Of course it
was this: never being content with doing “just the obvious thing”, being
prepared to take rather big risks, stepping exactly on the brink and then
stopping at exactly the right moment, which made me watch all the time, and
search for meaning, and worry, of course … But I was rewarded for this! My
final reward for “following through” was the way my favourite moment of all the
three films played out. As this has always been my absolute favourite moment of
the book as well: the moment when Thorin learns that Bilbo has given the
Arkenstone to Bard. And this moment turned out exactly the way I had imagined
it. I had always felt that, just then, the scales are rather tipped in favour
of Thorin because he experiences being hurt in the worst way anybody can be
hurt. That is, by somebody you like and who you thought liked you as well. And
it is absolutely clear that they wanted to show this by the way this scene is
written, and, of course, by the acting. Thorin’s face is completely “naked” and
vulnerable, he is on the brink of tears and clearly unable to understand or
believe what is happening. What happens then I had imagined differently. I
always had imagined a proper “dwarvish” fit of rage. But if I had been a
director and had told an actor to do this he would probably have set me right
and told me that this wasn’t possible. You cannot just go from one state of
feeling “directly” to its opposite. As being hurt to a degree you want to cry
is a state of weakness, whereas throwing a fit of rage is a rather strong expression
of energy and activity, though it might just be an expression of helplessness
as well. You might even find a way of doing this but it wouldn’t feel “right”.
And it wouldn’t have helped the story they wanted to tell which is exactly the
same story I had imagined. For me, the desire for revenge, at that moment,
doesn’t come from rage about the Arkenstone being taken from him but from the
pain of being betrayed by a friend. It is exactly the reaction everybody would
show in a moment like this, just a bit more extreme: “I want you out of my
sight! And I NEVER want to see you again!”
(Having seen this scene in the extended version, and with better
assessment of the complete context, I rather think that I was wrong about how I
understood it the first time. And this is an important issue, rather
unpleasant, about watching something you care very much about. In fact, this
scene is probably the part that has suffered most by the “dragon sickness”
idea, which, at least where Thorin is concerned, is completely unnecessary
because, in my opinion, he has more than enough motivation for what he does, and
the ground for this is even laid very well in the film. This is the one reason
that makes it possible to “read” this scene the way it “plays out” in the book.
And carry on with my reading in the same way (as below …). But what was most
decisive for this was that I could still see Thorin “through” the “dragon hide”.
And I think that was finally, for me, why I am so grateful for this “feat” of
acting as I have never been before. As I knew this character, and exactly THIS
story, would matter so much to me. And this is exactly the point, for me, where
the “battle” was won. Maybe I understand now what Richard Armitage meant when
he described himself as “quite uncompromising”. Which was in conjunction with
“The Crucible”, and, somehow, I don’t think he would have done that already when
he was part of “The Hobbit”. On the whole, it is hard to imagine what that
means exactly, being an actor! But I had never stopped wondering about the part
of the interview (from “Hero Complex”) where he describes his
working-relationship with Peter Jackson. I was fascinated by it in the first
place because all that actors usually say about this is some equivalent of that
it was “great”. And this is what he DOESN’T say. The most important thing, for
him, appeared to be that he could get his director to trust HIM! And I think
this may be the part about “uncompromising” that I can understand – with a
lifetime’s experience of being uncompromising myself. That you have to know
which part EXACTLY is non-negotiable, and that you hold on to this part at all
costs. Then, and only then, can you make all the necessary compromises on the
other parts. And somehow I think this is what saved Thorin. That we somehow
never completely lose the substantial part of him which the actor took so much
care to establish. Because he would NEVER allow this part of his work to be
damaged. In a way, he kind of “froze” Thorin, making him unable to react in the
“natural” way he would have reacted to anything that happens. But we can see
him still very well through the surface of the “dragon armour” and the madness,
and, in this way, his “coming back” always appears possible and can be achieved
by someone who is able to pierce the armour. Which finally happens in the scene
with Dwalin which, in my estimation, is probably the most sophisticated scene
of all the three films.)
This was
exactly the way I wanted it, but it is definitely not what Tolkien has written.
