or “wizard” – may resort to the “Dark Arts”.
We are never given any definite idea of what are these “Dark Arts” – except gruesome & cruel rites of Black Magic.
Even a Muggle-born can get into Black Magic.
So the whole idea of associating Pure-Blood Supremacy with the “Dark Arts” is something I cannot accept.
It is tantamount to pure propaganda.
The idea is that those who believe in their blood superiority are naturally & “automatically” inclined towards Black Magic.
And those who believe in “equality” (or something of that sort), are “automatically” disinterested in Black Magic.
Here I beg to differ – seriously – with the author.
There can be a conflict between those who want to maintain pure-blood dominance and those who are amenable to mixing with others.
There can be a conflict between those who reject, and those who accept, Black Magic.
But there is no reason to associate Blood-Purity with Black Magic.
One may as well as write a novel in which the Muggle-Borns are resorting to the “Dark Arts” to kill off the “Pure Bloods”.
It would be as valid a theory, as Rowling’s.
4. Okay. The Polyjuice Potion.
Talk about the invasion of privacy!
If you can feel the arms & legs of the person you turn into, and see each & every scar & birthmark, you can also, well ... you actually get to know & feel ... the person’s private parts! 😁
Yikes!
I can’t imagine how embarrassing this whole Polyjuice Potion thingy is.
It’s bad enough that one dude knows just how bushy another dude’s pubic thatch is, it’s terrifying to think that a woman can feel your scrotum sac in her pants ... or a dude can know exactly the shape & feel of a woman’s areolas! 😱
Do remember that Hermione & Fleur both change into Harry at the beginning of the 7th novel.
If Hermione’s eyesight can change to Harry’s.... what about ... er ... her erogenous functioning?????????
O God. 😲
Can she actually experience a man’s arousal?
At any rate, you don’t want your childhood friend, let alone his girlfriend, to know the precise contours of your groin, and how much hair your have around your asscrack, or how smooth you are, back there.
And even if you do, I’m sure your friend doesn’t want that. 😂
Please. I don’t want to think about it.
Thank you, but the Polyjuice Potion should be banned!
No wonder even Rowling, who might be smirking & giggling to herself thinking about it, makes its use restricted.
5. That leads me to one more creepy object: Mad-Eye Moody’s Eye.
So if this bloke can see through solid surfaces and through Invisibility Cloaks – if he can see through Harry’s robes & see his socks – he can also see through your clothes and see your ... um, underpants ... or through your undies, and see whatever dark mystery lies beneath. 😱
This is creepy beyond belief.
I perfectly agree with Parvati Patil: that eye shouldn’t be allowed!!!!!
Not because it looks scary, but because it is scary!
Not sure why such a bizarrely voyeuristic object was allowed into a school, or anywhere for that matter!
I believe I detect a distinct strain of voyeurism, or voyeuristic behavior, in the Harry Potter series.
Harry has “Peeping-Tom” proclivities: he is nosey.
Invisibility Cloaks are instruments of voyeurism. 😊
6. The intensely problematic character of Hagrid.
I find it difficult to approve of this man, though Rowling has obviously made him very lovable.
You cannot but feel a constant rush of affection for this gigantic bear-like chap, who behaves pretty much like a child.
The wit & humour surrounding him is so utterly hilarious, that it becomes difficult to see through the layers of jokes & witticisms, to see how problematic he really is (not to mention how unhygienic).
Point is: what does Hagrid actually accomplish, in the whole series?
He’s constantly bungling, and creating trouble for everybody.
He almost leads Harry & Ron to their deaths: which, despite his intentions & innocence, shows that he cannot be trusted.
Except letting Harry know about the first task in the Triwizard Tournament, he is of no help to anyone whatsoever.
Then there is the typical Liberal rant about “ability” – that it is talent that matters – but of that, Hagrid has none.
Everything Malfoy & his gang of Slytherins say, about Hagrid – and even Umbridge says – is true.
I’ll return to this issue sometime later, if possible.
7. Rowling’s aggravating attitude towards Divination – and towards Trelawney.
Fact is, in the entire wizarding universe, the only thing which can be taken seriously, is Divination – and that is the one thing which Rowling doesn’t take seriously.
