Trotter: A description of the development of the character Aragorn

Trotter was the name originally used for the character who would eventually become Strider (Aragorn) in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. This character underwent a series of developments and name changes before reaching his final identity. One of the things which was consistent throughout was the use of Trotter as his pseudonym. It was only after the story was complete that Tolkien decided to change it to Strider. It is important to note that Tolkien did not have the full plot of the story, or its background planned-out when he started writing. Rather, he “discovered” it as he wrote. This is the reason for the complex development of many of his characters.

Trotter the Hobbit

Trotter appears for the first time in the inn at Bree as a peculiar hobbit of whom very little is known. Trotter is initially described as "[A] queer-looking, brown-faced hobbit…He had an enormous mug…in front of him and was smoking a broken-stemmed pipe right under his rather long nose. He was dressed in dark rough brown cloth, and had a hood on in spite of the warmth, − and very remarkably, he had wooden shoes!"¹ The innkeeper, Barliman Butterbur also refers to him as a “Ranger” (which at that time meant nothing more than “one of the wild folk”), who speaks little, but can tell fascinating stories. He is a frequent visitor at Bree, but no-one knows his real name.

Despite being nothing more than an outlandish hobbit, Trotter’s role in the early drafts concerning Bree is very similar to that of Aragorn (Isildur's heir) in the final text of The Lord of the Rings. He manages to persuade Bingo (which was the name given to Frodo at that stage of writing) that he is a friend of Gandalf, and leads the hobbits on the perilous journey from Bree to Rivendell.

Whilst writing, Tolkien was continually plagued by the question, “Who is Trotter?” This character, who had appeared from nowhere, had not been planned and yet he seemed to be someone of great importance. It would take a very long time before the answer to this question was settled in his mind.

After reaching the arrival at Rivendell for that first time, Tolkien got to a point where he was unhappy with certain elements of the story. Before going back and reworking the story from the beginning, he wrote down a series of notes entitled "Queries and Alterations".² One of his notes suggested that the Rangers should not be hobbits as originally planned. This would mean that Trotter was not a hobbit either. He also suggested that if Trotter was a hobbit [who associated himself with the Rangers] he must be someone that is well known [to the other characters]. The latter suggestion was linked to an early comment which Bingo had made in Rivendell, saying that there was something familiar about Trotter. Tolkien made a proposal that he might be Bilbo Baggins himself, but quickly rejected that idea. The reason that Bilbo was not the main character in the sequel to The Hobbit was that it had ended with the line “he lived happily ever after to the end of his days…”.³ On this basis, Bilbo could not get involved in any further adventures.

Another suggestion was that Trotter was a hobbit named Fosco Took (later changed to Fosco Boffin), a relation of Bilbo’s who had vanished from the Shire. This suggestion was further considered the next time the question “Who is Trotter?” arose. Then, in a collection of notes entitled “New Uncertainties and Projections”, Tolkien wrote “Trotter turns out to be Peregrin, who had been to Mordor”.⁴ This was not the Peregrin Took (Pippin) of the final text, since the names of the hobbit companions were also undergoing various changes. The reference was to Peregrin Boffin, a nephew of Bilbo, who had mysteriously disappeared from the Shire when Frodo (now so called) was very young. (Gandalf and Bilbo had been blamed for his disappearance.)

The idea of Trotter as Peregrin Boffin was maintained for some time, making it into early drafts of Rivendell and beyond. It is also in Rivendell, that we are given a hint as to why the hobbit, Trotter, wore wooden shoes. While helping Gandalf hunt for Gollum, he had been captured by the Dark Lord and tortured. The nature of the torture is never revealed since, when he ceased to be a hobbit, the issue of the wooden shoes is no longer present or in need of explaining. The only further hint that Tolkien gives is a note in the margin which says that it would later be revealed that Trotter had wooden feet. This, however, never happens and is the last we hear of it.

Trotter the Elf

Tolkien stopped working on The Lord of the Rings for about a year. When he started again, he went back to the beginning, making various changes. (Christopher Tolkien refers to this as the ‘’Fourth Stage’’ of writing).⁵ In a note made before he continued, appears a remarkable, but short-lived idea. It suggests that “Trotter is a disguised elf, and friend of Bilbo’s”.⁵ It then goes on further to propose that he is a spy from Rivendell, sent out and pretending to be a Ranger. This idea, however, was not taken very seriously.