And they might have deviated from the book a hundred times for reasons of plot,
but this was really significant. Because Tolkien wanted the rage, and he wanted
the biggest part of the blame laid on Thorin and his greed for gold. He was
only interested in Bilbo’s part of the story, not least because he didn’t care
for the dwarves one bit. He still didn’t know who they were then, nor cared. He
had devised a scanty backstory for them until then, but nothing like the
heartbreaking tale he told later about Thrór’s death and the Battle of
Azanulbizar in the appendix of “The Lord of the Rings”. Making the films it
would have been impossible to ignore that, and they took the great opportunity,
in my opinion, to REWRITE Tolkien’s story the way he would have rewritten it
himself – after he had come to know the dwarves and “discovered” what a great
people they are. To rewrite the story and make it finally into that tale of
hope he was looking for and which he couldn’t quite see yet when he wrote “The
Hobbit”. Because I think this was the reason Tolkien invented this world for –
apart from the languages, the heroes and battles and strange creatures of
course: as a playground for finding out about the most important thing. After
everything that had happened, and by which his bright world of elves and
childhood tales, and youths setting out “into the world” to find … what?, had
been tainted by a darkness so deep you cannot see any light, he wanted to find
out if there was any hope left. And wherein it might lie.
For Tolkien,
the tale of hope he was looking for lay entirely on Bilbo’s side. His story of
loyalty, friendship and the steadfast belief that the people he has given his
friendship to are his friends as well. And I cannot say that often enough: it
is told incomparably beautifully in the films. But in the book it doesn’t
“work” as well as the same kind of tale later will work in “The Lord of the
Rings”. Tolkien makes a point of the fact that Bilbo is distressed by Thorin’s
death and is crying abundantly for him. But at the same time he appears to feel
the need to dissociate himself from Bilbo’s grief: “He was a kindly little soul”. And this is
certainly what you shouldn’t do in a film! But there is of course the inverse
danger of the story becoming sentimental and pathetic, sliding downwards
towards insignificance the other side of the hill. Sometimes, especially in
“The Return of the King”, they were very close to doing this, maybe even
overstepped the mark. But in “The Hobbit” they didn’t do that once, where the
main story is concerned, mostly owing to the superior acting of Richard
Armitage. He “made Thorin die” as I have never seen anybody die on screen. And
this is especially special praise because most actors do that very well. Of
course Bilbo’s spontaneous and desperate crying matches the “dying-act”
perfectly, leaving the audience in no doubt as to what they are supposed to
feel at that moment .
I think, in
the film we understand completely why Bilbo is crying, whereas in the book it
actually might have been because he is somebody who cries easily. Or it might
even be a totally normal reaction to cry when you have just survived a battle
and some of the people you were close to are dead??? But Tolkien wanted him to
grieve for THORIN, and this is much less understandable. Because Thorin is the
one who has just tried to kill him and who hasn’t treated him very well in the
past, by the way. Well, he apologized, in the end … But Tolkien WANTED Bilbo to
grieve, and there is a story somewhere in there just waiting to come out.
I was a bit
pissed off at first that they had managed to squeeze a love story into a tale
where, for once!, there was no slot for a love story anywhere to be seen. (Even
in the “Lord of the Rings” we have got Aragorn and Arwen, and Eowyn of course.)
But I began to perceive this differently when I became aware of the theme of
HOPE as a recurring theme in the films. And it appears in different guises in
more than one story-line. I first spotted it in the Kíli-Tauriel story when
they are talking about the starlight and the “fire-moon”, two different worlds
touching each other through a theme they both understand. A beautiful scene,
set against the fierce hatred of the two leaders, Thranduil and Thorin, who,
like ice and fire, wouldn’t be able to find an inch of common ground. In fact,
love is one major source of hope – and Tolkien probably wouldn’t disagree with
this. And it is even great that all the three major forms of love are covered
in the films. Here it is love, as we usually understand it: as the exclusive
relationship between two people of the opposite sex. And because it is
exclusive it might cause pain to the excluded party, or, if the exclusive bond
is broken, even greater pain to at least one of the lovers. There might be hope
in this kind of love, but a great potential for destruction as well. And it is not
Tolkien’s great tale of hope – even though in real life it might have been.