Certainly, prognostication of the future is very “woolly” or “imprecise” – but turning a goblet into a gerbil – or materializing chintz chairs out of thin air – or “Apparating” & “Disapparating” – are very precise & real!
Basilisks & Fire-Breathing Dragons & Talking-Walking Portraits of people long dead, are real, but Crystal Balls are rubbish!
Excuse me, but there is nothing like “Magic”!
Least of all, “Magic” as described in these novels!
Magicians & Sorcerers are bigger charlatans, if anything, than the plethora of bogus astrologers swindling the gullible all over the place.
This approach towards Divination probably comes from Rowling’s Christian way of thinking, probably with a strong Jesuitical tinge.
This is about Freewill versus Predestination or Destiny/Fate etc.
She does believe in Prophecy – in a distinctly Biblical sense – and in the Tarot.
That is all I can write about Harry Potter, right now.
I’d like to jot down a few thoughts regarding the theme of Tolkien’s deeply ambivalent nature towards Women, and the Man-Woman relationship.
Please permit me to reiterate that these are no more than working notes, and should lead to some insights in the future.
I hope to keep working on these thoughts, though how much more time I can spend, on these novels or posts, is uncertain, and I cannot commit.
One clue to understanding the peculiar & complex nature Tolkien’s work and his mind – which is way more complicated than Rowling’s – lies hidden in the symbolism.
The most evil object in the entire saga is the Ring – the perfect Circle – and hence, instinctively & distinctively a Feminine symbol.
What are the positive symbols?
Aragorn’s sword – the Anduril...
Legolas’s arrow (& bow)...
Gimli’s axe...
Frodo’s sword Sting...
Gandalf’s sword Glamdring & his staff...
Theoden’s sword...
Even Eowyn’s...
ALL MASCULINE, “PHALLIC” SYMBOLS.
What is the supreme act of evil, or of self-destruction?
Putting on the Ring.
That is, inserting one’s finger through the hole of the circle.
In other words, the integration of opposites – the conjoining of masculine & feminine – filling up of the void.
This is subconsciously the source of all evil, in Tolkien – whether in Sauron, or in anybody else.
It’s not surprising that he keeps all his men away from women.
The other “Rings of Power” are all, also, ultimately useless.
This, as I’ve tried to show earlier, doesn’t mean that Tolkien unconditionally hates the Feminine, and unconditionally glorifies the militant, combative, “Alpha” Masculine.
Evil is to be defeated, not by a positive male-phallic act of killing or battering down – but by casting away the Feminine Circle into the primordial-slime like, Menstrual-Blood-like, Hyle-like Lava.
Male aggression has limited value – it takes one only so far.
All the virile gents with their priapic sabers could only do so much ... they couldn’t really bring down Sauron’s power.
This was made possible by someone who is neither strictly masculine in the conventional sense of the term (as Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Theoden & Eomer were masculine) ... nor someone who is feminine ... a child-sized human, beardless, curly-haired, asexual, incapable of sustained military action – that is, Frodo.
And even the male Frodo couldn’t do it – he could only take the whole process of fighting this evil to a point where the probability of the ring’s destruction was the highest.
Thus, I don’t think Tolkien’s view of men is quite that of a typical, traditional patriarchal male.
The Tower of Barad-dur, with its Red Eye at the very top (NOT like in the films) – reflecting the volcanic mount – also has a distinctly phallic significance.
Its destruction is complete only when the ring falls into the magma.
All this is subconsciously consistent, because Tolkien implicitly rejects Fire & the Sun – both potent masculine entities – seeking solace in gentle, distant, cool & unobtrusive starfire at night.
Rejection of the Sun, of Fire – and of the piercing, penetrative Eye – are all consistent at the deepest psychological level.
The Eye is very much associated with the Sun, at least in Indian philosophy.
The conscious or subconscious rejection of Sun-Fire-Eye is consistent with Tolkien lovingly dwelling on various nocturnal elements: night, starlight, silver, the colour white (associated with Moon & Stars, rather than the Sun), etc.
It also internally coheres with the general sexlessness, or absence of sensuality, or a drop of eroticism, of the entire saga.
As a color used on fabric, he uses Black – fundamentally a nocturnal colour – positively only in relation to the colours of Gondor – silver over black: a nocturnal schematic.
