Lord of the Rings is Arthur legend!

[v***@webtv.net]

Don't know why it just dawned on me, but LOTR is simply King Arthur
legend redone. So obvious to me me now.

King Arthur; Aragorn

Merlin; Gandalf

Lancelot; Legolis

Gawain; Gimli

Galahad; Frodo

Percevel; Sam

Sir Tristin; Merry

Sir Bors; Pippin

Sir Kay; Boramir

Guinevere; Arwen

Lady of the Lake; Galadriel

Sauron; Mordred or masculane version of Morgan Le Fey

Saruman; Mordred

even down to the swords; Excaliber; Anduril and/or Sting

Other characters have semi-parralells, such as Theodin (a more vigorous
version of the Fisher King, or are re-done main characters, Eomyr (also
a Lancelot figure), Faramir (another Gawain), Eowyn (another Guinevere,
or the more sympathetic version of Morgaine).

And of course the ring stands in for the Grail.

Just my observation. I'm sure others can add to this as well.

[Cherith Baldry]

Post by v***@webtv.net
Don't know why it just dawned on me, but LOTR is simply King Arthur
legend redone. So obvious to me me now.

Eh?

Certainly there are Arthurian _influences_, but I don't see where you get all
the parallels with the characters. They're not the same at all.

As for the One Ring/Grail, yes, each is an immensely powerful artefact. But
Arthur's knights were seeking for the Grail, while Frodo et al were trying to
get rid of the Ring.

Best regards,
Cherith

[Louis Cage]

The One Ring falls into the same pattern as the Holy Grail, the Golden
Fleece, etc. Many stories revolve around the Quest of the Magic Doodad.
Of course Tolkien could not have been unaware of the Arthur mythos, but
he seems to have put as much distance as possible between LOTR and the
Arthur stories and still stay within standard heroic mythological bounds.
--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

Post by Cherith Baldry

Post by v***@webtv.net
Don't know why it just dawned on me, but LOTR is simply King Arthur
legend redone. So obvious to me me now.

Eh?
Certainly there are Arthurian _influences_, but I don't see where you get all
the parallels with the characters. They're not the same at all.
As for the One Ring/Grail, yes, each is an immensely powerful artefact. But
Arthur's knights were seeking for the Grail, while Frodo et al were trying to
get rid of the Ring.
Best regards,
Cherith

[John Adcox]

We'll we're also missing the incest, child deaths, wicked sisters, love
triangle...

But as a myth of a returning king bringing healing to a wounded land, I'd agree
that LOTR stands neat the matter of Britian in terms of power.

John

___
John Adcox

Click below for Mythology, Philosophy, Literature, Writing References and more.
http://jadcox.home.mindspring.com

[Josh Dull]

Post by v***@webtv.net
Don't know why it just dawned on me, but LOTR is simply King Arthur
legend redone. So obvious to me me now.

Their are some similarities between Arthurian legends and LOTR (such as
Gandalf=Merlin,
Aragorn=Arthur, and Minas Tirith=Camelot). But that's about all the
similarities their are.
The bulk of "Lord of the Rings" is derived from the Niblelunglied and the
Volsunga Saga,
with smaller bits taken from other Western European legends (such as
Boromir's horn).

Josh

[Josh Dull]

And let's not forget that his inability to do a "Lord
of the Rings" movie led to John Boorman making
"Excalibur" instead.

Josh

[Luminaria]

Post by Josh Dull
And let's not forget that his inability to do a "Lord
of the Rings" movie led to John Boorman making
"Excalibur" instead.
Josh

Ah well.... at least Uther wasn't wearing a big gaudy awful Ring.... bad
enough he never bothered to take his armor off....

Lis

[Duggy]

Post by v***@webtv.net
Don't know why it just dawned on me, but LOTR is simply King Arthur
legend redone. So obvious to me me now.
Just my observation. I'm sure others can add to this as well.

"Lord of the Rings" was mythology redone.

Just as Joseph Campbell distilled the essence of mythology into the
Hero's Quest, Tolkien distilled it into his Middle Earth stories.

LotR is simply a lot of legends redone... which is exactly the point.

However, redoing a legend doesn't make a great book... being a great
writer makes a great book.

===
= DUG.
===

[Mabon Dane]

A study of Tolkien's background will reveal he had a great interest in
language and mythology. He then took his knowledge and put that in his
books.

We can thank Tolkien for Dungeons and Dragons and the whole fantasy scene.

Mabon

Post by Duggy

Post by v***@webtv.net
Don't know why it just dawned on me, but LOTR is simply King Arthur
legend redone. So obvious to me me now.
Just my observation. I'm sure others can add to this as well.

"Lord of the Rings" was mythology redone.
Just as Joseph Campbell distilled the essence of mythology into the
Hero's Quest, Tolkien distilled it into his Middle Earth stories.
LotR is simply a lot of legends redone... which is exactly the point.
However, redoing a legend doesn't make a great book... being a great
writer makes a great book.
===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Post by Mabon Dane
A study of Tolkien's background will reveal he had a great interest in
language and mythology.

A study of his academic qualifications will reveal that.

A study of Joseph Campbell's qualifications will reveal the same thing.

Post by Mabon Dane
He then took his knowledge and put that in his
books.

Yes, that's what I said.

Post by Mabon Dane
We can thank Tolkien for Dungeons and Dragons and the whole fantasy scene.

Gary Gygax claims that Howard was a bigger influence than Tolkien on D&D.


===
= DUG.
===

[Orjan Westin]

Post by Duggy

Post by Mabon Dane
We can thank Tolkien for Dungeons and Dragons and the whole fantasy scene.

Gary Gygax claims that Howard was a bigger influence than Tolkien on D&D.

The contents, style and adventures of D&D certainly fits better into the
Sword&sorcery genre of Howard and Leiber (and why not Burroughs) than the
epic scope of Tolkien.

I'm not saying one is better or worse, but they're different.

On a related note, the Pendragon RPG by (bugger, it changed!) Arthaus
(formerly by Green Knight Publishing) focuses on the grand story-arc,
starting before the birth of Arthur and ending after Camlann, and is quite
firmly rooted in Malory. Less cobold-bashing, more romance and honour, as
it were.

Orjan

[Penner Theologius Pott]

Post by v***@webtv.net
Don't know why it just dawned on me, but LOTR is simply King Arthur
legend redone. So obvious to me me now.
Just my observation. I'm sure others can add to this as well.

Erm, what? Yeah, to a degree -- I definitely see the parallel between
the relationship of Arthur and Merlin to that of Aragorn and Gandalf,
and the whole broken sword being reforged business (although that
appears prominently in a lot of Scandinavian literature as well) --
but I'm gonna take a lot of convincing for most of the rest of it. The
Ring as the Grail? If anything, the whole Ring thing was a
*subversion* of the more traditional quest motifs.