The next, more
promising, candidate is the kind of love that actually is “everywhere”, is
experienced by almost everyone, and is usually noticed least: the love between
parents and children, respectively between different members of a family. This
tale of hope is contained in the tale of Bard and his children. And it gets
very important in the sense that they are the ones who redeem the race of men
in the eyes of the audience from being just the kind of scum the dwarves reckon
them to be, exemplified so beautifully by the Master of Lake-town and his
loathsome deputy, Alfrid. So, all of these characters fall into their slot
within the “big” story perfectly and contribute to this beautifully complex
tale. Because the Master of Lake-town and Alfrid despise the dwarves at least
as much as Thranduil and Legolas do. And the other way round. And this is
because none of these peoples is the least bit interested in the others, except
as an opportunity for making money, and, consequently, doesn’t know anything
about their good qualities, which, in some cases, might be inexistent, or, as
in the case of the dwarves, really hard to get at. The only hope, living in a
world like this, appears to consist in this unbreakable bond of kinship. But
even if this may be the strongest and most common bond of love – it is NOT
Tolkien’s great tale of hope.
It is in fact
the tale about friendship and loyalty between a hobbit and a dwarf which
contains Tolkien’s major theme of hope that is developed further in “The Lord
of the Rings”. And it is not even told in the book but lies somewhere “in
there”, like something within an egg that hasn’t hatched. Everything is there
but not yet ready to be unfolded. And one half of the tale is certainly
developed more than the other: the part about Bilbo and his friendship with the
dwarves. Not surprisingly, as Tolkien knew very well who Bilbo was when he
wrote his first sentence, whereas he had spent very little thought on the
dwarves. When Bilbo gives the Arkenstone to Bard in the film he explains that
he isn’t doing it for him but “his friends” who might be “obstinate”, “pig-headed”,
“difficult” and worse but are as well “brave, kind, loyal to a fault”. I think
that Tolkien would have disagreed with part of this and might have been
displeased with the way it is shown in the films, but he certainly had a notion
of the dwarves being brave when he wrote their story for the appendix, and
loyalty was even a more central theme because it is what makes the dwarves
special and “stand out” as a people of Middle-earth. This becomes apparent, for
example, when he makes Gandalf tell the story about how he convinced Thorin to
take Bilbo “on board” in the “Unfinished Tales”: Gandalf says that he is very
fond of Bilbo and promises Thorin his friendship to the end of his days if he
treats him well. And continues: “I said that without hope of persuading him; but I
could have said nothing better. Dwarves understand devotion to friends and
gratitude to those who help them.”
And, in my
opinion, the reason for this changed attitude towards the dwarves is that, in
the meantime, he had gone further investigating the place where he had first
found them: Snorri Sturluson’s “Edda” where he took all the dwarf-names from.
As a “place” I don’t refer to the actual text but its historical context, being
medieval Scandinavia and its “saga” literature. There we find a lot of
interesting facts about an archaïc society and its people. In my opinion this
is where Tolkien found what his dwarves were meant to be, as a people of
Middle-earth. I cannot explore this further here, just the part about loyalty
and the relationship between Bilbo and Thorin. It is devised as a typical
pre-medieval relationship between a powerful leader and his follower. Which is,
by the way, the structure behind the “Lord of the Rings” theme. In archaïc
times the rings were just bigger, as they were arm-rings of massive silver or gold.
And the “ring-giver” was always the most powerful one, the leader who dealt out
such rings to his most valued followers. Unlike a medieval king, who wields
more or less absolute power, such a leader is the one with the superior
qualities that make others follow him. Their personal evaluation of him is as
important as his personal evaluation of them, as they are following him by
choice as the one of whom they reckon they will benefit most. And he elects
those who are especially valuable to him and whom he trusts most. And they will
be honoured and rewarded above the others.
This appears
to be a kind of relationship Tolkien believed in as a structure of humanity
which is further developed in the “Lord of the Rings”. At a first glance it
doesn’t feel very contemporary, but it is still a very common kind of
relationship in a context where the two parties have to work closely together
to achieve a common aim. For example the relationship between actor and
director which is covered in the aforementioned interview by Richard Armitage
in a rather interesting way as one requiring mutual appreciation and TRUST.
I cannot cover
every angle of Bilbo’s and Thorin’s story here, instead I shall focus on the
smaller “bits”, as I have been so delighted every time I noticed one of them
and as they are the best proof of how complex and significant the work on these
films has been. In the first film we see Thorin THINKING a lot. (Probably not the favourite direction for an actor: "Think!" Because we are doing it all the time but it doesn't "show".) I had
noticed this from the start but had only been able to make complete sense of it
at the very end of the journey. It is done “expressly”, and, unlike Bilbo’s
continuous thinking that is like a commentary to “enhance” what is going on at
his angle, Thorin’s thinking is like a nagging question: What is he just
thinking about? The answer is quite obvious, at least after having seen the
first film, but, like many of the small “bits”, it is gathering significance
throughout the whole story. It is about Bilbo of course, to find out if his
first evaluation of him, which is probably somewhere below zero, is correct.