He otherwise dislikes the colour, for obvious reasons.
(It maybe emphasized that Tolkien prefers Stars way over the Moon: he evidently betrays a mild distrust of the Moon too.
Interestingly, in his universe, the Sun is Feminine & the Moon is Masculine.
To deprive the Sun of its masculine, phallic, generative, procreative significance, is very revealing.
Also, that he prefers a masculine Moon – placid, cool, watery, modest, a pale light swimming in nocturnal darkness – to a masculine Sun, red & golden, with its ferocious energy & intrusive heat – is also perfectly logical & understandable – and merely reinforces the point I’d driving towards.)
Thus, while Tolkien undoubtedly affirms the Male, or Masculine Energy, he doesn’t affirm the typical, legendary, fighting, conquering, subduing Hero-Demigod Male – in the ultimate analysis.
There is no great military conquest or feat, attributed to any of the male characters – the most important death-dealing act being granted to Eowyn & indeed, the “Holbytla” Merry!
Gandalf’s fight with the Balrog is merely mentioned conversationally, and isn’t described in vivid detail, as it should have been.
“I threw down my enemy” – says Gandalf – very vague & evasive a description, for such a pivotal event.
Male slaughtering male is not something Tolkien would be comfortable with.
What we do get is the Male Sam piercing & defeating the Female Shelob with “Sting”.
(Shelob also stings Frodo – nearly killing him – and leaves an injury which never heals for his entire life.
It should be noted, though, that Tolkien DOESN’T describe Shelob attacking & stinging Frodo – this is to be understood: it happens in the background.
And Sam DOESN’T really drive Sting into the Shelob: it is she who thrusts herself onto it, thus, injuring herself: Sam’s role is quite passive: he merely holds the sword upright.)
Penetration is an act of Destruction.
The union of opposites terrifies Tolkien, inspite of his valiant efforts to create some ideal couplings & ideal military heroes.
(Note:
There are almost no children in LOTR – the whole of the Harry Potter series is about children: this reveals, at the most obvious, and at the deepest, most subconscious level, the DIAMMETRICALLY OPPOSITE psyches of the two authors.)
Of all the combative exploits, we might consider Treebeard – leading the assault on Isengard – but he’s not a human – and he doesn’t kill either Saruman or Grima.
Tolkien can’t quite dwell on battle & bloodshed – most of his accounts of “action” are insipid & lame (including the absolutely unremarkable Battle at Helm’s Deep) – and any significant feats happen in the background (Gandalf fighting the Black Riders on Weathertop) – not in the forefront.
He does admire Gondor, built on a great mountain, with its priapic space-dominating white spire – but Tolkien’s ultimate comfort is either the pastoral-Arcadian idyllic Shire – or some unknown, dreamy, visionary, almost other-worldly realm like the Grey Havens, where folk disgruntled with the world, can escape to.
He prefers the unobtrusive Hobbit-hole – blending perfectly with the landscape – to the gigantic, obtrusive phallic constructions of Men.
I repeat: There is an inner psychological consistency in all this.
Tolkien keeps harping on Aragorn’s sword Anduril throughout the saga, and yet, what does the Anduril really accomplish?
It doesn’t kill a single important character that I can remember.
It merely cleaves the head of a random Orc which attacks Frodo in Moria – a lame & pointless event, to be honest – and an insipid achievement, for a sword which is tomtomed so grandiloquently.
The Sword merely has symbolic significance.
Sting, in the hands of Sam, sees more interesting action than Anduril in the hands of Aragorn.
The Narsil cutting off Sauron’s finger – with its twisted male-castrating-male subtext – is also only a distant memory – something in a faraway past – which the author would not dwell upon in any detail, like an unpleasant memory best forgotten.
Grima stabbing Saruman is a profoundly negative act – and Tolkien describes it with bitterness & horror – rather than with grim approval.
Merry does stab the leg of the Nazgul leader: but that Ringwraithe is hardly a Man, so to speak, and as an act of aggression, this is completely uncharacteristic of Merry.
What emerges is that while Tolkien does seem to admire the typical virile, warrior, combative Masculine – his heart is really NOT in it.
Not in the Lord of the Rings, at least.