Trotter as a Man

As has been mentioned, Tolkien had from time to time had doubts about Trotter being a hobbit and had even thought he might be a man. In a note, which may have been written at the same time as the “elvish suggestion”, he considers this again. Here, for the first time, Trotter is given the name Aragorn. He is also called here “a man of Elrond's race”.⁷ Elrond, of course, is not an elf, but one of the Half-elven (or Peredhil), and is even described as such in The Hobbit, which had been published at that time. While the story of Númenor and the descendants of Elros (Elrond's brother) was not fully developed, the germs of it were in existence, and would come to be connected with The Lord of the Rings as the character of Trotter developed. The story of the heirs of Elendil, and Trotter’s connection with them, was still far from complete, but this was the beginning of what would become a very important part of the story and change the role of Trotter drastically.

The change did not come immediately, though. Tolkien even left Trotter as Peregrin Boffin, the hobbit, at the beginning of Stage Four. But not far into writing, he did change things and he finally became a man.

The next important steps in Trotter’s development occurred in the subsequent drafts concerning Bree. At first his physical description is the same as that given to Trotter the Hobbit, except that he is a man, and his wooden shoes are omitted. Gandalf’s letter which Frodo receives from Butterbur undergoes much development. At one stage, Trotter even has an accompanying letter from Gandalf to prove that he is who he says he is. In the first draft of his letter, he is called “Aragorn, son of Celeborn, of the line of Isildur”.⁸ This is the first time his connection to Isildur is mentioned. (Isildur and his association to the ring already existed, but his history and position were yet to be explained.) A significant development in Gandalf’s letter is that of the rhyme “All that is gold does not glitter.”

There are numerous versions of the rhyme. The first draft says:

All that is gold does not glitter;

all that is long does not last;

All that is old does not wither

not all that is over is past.⁹

In the next draft a number of new lines appear. The most significant are:

Not all that have fallen are vanquished,

A king may yet be without crown

A blade that was broken be brandished

and towers that were strong may fall down.¹⁰

The next version is very similar to that given above, except that it has “not only the crowned is a king” and the last line is “And fire the doom of the ring”. Christopher Tolkien suggests that the reference to the crownless king in these versions had nothing to do with Trotter at that stage. They were simply a “further exemplification of the general moral”¹¹ of the poem which was that “things are not always as they seem”.

The broken sword, however, was significant, as this was the first mention of the shards of Narsil. In the final draft, Trotter would draw out the broken sword as proof of who he was.

The sword was to appear again at the council of Elrond (in the riddle of Boromir).¹² At this stage, Boromir’s city was called Ond (not Gondor). Here Tolkien considers, for the first time, that Trotter’s fathers were kings there. But it would still be a long time before he would develop the history of Gondor and Arnor, and explain why the kings were now “exiles” in the North.

The development of Trotter’s connection to Ond was long and complex, as was his association with Boromir, the man from Ond. The relationship between Boromir (whose character was pretty much in the final form from the beginning) and Trotter was uneasy from the start. As Tolkien wrote, ideas came to him and the history of Trotter's ancestors developed. Much of this development took place in drafts of "The Council of Elrond" as the history of the Ring was being told.¹³ Initially it is said that Trotter's fathers were Númenórean kings who ruled over the non-Númenórean people of Ond. Sauron raised a rebellion and the citizens drove their kings out of the land. It had already been stated that Trotter was descended from Isildur, and Isildur was already connected with the Ring. In subsequent drafts the story developed further, till that of Elendil, his sons and the battle of the Last Alliance was properly reached. At one time, Tolkien seems to have conceived only three generation between Isildur and Trotter,¹⁴ but this was not maintained as it contradicted a number of previous statements implying that the battle of the Last Alliance had been a very long time ago.

Names

Tolkien had a great deal of trouble deciding what Trotter’s “real” name was. Although Aragorn was the first suggestion for his name as a man, it was changed a number of times between Bree and Lothlórien. It was altered from “Aragorn son of Celegorn” to “Elfstone son of Elfhelm” to “Ingold son of Ingrim”. Tolkien's main problem with the name “Aragorn” was that it was an “elvish” name and that would not do for Trotter who was a man.¹⁵ This was no longer a problem, however, when the book was finished, since the Númeróreans could speak Elvish, and gave their children elvish names. Surprisingly, Tolkien never explains the meaning of Aragorn, though most of his other names are explained.