But he has Gandalf’s favourable account as well, and Gandalf apparently is
somebody he trusts – as far as he is able to trust anybody who is not a dwarf.
By the end of the first stage of the journey Thorin will be fully satisfied as
to how valuable and trustworthy Bilbo is. But by “looking into him” something
else would have been achieved: He would have come to KNOW this strange creature a hobbit is to him, even better than others
he has always known and taken for granted.
And there is a
similar story told on Bilbo’s side. On his first encounter with Thorin he gets
to know him as somebody who is arrogant and overbearing, jumping to conclusions
about him at first sight – hitting the nail on the head, by the way! Not unlike
Bilbo himself, he cannot know anything about the “hidden” qualities that
Gandalf has sensed in him already. But Bilbo certainly feels that he doesn’t
deserve to be treated with such disregard and contempt by somebody who is a
guest in his house. It reminds me a bit of the first appearance of John
Thornton in “North and South” which I always feel wouldn’t have “worked” as
well with any other actor. Because making him THAT disagreeable requires that
the audience will still be “with you”, or rather “with him”, after that. And
they were quite certain of that! Whatever it is, we have to assume that it is
not just about having such very blue eyes. At least in the case of Bilbo who is
getting definitely interested, less in Thorin at first than in the whole “story”.
But he probably gets a feeling very early on that there is some “hidden
meaning” as well. We first get a glimpse of it when we hear the dwarves singing
that beautiful song, Thorin’s voice leading them on “far over the Misty
Mountains” where they are longing to go. It is certainly then that Bilbo is
making up his mind – unknown to himself as yet – to go with them and explore
these strange places and stories for himself. But it might already be the
beginning of something he will fully understand only much later and “develop”
as a motive for him to be on that quest and help: He is moved by the tragic
fate of the dwarves and their dire predicament, especially where Thorin is
concerned. For this he will have to suffer a great deal still, not least from
Thorin himself, and he has just decided to give up on them and on the quest and
go back home when suddenly a lot of things happen. And, at the end of that, he
gets a completely unexpected and very strong expression of what it is like when
a dwarf becomes fond of you. - You can see that he is rather taken aback at
first because, as a rule, he doesn’t know what to expect from Thorin at all,
and, after all the unpleasantness, what is THIS supposed to mean? And, I think,
the audience shares his puzzlement. But it will become apparent later that this
is the decisive moment of change in their relationship. It isn’t even that
Thorin will treat him much “nicer” after that, apart from showing respect for
his judgment and his suggestions about how things should be done. But both of
them have understood something about the other that will change everything. At
the end of the first film another bargain is struck “within” the bond of
loyalty: They have come to UNDERSTAND each other and be friends.
It is
certainly the beginning of a beautiful friendship, but also one against
enormous odds. The odds being mostly who Thorin is – and there is a lot of
“hidden content” still to be unfolded. One of the “bits” I liked a lot is the
way they are playing with the sentence: “I am not my grandfather”,
respectively: “You are not your grandfather”, which Thorin and Gandalf use,
Thorin even twice, I think. Professor Tolkien, as a linguist, would have loved
it too, as he did something similar at the beginning of “The Hobbit” by letting
Gandalf lay down the different meanings the simple phrase “Good Morning!” can
take. Here you are expressly invited to add context, and this is what I love
about it. Because if you take the invitation, start thinking about it just a little
bit, you might have a chance to get at the really interesting part of the
story. For Gandalf, who is the one who knows best about the hidden meaning, and
the hidden danger concerning their mission, it is an invitation for Thorin to
reconsider: NOT to act as if he was his grandfather. Whereas Thorin uses the
sentence to fend off exactly that notion: that he might turn out like his
grandfather. And the way he does – or rather doesn’t - deal with this is proof
of how little he had been able to deal with his personal “trauma”: the dragon
coming to Erebor and taking everything away from him, every promise his life
had held of wealth, power, and greatness. Deep inside he knows that he “is” his
grandfather, in a way, as he carries his heritage with him, and he cannot
afford NOT to be a success, like his father who, at least in the films, tried
to defeat Azog and failed, and then tried to go to Erebor and failed as well.