He does uphold the Masculine – but at the deepest level – NOT the aggressive, confrontational, fiery, killing, conquering Masculine, even in its most positive sense (Zeus-Apollo-Hercules-Marduk-Indra-Rāma-Arjuna-St. George-St. Michael).
The closest we come to this is the scene in which Gandalf enters the Hall at Meduseld, in approaching Theoden.
{“He raised his staff.
There was a roll of thunder.
The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night.
The fire faded to sullen embers.
Only Gandalf could be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth.
In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue’s voice: ‘Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff? That fool, Hama, has betrayed us!’
There was a flash as if lightning had cloven the roof.
Then all was silent.
Wormtongue sprawled on his face.
‘Now Theoden son of Thengel, will you hearken to me?’ said Gandalf. ‘Do you ask for help?’
He lifted his staff and pointed to a high window.
There the darkness seemed to clear, and through the opening could be seen, high and far, a patch of shining sky.”}
This is decidedly not an act of war or slaughter.
It’s not even very clear precisely what happened.
But it’s one of the most positive depictions of masculine emblems in the saga.
There’s actual reference to thunder & lightning!
(Note that “Worm-tongue” – or “snake”-tongue – has a strange subtext of phallus-tongue – the tongue as a phallus, just as “Worm-tail” (in HP) has a subtext of phallus-tail.)
Boromir, the arch-alpha-male warrior, is the weakest character in the story – and dies, though the combat in which he’s slain is never described.
His great “horn” is cloven in two.
(Mind you, the films are TOTALLY different – at the deepest psychological level.)
After that, what happens?
Aragorn with his “Anduril” – Legolas with his bow & arrows – and Gimli with his axe – simply run for days, and get to do nothing, to save Pippin & Merry.
The Uruk-Hai and the Orcs are slain by nondescript Men of Rohan.
Even Eomer has no special role to play in the foray.
Merry & Pippin escape through a combination of circumstances, rather than any singular heroic feat.
The Three Sprinters don’t have any role to play against Saruman either.
He is taken care of, by the wifeless-womenless Ents.
All the phallic ammunition is of secondary significance.
Much earlier, the Nine Black Riders are swept away by a Flood – set upon them by some sort of magical incantation – not by any martial act.
I do sense a deep-rooted castration anxiety going on, in The Lord of the Rings.
This reaches its pitch when Gollum – the true villain of the series – bites off the finger of Frodo.
While I don’t recollect whether Tolkien mentioned which finger – there’s a painting of the middle-finger being bitten off.
This is psychologically correct.
Peter Jackson, who almost inverts the spirit of the novels, changes this very tactfully in the film.
Gollum bites off the finger of Frodo & gets the Ring off him, as Isildur cut off the finger of Sauron (with a broken sword?) & gets the Ring off him.
Was this particular act absolutely necessary?
Gollum could’ve simply pulled off the ring.
But no, Tolkien has to make him bite off the finger that is inserted in it – using a sort of coded “vagina dentata” symbolism.
(I don’t think Tolkien refers to Frodo’s lost finger, again – unlike the wound given by the sword of the “Pale King” on Weathertop, and by the sting of Shelob.)
Both the masculine finger and the feminine ring – that had united to undo all the sacrifices of all these men-without-women – have to be discarded, so that the natural order of things is restored.
(A disturbing number of swords, which are definitely associated with acts of assault, are destroyed:
« the sword with which Merry stabs the Angmar King –
« the sword with which Eowyn stabs the same entity –
« the sword with which the same king attacked Frodo
– are all destroyed.
Do note this curious passage, when Theoden enters the fray outside the walls of Gondor:
“Fewer were they but they clove through the Southrons like a fire-bolt in a forest. Right through the press drove Theoden Thengel’s son, and his spear was shivered as he threw down their chieftain.
Out swept his sword, and he spurred to the standard, hewed staff and bearer; and the black serpent foundered. Then all that was left unslain of their cavalry turned and fled far away.”
He falls immediately after this.
He is fatally wounded & incapacitated immediately after his sword “fells” the black serpent.
Cf. Eowyn’s sword:
“Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown & mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards.”
Cf. Merry’s sword:
“He brushed away the tears, and stooped to pick up the green shield that Eowyn had given him, and he slung it at his back. Then he looked for his sword that he had let fall; for even as he struck his blow his arm was numbed, and now he could only use his left hand.
And behold! there lay his weapon, but the blade was smoking like a dry branch that has been thrust in a fire; and as he watched it, it writhed and withered and was consumed.”
Cf. the negative version – the sword with which Frodo is attacked, on Weathertop:
“He stooped again and lifted up a long thin knife. There was a cold gleam in it.
As Strider raised it they saw that near the end its edge was notched and the point was broken off.
But even as he held it up in the growing light, they gazed in astonishment, for the blade seemed to melt, and vanished like a smoke in the air, leaving only the hilt in Strider’s hand.”
...
In the scene in which Gandalf confronts the Balrog in Moria, we have 2 such instances:
“From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.
Glamdring glittered white in answer.
There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire.
The Balrog fell back, and its sword flew up in molten fragments.
The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still.
‘You cannot pass!’ he said.
With a bound the Balrog leaped full upon the bridge.
Its whip whirled and hissed.
At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him.
The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand.
A blinding sheet of white flame sprang up.
The bridge cracked.
Right at the Balrog’s feet it broke, and the stone upon which it stood crashed into the gulf, while the rest remained, poised, quivering like a tongue of rock thrust out into emptiness.”
...
The phallic emblems or weapons, even when successful – especially when successful – get destroyed immediately.
The Castration Anxiety is dealt with, by having both masculine emblems destroyed.
Strangely, the Glamdring survives, though quite pointlessly: it sees no more action again.)
It maybe said that the novel ends with Aragorn marrying Arwen, Faramir marrying Eowyn, & Sam marrying Rosie.
That it ends with the harmonization of the Masculine & Feminine.
That seems to be the whole point of Frodo saying that Sam cannot always be divided, but one & whole.
And yet, the subconscious of the author asserted itself, and Mr. Tolkien inserted an abnormally long series of Appendices in which he separates all the men & women whom he’d united – and finally, Sam reunites with Frodo, without Rosie Cotton!
I will risk saying that a strong homosexual undercurrent underlies Tolkien’s deepest discomfort in making men fight & kill men.
To see them slaughtering each other is painful to him, to say the least.
It is not Christian pacifism, and it is not mere gentleness of spirit.
There’s a deeper psychological consistency in all this: there’s a strong feminine element, to the masculinity he really loves.
In the ultimate analysis, this is not a story about the “Big Folk” – Gandalf, Aragorn, Saruman, Denethor, Theoden, Elrond etc. or even the Elves & Orcs – but about the child-like Hobbits, little people of the soil, with little history & no future, with no particular sense of destiny or mission, inconspicuous & self-effacing, who live in their Hobbit holes with circular doors, and rarely build edifices more than a storey tall.
The Nighttime star-flecked sky – the Flowering Garden (not the farm, mind you) – the Lush Tree – the deep, dark, cool Forest – the foam-spangled Ocean – these are the deepest & most compelling of Tolkien’s fascinations.
His love for the mellow light of stars ... his fondness for sunsets compared to other times of the day ... his love for water ... all this makes him very Earthy, and not exactly Sky-&-Sun-orientated.
Rain, storm, and thunder – all forcefully masculine (Zeus-Indra) – are of no interest to him.
And yet, the idea of the powerful masculine – especially in an epic-saga like LOTR – is something irresistible to him, a power which lies in the very fact of masculinity itself (perhaps the purely protective aspect).
Thus, we get a peculiar & somewhat distorted image of the masculine.
The harsh, hard, dominating masculine idea is actually undercut, very subtly, by something much softer & gentler.
This is not, ultimately, a flight of the Male from the “Dionysian” Chthonian Female to the Radiant, “Apollonian” Solar Male – not a flight from Feminine Intuition & Emotion to Pure Male Rationality & Orderliness (“The Return of the King” notwithstanding).
This seems to be a flight from reality to the DIONYSIAN, CHTHONIC MALE, though even that is not strictly speaking comprehensive or totally accurate.
At any rate, the “Apollonian” Male with his instruments of power & dominion, is secondary.
As to an accurate formulation of what precisely is the ideal nestled deep within Tolkien’s heart, we shall come to that sometime later.