When Tolkien reached the initial texts concerning Lothlórien, he was using the name Ingold for Trotter. But Galadriel's gifts would lead to another change. Originally, it was Gimli the Dwarf who would receive the green emerald (Elessar) from her. Gimli accepted the gift with the words “Elfstone shall be a name of honour in my kin for ever”.¹⁶ After writing this, Tolkien decided that he would rather change Trotter’s name back to Elfstone and that he would be the one to receive the emerald. On further revision, however, Tolkien decided to change his name again to Aragorn. Elfstone (translated as Elessar) became an assumed name, one which had been “foretold for him” (The Fellowship of the Ring, p 391). The name of his father was changed from Keleborn to Eldakar to Valatar and ...before reaching the final form, Arathorn.17

In the margin of drafts of the chapter entitled “The Last Debate”, Christopher Tolkien notes the presence of a remarkable passage. It is a conversation between Merry and Gimli in which Gimli says that the folk of Lebenin have been calling Trotter the “Lord of the Ring”.¹⁸ Merry thinks it must be a trick, to make Sauron think that Aragorn has and will use the One Ring. Gimli doubts this, saying that Aragorn would never allow such a rumour to be spread, even to trick the enemy, and that Elrond’s sons had also called him by that name. On another scrap of paper, is a note that says that Galadriel must give her ring to Trotter, but Tolkien immediately rejects this idea as it will leave Lothlórien defenseless.

Further Character Developments

From the time they left Lothlórien, the role and character of Trotter had almost been fully realized. He was to do and say much of the same things that Strider would in the final story; including leading the company from Moria, and choosing not to follow Frodo to Mordor.

One significant feature which did not yet exist, though, was his relationship with Elrond’s daughter, Arwen. This meant that when he first met Éowyn (Théoden's niece), the interest which she showed towards him was not one-sided.¹⁹ In notes, probably written after the first drafts of “King of the Golden Hall” chapter, Tolkien even suggested that Aragorn would marry Éowyn at the end of the story. He then had second thoughts, claiming that Aragorn was “too old, lordly and grim.”²⁰ (He also makes an interesting comment here that Éowyn would be Éomer’s twin sister, but this idea did not survive either.) After this are other notes suggesting that Éowyn would die to save/avenge Théoden, and that Aragorn did love her after all, and would never marry after her death. This, however, was not the way things were to happen.

The first mention of Elrond's daughter is in reference javascript:;to the banner which she made for Trotter that his fellow Rangers brought to him in Rohan.²¹span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Her name is originally Finduilas (The name of an elf in The Silmarillion, and later that used for Boromir and Faramir's mother). Tolkien does not give any hint here as to why she made it, and whether she had any further part to play. The next mention of her is in a note (written during the “Houses of Healing” chapter) concerning Tolkien's plans for the end of the book. It says that Finduilas will come to Minas Tirith at the end.²² In the note referred to in the section on Names (about Galadriel giving Trotter her ring) we find a suggestion that the reason for this gift was that he was to marry Finduilas.²³ It is only after the completion of the chapter concerning “Mount Doom” (i.e. after the destruction of the One Ring) that we hear of Finduilas again. In a sketch entitled “The Story Foreseen from Kormallen(sic)” Tolkien again outlines his plans for the rest of the book. Here it is said that Elrond, Celeborn and Galadriel will bring Finduilas to Minas Tirith after Trotter's coronation.²⁴ There he and Finduilas will be married. The next point in this note says “also Faramir and Éowyn”. This is the first hint we have of their relationship, which may have simply developed out of their being “stuck together” in the Houses of Healing.

In the first draft of the “Steward and the King” (at the end of which Trotter is married) Elrond's daughter is still called Finduilas, and for the first time it is explained that she is Galadriel's granddaughter.²⁵ In a manuscript text which followed this draft, her name is finally changed to Arwen. It is only in his working on the appendices of The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien records the full tale of Aragorn and Arwen to explain the events of the book.²⁶

Why Strider?

Originally The Lord of the Rings was to have an epilogue, a final chapter in which Sam tells his children stories of his adventure.²⁷ In the initial texts of this the king is still called “Trotter”, showing that the pseudonym was maintained right till the end. It was only on revision that Tolkien decided to change it to Strider. Why this decision was made is never explained. One can only guess that Tolkien realised Trotter had outgrown his name. What worked for an obscure hobbit with wooden shoes, did not quite work for the heir to the throne of Gondor, even if he was secretly living in exile.