Thorin knows: when he goes he has at least to achieve SOMETHING. And there is
another side to his “trauma” that will prove even more decisive and deadly for
any relationship with people who are not dwarves. It is the reason that in
neither of his conversations with Thranduil or Bard there is the least
potential for achieving an agreement, and I think it is felt deepest in the way
he says a sentence like: “Those who have lived through dragon fire should
rejoice. They have much to be grateful for.” Or just: “I am listening!” (to
Bard). I refrain from describing the voice, but for a “voice fetishist” there
is no greater pleasure than to hear how much meaning can be conveyed JUST by a
voice. - It is this deep satisfaction finally to be in a position of power, of
finally being able to take his revenge, that says most about how much it had
hurt: that nobody had helped them, after the dragon came, that they had been
treated as “dwarf-scum” the moment they ceased being valuable as a source of income.
Not that he probably spent a single thought on the reasons for this, which
might not lie ENTIRELY on the side of elves and men. Nor on how much Thrór
would have helped them in similar circumstances! Although Thorin himself might
have been different THEN.
But this is
what he has become, and, understanding this, the “dragon sickness” can take on
a completely different meaning. In the film it serves more than one purpose,
the most important in this context being that it explains how Bilbo can still
like Thorin and excuse his behaviour because he pities him. But in fact it is
done very well and doesn’t destroy the “psychological ground” laid for Thorin.
It is even rather likely, as none of the other dwarves is touched by the evil,
that he “got” it mostly because of what had been wrong with him before. Being
suddenly so close to what you have always wished for but never have been able
to imagine might have all kinds of effects even on a stronger and healthier
mind. Thorin’s is certainly tarnished BEFORE
he goes in there! - Nonetheless it is important to understand as well that
Thorin has ALWAYS been prepared to risk everything, for himself and others!, to
achieve his aim. And here the difficulty of a friendship of two such different
people becomes apparent. Because Bilbo is neither able to understand the
complete “hidden context” of Thorin, nor will he ever be able to understand
somebody who is prepared to act like this. This is the reason he misjudges
Thorin – finally putting his own life at risk. And there is no doubt at all, by
the way, that Thorin would have killed him, and I think that Bilbo is fully
aware of that. He is certainly not naïve, on the contrary: I rather like the
way Martin Freeman is playing him as somebody who is really smart. But still,
against all the odds, he holds fast to the belief that Thorin is who he thinks
he is – or who he KNOWS he is! - because Thorin has opened his heart to him.
And this turns out to be true as well, in the end. It is true as, against all
the odds, Thorin knows about friendship and its worth. As he says: “True
friends are hard to come by.” There is no doubt that he is Bilbo’s friend and
trusts him implicitly, until he is, in his own eyes, betrayed by him. And, at
that moment, for him there is no way he might see the true friendship behind
the betrayal. - It is in fact a complex story, not just “the usual thing” with
easy questions and simple answers we already know. And this is, of course, why
it is such a beautiful story.
I have been
carrying on for quite a while now without quoting Richard Armitage, so it is
probably time to do that again. This time it is a snippet from the
documentation of “An unexpected journey”, and it was totally without context,
so, at first, I didn’t understand what it was about. It is just Peter Jackson
explaining that Thorin is leading Bilbo on a ledge, and Richard Armitage asking
if this was “post-coital, or pre-“? – I am still not certain which scene they
are talking about, but the “coital” bit can only refer to the moment Thorin is
folding Bilbo in his arms. Anyway, I was rather pleased with the metaphor,
apart from its being so hilarious, because it is about as how important that
scene was perceived, structurally, as this moment of climax in their
relationship. And because of the way it nails the aspect of LOVE as an
important part of the story. Because friendship certainly is a form of love,
although it is not commonly perceived as love. Or rather there is a feeling
that there has to be a distinction: that sexual love and parental love are
“higher” or “stronger” forms of love, whereas friendship is seen as a “lower”,
more casual, form of love. Which, in our times, we wouldn’t even refer to as
“love”. But in “former times” it was seen exactly the other way round. Because
sexual and parental love are “natural” forms of love, whereas friendship is
certainly an achievement. Especially in dire circumstances like these, but
probably always. There has to be that decisive moment when you have revealed
part of your “heart” to someone, and the other person has shown you part of
his’. As parental love is just “natural” – you cannot HELP loving your child, your parent or sibling – and sexual love is
often much more about yourself – what you need or want yourself – friendship is
entirely ABOUT the other person. There is no other “reason” in it for love than
what you see in the other, or what he MEANS to you. And this presupposes that
you have taken pains to KNOW him - that you actually have come to “know his
heart”.
