In hisheroic romanceThe Lord of the Rings,J. R. R. Tolkien uses the literary device of pairings between characters to express some of theirmoral complexity. Commentators have noted that the format of afantasy does not lend itself to subtlety of characterisation, but that pairing allows inner tensions to be expressed as linked opposites, including, in apsychoanalytic interpretation, those ofJungian archetypes.
Major pairings include those between thehobbitsFrodo,Sam, andGollum, the three of them linked by the Ring, by friendship, and by bonds of loyalty and of oath. This enables Tolkien to portray the good and evil sides of Frodo's character. Theunheroic Frodo is further contrasted with the plainly heroicAragorn. Among the kingly figures, the unhappySteward of Gondor,Denethor, is paired both with the future king Aragorn and with the bold king ofRohan,Théoden. Pairings operate, too, among supporting characters, such as that between the elf-queenGaladriel and the giant spiderShelob, light opposing darkness.
The author ofThe Lord of the Rings,J. R. R. Tolkien, was a devoutRoman Catholic, and intensely interested in expressingthemes such asmoral choice and the nature ofevil in the world through his fantasy writing in the realm ofMiddle-earth.[T 1]
ThemedievalistMarjorie Burns analyses in detail Tolkien's use of pairing to build a sense of the depth and complexity of his major characters. She grants that Tolkien did like to have separate good and bad characters suitable for a fantasy, but as a serious author interested in moral choice, he wanted at the same time to make his characters realistically complex and many-faceted.[1] She states that this problem is not easy to resolve, but that Tolkien makes use of multiple methods; far from being unambiguously good or evil, his good characters have moments of "doubt, temptation, or irritability",[1] while his bad, or in Catholic terms "fallen" characters have equivalent moments of uncertainty, "reconsider[ing] the choices they have made",[1] as when, she writes,Gollum looks at the sleepingFrodo andSam on the stairs ofCirith Ungol and almost loves them.[1]
Several scholars have noted that Tolkien makes use of character pairings.Brian Attebery, writing inThe Cambridge Companion to Fantasy Literature, comments in its article on the literary theory ofstructuralism that while, like other fantasy authors, Tolkien's work "keeps its good and evil pretty much corralled separately", it can be seen "through aLévi-Straussian lens, as offering multiple and contradictory versions of the same basic oppositions".[2] Attebery sees pairings between the "sneaky" Gollum and the "loyal" Sam, and between both of them and Frodo; "unheroic" Frodo with the warrior Boromir; Boromir contrasted with his brother, the loyal and thoughtful Faramir, and with the "kingly"Aragorn.[2] It states that "once alerted to this mode of doubling", the observant reader "can see unlikelier but suggestive" character pairings, such asGaladriel andShelob, orGandalf withWormtongue.[2] In this, Attebery suggests, Tolkien's fantasy resembles that ofUrsula Le Guin, whoseEarthsea tales begin in light-versus-darkness fantasy mode, but branch out into something much more complex, "a startlingly new structure of meaning".[2] Anna Caughey, inA Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien, writes that Tolkien adds psychological depth by doubling several of his characters, noting the pairings of Faramir after Boromir; Sam after Aragorn; Frodo and his dark side, Gollum; and thetwo heroes, Aragorn and Frodo.[3]
The Tolkien scholarJane Chance contrastsThéoden, king ofRohan, with another "Germanic king",Denethor, the lastRuling Steward ofGondor. In Chance's view, Théoden represents good, Denethor evil; she notes that their names are almostanagrams, and that where Théoden welcomes the hobbitMerry Brandybuck into his service with loving friendship, Denethor acceptsPippin Took with a harsh contract offealty.[4] The medievalistElizabeth Solopova contraststhe hero and future kingAragorn with the old Steward of Gondor, Denethor, who is incapable of suchNorthern courage.[5] Shippey observes that Denethor's other opposite, Théoden, lives by Northern courage, and dies through Denethor's despair.[6] Burns identifies and analyses numerous character pairings, noting that there are often further echoes: Gandalf's opposite may mainly be Saruman, but he is also paired with the Dark LordSauron, and for a moment also with theBalrog.[1]
| Good character | Bad character |
|---|---|
| Gandalf Wizard, remaining loyal | Saruman Wizard, corrupted by pride |
| Théoden King ofRohan, reawakened to his power | Denethor FailedSteward ofGondor who wants to be king |
| Frodo Hobbit, ringbearer | Gollum Hobbit turned monster, corrupted bythe Ring |
| Galadriel Elf-queen, associated with light | Shelob Giant spider, associated with darkness |
The Tolkien scholar Christina Fawcett notes the different dichotomy withShelob and the other giant evil spiders, especially Shelob's earliest ancestorUngoliant. Rather than being directly paired with any individual, they are "consistently associated with darkness and entrapment, opposing themselves to liberty and light".[7] Ungoliant, one-time ally of the first Dark Lord,Melkor, consumes theTwo Trees of Valinor, which gave the world light, and emits "a cloak of darkness she wove about them when Melkor and Ungoliant set forth: an Unlight in which things seemed to be no more, and which eyes could not pierce, for it was void".[T 2] Similarly, Shelob "weav[es] webs of shadow; for all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness".[T 3] Burns writes that Galadriel brings light, able to oppose Shelob's darkness effectively.[1]Verlyn Flieger notes that thePhial of Galadriel holds the light of the Star ofElbereth, which in turn, by a complicated route of one fragmentation after another, is a surviving splinter of the light from the Two Trees of Valinor, the original light of creation.[8]
William Bettridge, writing inMythlore in 1990, noted thatcritics up to that time had found Tolkien's characters "variously silly, shallow, unreal, or confusing".[9] In his view "a romantic quest myth",[9] unlike a realistic work of fiction, requires the protagonist to be apart from other characters, leading the author to createarchetypes rather than subtle characterisation. However, he writes, characters in myths do not have to be simple-minded, and pairing allows the story to use, say,Adam and Eve in theGenesis myth "as different aspects of mankind, instead of viewing them as discrete characters".[9] He notes pairings such as Aragorn (true king of Gondor) versus Denethor and Gandalf versus Saruman, but considers the "zenith"[9] of Tolkien's character pairing to be in his counterbalancing of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. He notes that all of them are "of hobbit-kind".[9] The protagonist Frodo, on his own, is depicted rather simply, even "monolithic[ally]", as anguished and weighed down more or less physically by the Ring. But his character, Bettridge argues, is fleshed out by Sam and Gollum. Sam represents the good, simple, loyal, and brave part of Frodo. Gollum represents the evil part of Frodo's character, desiring the Ring for himself. Sam is intolerant of Gollum's evil, reflecting Frodo's early, unthinking attitude to the creature. The three of them are bound together by their hobbit nature, by their quest, by bonds of loyalty and oath, and by the Ring itself. Together, they paint a picture of Frodo's complex personality.[9]
The medievalistAlaric Hall notes the pairing of Frodo and Gollum, pointing out Gandalf's remark to Frodo that Bilbo escaped almost unscathed because of the pity and mercy which led him to spare Gollum's life: it was important to avoid the enemy's methods. Hall writes that Faramir and Gandalf are good where Boromir and Saruman are bad precisely because they remain innocent; this is what can overcome evil. For otherwise, as the Germanic myths emphasize, "heroes cannot defeat their enemies without taking something from them to themselves."[10] The Ring, in particular, makes its wearer fade, and takes over their mind for evil, even if they are as powerful as Gandalf; Gandalf indeed refuses Frodo's offer of the ring, saying "For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself".[T 4] Eventually Frodo, his name meaning "wise by experience", although surprisingly resilient, becomes unable to resist; but Sam, less wise, less led by his thoughts - his name, Samwise, means "half-wise"[T 5] - remains strong to the end.[10]
Patrick Grant, a scholar ofRenaissance literature, took a different view of the character pairings in the work. He interpreted the interactions of the characters as fitting the oppositions and other pairwise relationships ofJungian archetypes, recurring psychological symbols proposed byCarl Jung. He stated that thehero appears inThe Lord of the Rings both in noble and powerful form as Aragorn, and in childlike form asFrodo, whose quest can be interpreted as a personal journey ofindividuation. They are opposed by theRingwraiths. Frodo'sanima is the Elf-queen Galadriel, who is opposed by the evil giant female spider Shelob. The Old Wise Man archetype is filled by the wizard Gandalf, who is opposed by the corrupted wizard Saruman. Frodo's Shadow is, appropriately in Grant's view, also a male Hobbit, like Frodo. Aragorn has an Ideal Partner inArwen, but also a Negative Animus inEowyn, at least until she meetsFaramir and chooses a happy union with him instead. All of these together create an image of the self.[11]