All Trotter’s Names

Hobbits

Bilbo Baggins (short-lived idea)

Fosco Took/Boffin

Peregrin Boffin

 

Elvish

Translations of the Elvish form of Trotter, used by Glorfindel:

Padathir
Rimbedir
Duffinion

Ethellion Used by Bilbo, being the translation of “Peregrin”

Tarkil Used by Bilbo, meaning “Númenórean”
This was changed to Dúnadan in the final version

Tarakil Used by Trotter himself, being the Quenyan translation of “Trotter”
This was changed to Telcontar for “Strider” in the final version

 

Manish

Succession of names:
Aragorn → Elfstone → Ingold → Elfstone → Aragorn

Alternate versions of “Elfstone”:
Erkenbrand, Elf-friend, Elfmere, Elfspear, Elfwold

Alternate translations for “Elfstone”:
Eladamir → Eldavel → Eledon → Quendemir → Elessar

 

Rejected Title

“Lord of the Ring”

 

References

1. RS: 137-138. 
2. RS 
3. RS: ??.
4. RSw: 369-387. 
5. TI: 18. 
6. TI: 6. 
7. TI: 6-8. 
8. TI: 50. 
9. TI: 76. 
10. TI: 80. 
11. TI: 171. 
12. TI: 116 & 128. 
13. TI: 110-160. 
14. TI: 360-361. 
15. TI: 277-278. 
16. TI: 275 . 
17. TI: ??. 
18. WR: 425-426. 
19. TI: p 445. 
 20. TI: p 448. 
21. WR: 307. 
22. WR: 386. 
23. WR: 425. 
24. SD: 52. 
25. SD: 58. 
26. PME: 262-270. 
27. SD: 114-135. 

References

RS: The Return of the Shadow, J. R. R. Tolkien (1988), Christopher Tolkien, (ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin.  

TI: The Treason of Isengard, J. R. R. Tolkien (1989), Christopher Tolkien, (ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

WR: The War of the Ring, J. R. R. Tolkien (1990), Christopher Tolkien, (ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

SD: Sauron Defeated, J. R. R. Tolkien (1992), Christopher Tolkien, (ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

PME: The Peoples of Middle Earth, J. R. R. Tolkien (1988), Christopher Tolkien, (ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Birthday and Christmas Photos (2012)

This post contains photos of my Christmas and birthday presents mainly for the benefit of my family back home so they can see what I got. I've also included the birthday cake Averil made for me and a photo of my nissermen (Danish Christmas elves)

Christmas: Cross-stitch from Averil and Louis, Christmas Cake from Averil, Reindeer choc from Louis, Hobbit mug, alarm clock and string bookmark from Myriam, Hedgie-thimble from home

Birthday: Hand-cream from Averil and Louis (top left), card wallet from Myriam (bottom right), hedgie scarf, hair things, jewellery and face-cloth from home

Averil's cake and cross-stitch close-up

Close-up of Hobbit mug

Back of Hobbit mug

Close-up of thimble

From Kristi (owner of TLC): Hedgehog finger puppet from Las Vegas, Echidna 5c coin from Australia, Hobbit stamp from New Zealand and home-made moulded chocolates

Close-up of finger puppet, coin and stamp

Detail on coin

Moulded chocolate - Lucy of Narnia's magic cordial

Moulded chocolate - Hobbit acorn buttons

Birthday cake made by Averil

Home-made nissermen (traced on red card from computer print-out)

Post House Party: On the Mountain Top and in the Low Country

Earlier this week, we had the annual OICCU (Oxford Inter-Colligiate Christian Union) retreat or "House Party". We had an awesome time spent in worship and prayer and hearing from God's word as we prepared for the term ahead and sought his will for how we should be serving him in Oxford as we planned for the mission week that will be held later this term. The post below is an edited version of something I wrote a few months ago on a passage from one of The Chronicles of Narnia. I hope it will be an encouragement to my brothers and sisters who were on House Party. The message and challenge is for me as much as anyone else.