When I
“revisited” Tolkien’s “Hobbit” after having seen “The Desolation of Smaug”,
reading “Macbeth” at the same time, I found that the world of “The Hobbit” and
Shakespeare’s aren’t actually such different worlds at all. In contrast to “The
Lord of the Rings” Middle-earth is then an ugly and dismal place, where even
elves are not always “great”, where nobody trust the other, everybody
struggling for his own life and gain. Even heroism and “greatness” are probably
not part of the solution and are saved for extreme measures – as they should
be! But within this world still lies the potential for something else. And this
is the way Tolkien wanted it to be. There still is this little flame of hope,
somewhere. But, same as in a real world, “true friends are hard to come by” –
and hope probably even harder. And it really is this VERY SMALL flame because,
at an overall view, there is no hope anywhere to be seen. Not for Thorin, who
dies just before he has finally come into his inheritance, and, before his
death, has seen his closest kin die as well. There isn’t any hope left for him,
as it might seem. But this isn’t quite true. Of all the great things the
writers on these films have done, in my opinion, one of the greatest feats of
writing is the way they transformed the words Thorin says to Bilbo before he
dies. I was so fascinated I couldn’t even cry. Because it is almost exactly the
same content as in the book, only they have “translated” the speech from one a
king would make on his death-bed in front of his followers – and in the book
they are all in attendance! – to something a friend would say to a friend. And
this is why I didn’t mind the notion of the dwarves having such bad manners -
or rather no manners at all! - as a counterpart of being able to express their
feelings “directly”: When the time has come Thorin has no problem at all to
express everything that is on his heart exactly as he feels it. And, of course,
Richard Armitage is able to make this moment as strong and beautiful as it has
to be. - And here I see the moment of hope for Thorin, which is probably why it
isn’t as sad as it may seem: In conveying his feelings to Bilbo he accounts to
himself for how important their friendship has been for him. Because, finally knowing what it has been about, how exactly
Bilbo has touched his heart, he finds how he himself is changed. He can see
“beyond” the horizon of his own dreadful fate and behold a more hopeful place.
And this might not appear to be much, but, facing death, it might be the
greatest hope you will ever get!
For Bilbo
there is still a much longer journey. He is left with the pain of having lost a
friend, of hopes being destroyed. And he is not at all certain what to “make of
it”. I don’t know but maybe, though he has certainly been able to forgive, he
hasn’t been able to FORGET that Thorin had tried to throw him off the wall with
his own hands – as he probably hasn’t forgotten how he had folded him in his
arms. And, as he is taking his leave of the dwarves, he just knows that he
isn’t able to close the book on Thorin yet, to finally determine what he has
been for him. But of course he KNOWS – because when he is asked later, quite
“out of context”, who Thorin Oakenshield is, he answers spontaneously: “He was
a friend”. And maybe this is the moment when his story of hope is about to
BEGIN. As he probably will come to
understand by and by how the experience of this friendship has changed HIM – to
the point of changing his whole life. He has gone on an adventure, not knowing
in the least what he might find. And what he has found is STILL very different.
There is a lot of pain as well, of a totally unexpected kind, and maybe even
after sixty years he hasn’t come to terms with everything. But he certainly
feels that he has found SOMETHING.
Well, whatever
he did find, not all of it might actually be “good”. Because he has in fact
found something in the goblin tunnels which, in the film version, becomes
almost instantly so precious to him that he isn’t even prepared to tell Gandalf
the truth about it. (Great writing, again!) It is quite obvious that this will
be a nastier and much more devious thing than it has been in its “virginal”
state in “The Hobbit”. My favourite quote, as I said:
“This is the Arkenstone of Thráin, the heart of the mountain. And it is
also the heart of Thorin.”
It is all “in
there”: this ultimate “thing of beauty”, the utterly desirable which “crowns
all”. If you can see it you will never be able to look the other way again, you
will want to achieve that aim, whatever the costs. And if you have had it, in a
way, you will always want more of it. - This we cannot have because it is all
finished now. But there certainly will be SOMETHING …?
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen