Warning…this is a very long post:
“Aragorn brought his sword down on the youngling in a blood lusted rage. The cries of mercy fell silent upon the backdrop of his own madness. All around him the shire burned. All around him the lifeless bodies of the innocent lay strewn. In his mind he told himself this was liberation. In the truth of words yet to be written, this was a massacre.”
Does anyone remember this passage from The Lord of The Rings: Return of the King? Specifically the chapter ‘The Scouring of the Shire’?
No, I didn’t think so.
It seems a lot of people are thinking that Dany’s descent into madness and destruction of King’s Landing is somehow GRRM’s response to Tolkien’s Scouring of the Shire.
All we have really from GRRM are two interviews that are being given as much attention as anything he has ever written. With that comes a lot of conjecture and opinion based upon words that are written in articles by journalists who offer conjecture and opinion.
Let’s look at an example of what GRRM has said previously in an interview about ‘The Scouring of the Shire’:
“Frodo is never whole again, and he goes away to the Undying Lands, and the other people live their lives. And the scouring of the Shire —brilliant piece of work, which I didn’t understand when I was 13 years old: ’Why is this here? The story’s over?’ But every time I read it I understand the brilliance of that segment more and more. All I can say is that’s the kind of tone I will be aiming for. Whether I achieve it or not, that will be up topeople like you and my readers to judge.”
And next let’s look at an example of what he said in a recent interview about Game of Thrones (show) ending:
"Well, to a degree. I mean, I think … the major points of the ending will be things that I told them, you know, five or six years ago," Martin said. "But there may also be changes, and there’ll be a lot added."
Aside from the fact that these interviews can be (and have been) interpreted in a number of ways, it is clear to see that Tolkien’s ending is an inspiration for George and that he told D&D the basic story beats of his envisioned ending. If we take from this that GRRM wants to deliver his own interpretation of the scouring, we have to understand what the scouring actually is.
We all know that Tolkien hated allegory. This is often a point brought up by people when debating his stories. We know he served in the Great War, and we can assume that his literal experiences of war became figurati
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Was just wondering, where the Hobbits got all of their metals from, for eating utensils and the like, whether they traded it for food with neighbouring realms, or mined it themselves underground.
Scouring chapter seems to hold more popularity among the really diehard fans of Tolkien who think he could do no wrong than the casual readers. I liked what Tolkien was trying to convey: the danger is not ended even after the big evil is defeated, even home is not safe. But I dont feel it was executed well. something about it irks me. Perhaps it's Saruman's cartoonish portrayal or it's the Hobbits cracking jokes like Marvel superheroes, throwing bathos here and there or that it comes up too late in the story for me to give a damn.
I was hoping to get an answer from dispassionate readers not the aforementioned diehard fans. Is Scouring of the Shire good/great writing? Can you elaborate why or why not?
I’m trying to understand Gandalf’s reasoning in not continuing on with the hobbits to The Scouring Of The Shire. Butterbur warns them of trouble in Homeward Bound:
>“‘I should have warned you before that all’s not well in the Shire neither, if what we hear is true. Funny goings on, they say.”
And Gandalf is clearly aware that it could be worse than even Butterbur lets on with Saruman being involved:
>“‘Deep in, but not at the bottom,’ said Gandalf. ‘You have forgotten Saruman. He began to take an interest in the Shire before Mordor did.’”
Merry is pleased to have Gandalf with them to help deal with the trouble, and Gandalf is all “nahhhhh I’m all set with fixing Middle-earth”:
> “‘Well, we’ve got you with us,’ said Merry, ‘so things will soon be cleared up.’ ‘I am with you at present,’ said Gandalf, ‘but soon I shall not be. I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.”
You’ll manage all right!:
> “‘There weren’t any gates, you mean,’ said Gandalf. ‘I think you will find some now. And you might have more trouble even at the Buckland Gate than you think. But you’ll manage all right. Good-bye, dear friends! Not for the last time, not yet. Good-bye!’”
Sure they’re all “grown up” as Gandalf states, and the situation was handled quite swimmingly, but 19 hobbits were killed in the process:
> “At last all was over. Nearly seventy of the ruffians lay dead on the field, and a dozen were prisoners. Nineteen hobbits were killed, and some thirty were wounded.”
Was it just a literary choice to show character development in the hobbits? Was it really because Gandalf’s time in Middle-earth was coming to an end? If you don’t look at it too closely, one might think the hobbits got used up and spit out, with The Shire suffering unaided. Couldn’t he have continued on with them to close out their quest? Maybe those 19 hobbits would be alive to enjoy peace on Middle-earth.
They died in Gondor and across the sea. They would ideally have wanted to be burried with their ancestors in the Shire.
In addition Gimli never returned to stone under the mountain, and Boromir's people did not have a body to entomb.
The immortals Legolas and Gandalf never expected to be burried anywhere, so no loss there.
Even Aragon did not get the funeral he had grown up expecting, having always fled from kingship.
I have seen lots of theorys here about what the scouring in ASOIAF will be and most of them are built on a premise that i belive is wrong. The scouring of the shire is not coming back and fighting saruman as an extra mini boss. The scouring is about how war changes you and the world around you and the toll that it can have on you. So if GRRM is looking to make a scouring it wont be killing someone else like bran or whatever. It Will be most likely about the council realizing how war changed them and the lands and what they need to do to stop this cycle of wars and that Will culminate in bran being elected
Who would approach her? Where in Middle Earth would they send her?
Who would she meet along the way?
After the threats of Ice and Fire are dealt with, we'll undoubtedly get a much longer aftermath in the books than in the last episode of Game of Thrones, and I suspect we'll get a "Scouring of the Shire" segment with Littlefinger as the villain.
I believe Cersei is not long for this world and Aegon VI will be King by the time Dany invades, and Euron is fully tied to the "Ice" plot, potentially playing the role taken by the Night King in the TV series. Littlefinger however, as a completely human agent who has been causing mayhem since the very beginning and isn't tied to either of the Ice of Fire threads, will linger on to act as the bookend.
The TV writers gave Littlefinger an underwhelming end Barristan style to be rid of a character and an actor who needs paying, and it didn't land because it came early and in the midst of much bigger storylines. His death in the books will probably occur in a similar manner but carry more weight because the supernatural threats are already dealt with and it's symbolic of resolving events that were set in motion at the very beginning, providing a sense of symmetry.
While yes, the White Walkers are the Sauron of the story, IMO a good way to contextualize what is coming in the next couple episodes is going to be to compare them to the scene in the Lord of the Rings where Frodo reaches the Crack of Doom.
In this scene, Frodo(in this case Daenerys) makes it to the endpoint of his journey, but cannot bring himself to let go of the Ring of Power(Iron Throne). Instead, Frodo succumbs to the lure of absolute power and loses sight of himself and his values. It's then that Frodo is ambushed by Gollumn (Cersei), who has long since lost his soul to the Ring (been corrupted by the Game of Thrones). The two have an ugly, senseless struggle (costly battle), while Sam(Tyrion? Jon?) watches in horror, up until Gollumn and the Ring fall into the fires of Mount Doom.
The difference here is that the Iron Throne will not be destroyed, and a lot more people will fall into the fire. Ultimately, the important thing not to lose sight of with this ending is that just because the hero loses sight of themselves at the Crack of Doom, it doesn't invalidate all of the good they've done and all that they've endured. In the words of Tolkein:
>"Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far." ~ Tolkein
In the same way, whatever we may believe of Daenerys' ambition, or the methods she employs in taking the city, that does not wash away the good she did in Slavers Bay, or her decision to protect the realms of men from certain doom.
From this interview.
Sauron is defeated, but Sharkey remains.
I have an idea that Bran becoming king could end up as the bittersweet ending we keep talking about. What if the last twist ends up being that Bran does become king, but that there is a lingering doubt about how he will rule and use his powers.