“Remember, remember, remember the signs. Say them to yourself when you wake in the morning and when you lie down at night, and when you wake in the middle of the night … Here on the mountain I have spoken to you clearly: I will not often do so down in Narnia. Here on the mountain, the air is clear and your mind is clear; as you drop down into Narnia, the air will thicken. Take care it does not confuse your mind. And the signs which you have learned here will not look at all as you expect them to look when you meet them there. That is why it is important to know them by heart and pay no attention to appearances. Remember the signs and believe the signs. Nothing else matters.”  - Aslan in The Silver Chair by CS Lewis

The passage above comes from the beginning of the The Silver Chair. Jill Pole has followed her classmate Eustace Scrubb into Narnia. Eustace had been there before and after telling her about it the two hoped to get back into the magical world and thus escape from school bullies. Their "wish" is granted, though they later learn that it was not their desire to come so much as Aslan's need of them which brought them to Narnia. Instead of arriving in Narnia proper, they actually find themselves on a high mountain top which turns out to be part of Aslan's country (a place symbolic of heaven though with a more real physical presence in that world than heaven has in ours). Jill (partly though accident and partly through her own fault) finds herself alone in Aslan's country and has to face Aslan, the ruler and Christ-figure of Narnia on her own. He gives her instructions for a mission by which she and Eustace must search for and rescue Narnia's lost prince and heir. He tells her four signs which she must memorise that will guide them to the prince. After making her repeat them till she knows them off-by-heart, he gives her the warning above.

The most obvious "lesson" in this passage is that we should constantly immerse ourself in God's word and commands (pointing also to the importance of memorising scripture by heart), lest we forget what we know and believe about life and faith. But I think there is a secondary important point that Lewis teaches us here. Many of you will be familiar with the metaphor of “a mountain-top experience.” This refers to a point in time where everything is going well and we feel like we are “on top of the world.” In the Christian life, we use the phrase to describe times when we feel as though God has spoken to us clearly (not necessarily audibly, but in a manner which is unmistakeable). This very often happens on Christian camps or retreats, or in our case, House Parties. The sense of purpose, God’s purpose in our lives, is strong, and we feel like we could never doubt. We recommit our whole lives to God and vow to live wholly for him from now on.

But House Party is over, and as we find ourselves thrust back into the reality that is Oxford life, the "spiritual high" is likely to fade and all our convictions and resolutions with it. I’ve experienced it enough times to know this is inevitable. Someone wise once pointed out to me that this is both normal and healthy. We would not be able to function in everyday life if we were continually on a spiritual high. It would drain us and be unhelpful to both us and our service for God.

When I read the passage above a few months ago, where Aslan speaks to Jill on the high mountains of his own country, I couldn't help but see it as symbolic of the kind of mountain-top experiences we have from time to time, especially on occasions like House Party. I don't know if Lewis intended that metaphor but I do believe he was trying to impart an important lesson - especially when we read Aslan's warning to Jill:

"Here on the mountain I have spoken to you clearly: I will not often do so down in Narnia."

Isn't that true of the spiritual life? When we find ourselves in "the mountain tops" we hear God speaking to us clearly - but that is unusual and for most of life it is in more subtle ways that God communicates with and guides us. I think this is probably both part of his method of dealing with us, and because we let the business of life, like the "thickness of the air", confuse our minds.

Aslan’s warning to Jill was prophetic. Though he gave her every warning he could, when she got to Narnia she did allow the thick air to confuse her mind. The message and warnings of Aslan were not clear any more, and she allowed the cares of the road and their travel to distract her from “the only thing that mattered”.

By the time Jill and her companions (with whom she is tasked with sharing Aslan's message) find themselves at their first destination in the North, they have all but forgotten the signs that Aslan had given Jill for their mission. She had given up repeating them and they find themselves walking through the very place they are searching for completely unaware that they have found it. They are so taken up by rumours of a warm place to spend the night and hot baths and food that they not only miss the sign, but walk into what is almost a death trap. They had allowed their physical desires to interfere with remembering why they were there.

I think we are all aware of the danger as we get wrapped up in the stress of Oxford to forget the mission we felt God giving to us at House Party. But we are not without hope. As the antidote for Jill and her friends forgetting their mission was to repeat the signs daily, so we can remind ourselves of what God has called us to do by daily spending time in his word and prayer. I think another mistake that Jill and her friends made was that she tried to remember the signs on her own. While it is true that she had a better chance of remembering them well, as Aslan spent a good deal of time making her recite them over and over, had she only gotten her companions to join her in reciting daily, they might have stood a much better chance of remembering the signs together. And that is why Christian community is a good way of reminding ourselves of God's call on our lives. As we meet in college CUs and prayer meetings and take part in church activities, we are able to encourage one another and less likely to forget the clear calling we felt before.

This is also the reason we we need mountain top experiences (times when God speaks clearly to us) every now and again. But he does not do so all the time. The rest of the time it is our responsibility to make habits of spending time in God’s word, talking and praying to him, and reminding ourselves of his promises and commands. Or else the thickness of the air in the “low country” will confuse our minds and we will forget.

Thank God that in his grace, even when we are forgetful, he is still faithful and will nudge us back in the right direction. Aslan says to Jill, “Here on the mountain I have spoken to you clearly: I will not often do so down in Narnia,” and he keeps his word. Just when all hope is lost and the children have completely “muffed” the signs, Aslan appears to Jill in a dream to nudge her back in the right direction. In the same way, God does not always speak to us clearly as he does in “mountain top experiences”, but he will still speak to us in subtler ways, reminding us of what we have forgotten.

And so the lesson we can learn is this: God gives us moments of clarity when he speaks to us in an unmistakeable way. But for most of life, we live by faith and it is, in part, our responsibility to remember what he revealed on those mountain-tops by reminding ourselves daily. At the same time, God, in his grace, also speaks to us subtly. As a gentle father, he gives us hints to put us back on track when we have strayed. As you begin the term ahead with the memories of House Party still there but fading, do not despair. The emotional clarity might fade, but we have much opportunity to remind ourselves and be reminded by God and others of the mission he has given us.

The Doctor and Jesus

To many of my friends this will probably seem like a pretty crazy piece. It is pretty absurd, but it combines the two stories that I've been immersed in this week - Doctor Who, and The Life of Jesus as told in the Gospel of Mark. They don't really go together. I don't pretend they do. But having both in my head at the same time meant I couldn't help but make comparisons. Don't worry, I'm not going to say The Doctor is God incarnate or a type of Christ or anything like that. That would just be silly. And probably blasphemous. So...well you can read it if you feel so inclined and see what you think. 

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17

It's Doctor Who season. I had never seen an episode of Doctor Who before December last year, but I had a bunch of friends on TLC who used to talk about it all the time. So when I moved to the UK, it was inevitable that I'd get to watching it. Through the course of last year, I managed to watch many of the reruns of the new series on BBC and had seen up to the third episode of the Sixth Series when I went back home. Since the Seventh Series is now showing, I decided on returning to the UK to buy Series Six so I could watch the rest of it. I spent Monday and Tuesday catching up and was then left with a bit of that empty feeling you have when you've finished a good book or movie or TV series and there's no more. In the case of Doctor Who there is more - the currently airing Seventh Series but that means waiting a week for each episode. Which is fine - but it did mean I had a few days to stew over some of the mind-boggling events of the Sixth Series. And it was pretty mind-boggling.

Those who are fans will understand this. Those who haven't watched it or haven't been gripped by it won't. But there's something appealing and endearing about the Doctor and his adventures. Some of them - many of them - are seriously creepy, but his character and the friendships and the relationships he builds and the way he deals with impossible dangers, makes the story rise beyond the creepiness and get into your heart.

I don't know exactly what it is. Maybe it's his love for humanity, loyalty for his companions and the incredible way in which he continually saves the world/universe/individuals whom he cares about. Then there's stuff like his awesome wacky character, his sometimes flippant attitude in the most dangerous situations. Those who are fans, and have been for a long time, can probably express it better than me.

I guess in sum, the Doctor is just a really cool and likeable character and his adventures take you momentarily out of troubles of this world. I'm sure there are many who wish he was really real and envy those who travel with him wishing they too could have such adventures.

Unfortunately he isn't. And neither are his adventures. But there is some pretty awesome stuff going on in the real world that we should not let things like Doctor Who take our eyes off of.

A couple days after finishing Series Six, with all these things still in my head, I found myself trying to break free of the fantasy world and back to the reality that is analysing Greek texts for my thesis. Struggling to get back into the Greek, I had a sudden inspiration to read some of the New Testament (i.e. texts I know really well) in Greek. I have an interlinear Greek Bible (which means it has English translations of words under the Greek words. I know it seems like cheating, but for the sake of easing myself in, I felt it would be more beneficial than sitting doing nothing or struggling so much looking every word up that I gave up after a couple pages). I was going to go through Acts, but had a sudden inclination to tackle a Gospel instead. I picked Mark (it's the shortest). I've read Mark many times - studied it three times in about three years at Church/Youth. So I know it pretty well. My intention in reading this was for the sake of the Greek - not to get anything significant out of it. But sometimes God has other plans.

I have the distinct disadvantage of having been brought up on the Bible from a very young age. There are massive advantages in this too - and I am eternally grateful to my parents for this. But the disadvantage is that the accounts in the Bible are so familiar to me, it's difficult not to take them for granted. The amazing aspects of Jesus' life, the miracles he performed, the message he preached, the way he was treated by his enemies and responded to them, his death and resurrection, are all so well known in my head they often cease to amaze. I believe them to be true (a decision I made) and the truth does not change. But their impact is not usually very great.

One way I've found that helps me overcome my familiarity with the Bible is reading it in different translations. We are lucky in the English speaking world that we have so many different translations and "versions". And while the fundamental message does not change, reading it in different wording often brings to light things you may have ceased to notice in a more familiar version. The Amplified Bible, I think, is particularly good at this (not that it's my favourite translation - I don't even own a copy of it - but from hearing it quoted I think it would be good for this despite it's other faults).

You can probably guess where this is going. Reading Mark in Greek was reading it in a new version for me and, as a result, had the unanticipated effect of bringing the story to life in a new way. I know some people think the New Testament in Greek, since it is the original, must be the purist/most accurate form and are perhaps thinking that it was the fact it was Greek that it brought new meaning. I don't think that's true. Greek is not a super holy language and though there may be aspects of its vocabulary and grammar that bring a clarity of meaning which it is hard to convey in translation, it's by no means a perfect language and suffers from ambiguity as much as the next language. Maybe if my Greek was better it would be different, but the clarity and understanding you get from the Greek bible is only as good as your Greek allows it to be. Anyway, as I was partially relying on the English translated words in the interlinear form, some of the effect was completely lost.

But what did happen is that I read the text more slowly than usual - sometimes having to reread over parts. And I was reading it in unfamiliar terms. And these two things together contributed to the what happened while I was reading.

I wasn't far into the text (Mark makes the story move very quickly) before I was hit with a revelation I know to be true, but needed to be reminded of. With Doctor Who still in my mind, as I read about the amazing authority and power Jesus had in words and actions, and the way people were completely astounded by what he did, I was reminded just what an amazing person Jesus was. I say "was", though he still is amazing, because I'm referring to his human life on Earth. If I thought the Doctor was cool, well Jesus was off the charts.

The Doctor looks human, and often acts human, though he isn't really. He can do things that the humans he interacts with can't and that's one of the things that makes him special. As is his love for humans and our world. Jesus was human. Completely. But he is more than human and comes from beyond and before our world. Although much of his Godly power was veiled while he was on earth, little bits of it seeped through. As we read the Gospels, we see he has power over demons, over sickness, over deafness and blindness, over the elements, over food quantities, even over death. The people he interacts with recognise his unusual power and authority immediately. And the response is either to follow him (in different degrees - many followed him just because they wanted to witness more miracles, while others gave up their way of life to become his companions) or to fear (and try to get rid of) him.

When I read of Jesus' interactions with demons (there are quite a few accounts in Mark), I was put in mind a little of the Doctor's interaction with certain aliens. It doesn't work for all, but there are some to whom he just needs to say his name and they immediately fear him. In this case it's pretty easy for him to tell them to leave Earth alone and go back to wherever they came from.  Of course this doesn't happen all that much, or the stories would be kind of boring. But with Jesus, the demons are so terrified they do exactly what he says. They just see him coming and beg for mercy.

I want to reiterate that these Doctor Who analogies are only coming up because I had them in my head. I'm not in the least inferring that the Doctor is some kind of Christ-figure or supposed to represent him or anything. They are so completely different and the concept of the Doctor was created without any religious connotations anticipated (if anything the complete opposite). But since I had "the Doctor is cool" in my mind when reading about Jesus, it was amazing to be reminded "so was Jesus - in fact he was cooler".

Something that comes out very strongly in Mark is that Jesus is being very careful about his popularity. The reason for this is explained more in the other gospels (I think John in particular): he is following a precise timetable. If he were to become too well known too soon, the plan would be jeopardised. Jesus' mission was to preach about repentance and the Kingdom of Heaven. And to train up his disciples to continue his message and mission after he was gone. Although he performed many miracles, his priority was always to preach. He healed the sick and demon-possessed as they were brought to him out of compassion. And the miracles confirmed to those who watched that he truly had authority from God, but they were secondary. His aim was not to heal physical ills but to heal people's spirits. For that, preaching his message and the culmination of his task (dying for the sins of all humans and rising again) were far more important than giving people temporary physical healing.

Continually, throughout Mark, we see him trying to downplay his miracles. When he cast demons out of people, he would forbid them from shouting out who he was (they recognised him as the Son of God) and he would tell those he healed or who witnessed a healing not to tell anyone else what he had done. This is not more clear than in the passage where he raises Jaris' daughter from the dead and tells those around him that "she's not dead but just sleeping". Only a few are allowed to witness the miracle, since raising someone from the dead is kind of a biggie. In fact the next time he does this - with Lazarus - it's not kept secret. And it pretty much seals his death warrant. 

This playing down his miracles was strategic. If people realised his full power and who he was the two parties (those for and against him) would become too radical too soon. Those who believed in him would want to make him King and use him as a political figure to overthrow the Roman oppression (which they actually tried at one point - he conveniently disappeared at the time). Those who hated him would do everything in their power to make sure that never happened and have him killed (which would be easy for them if he was being advocated as an opponent to Rome's authority). As it was, he only had three years of ministry before things escalated to this point. But three years was enough. Less time would have been a problem.

And I believe that is why he was so protective of people knowing who he was. It's a little bit like the way the Doctor lives a precarious life because of his abilities, becoming easily surrounded by both those who love and practically worship him and those who hate and fear and want to destroy him. In Series 6, this reaches a crux. He becomes too big, so big in fact that a war pretty much breaks out around him. And plans are put in place to remove him from the equation. As this becomes known to him, he realises just how powerful he has become and accepts his fate that he will be killed. Of course, at first he tries to escape it, but in the end, knowing he cannot stop it, he accepts that it will be better for the world if he is no longer there to cause such division. In the end, a series of events spiral into place and it does not end in the way he anticipated. But at least he is off the radar for now and the world can forget about him for a while.

Okay, so Jesus' story is so completely different, and I'll get to that. But I think the way the Doctor realises he is too big and needs to die is a nice illustration of why Jesus didn't want everyone knowing who he was or what he could do too soon. Of course, Jesus story deviates completely at this point. He knew he had to die all along, but the reason was completely different. The very reason he came to earth in the first place and was born a human was so that he could die. His death was a sacrifice. Not for peace in a world aligned or opposed to him. If anything his death caused the opposite, as his new followers were continually persecuted for their faith in him (and the battle between those for and against him has never really ended). His death was the sacrifice for humanity that the punishment for mankind's sins could be taken on one man and mankind could receive forgiveness and redemption and be reunited with the God we forsook at the creation of the world.

The Doctor was prepared to die because he felt it would be better for the world/universe if he wasn't around. Jesus went to die because he knew it would be better for the world if sin were conquered and a way made for man to renew his relationship with God. And a significant difference was that Jesus knew he would rise again. He wasn't getting out of the picture - he was becoming the centre of it. Jesus' death wasn't about dying and ceasing to exist, it was about death (and the spiritual agony of a condemned man being forsaken by God) being the punishment for sin. Death wasn't the end because he was sinless and death could not hold a man punished for sins he did not commit.

The Doctor is such a likeable person and his imagined reality so attractive it's easy to wish it was real. But there was (I believe) a man who lived the most incredible life, had the most incredible power and saved the world in a way the Doctor would not even realise it needed saving. Not everyone believes Jesus is real, or he really did the things the Gospels tell us he did. But I believe them and that makes me so excited. And he loves our world more than the Doctor ever could. And he wants a relationship with each and every one who is willing. He wants us to be his companions and to go on adventures with him that would boggle the imagination of even the writers of Doctor Who.

Not everyone accepts this adventure. Like those the Doctor meets on his travels, some say "No thanks, I like my life, I couldn't travel with you." But for those that accept it, we're stuck on the adventure of a lifetime. And it never ends. No teary goodbyes. No moving on. Just a lifetime and then eternity with him.

We live in a pretty awesome world and serve a pretty awesome God.

Remembering You

The following came about as a spin-off of my Susan Fiction, The Lost Seed. We know what Aslan said to Lucy and Edmund at the end of their last trip to Narnia - described in one of the most beautiful sections of the Chronicles. We are not, however, privy to the similar conversation which he had with Peter and Susan at the end of their last trip. We'll never know what transpired. But this is my imaginative attempt at describing how the conversation might have gone. The Chronicles of Narnia, land of Narnia and characters are not my own but the inventions of CS Lewis. As is the setting for this piece. BookVerse Only.

 

It was a beautiful morning. The early sun poured into the clearing as though all were newly made and fresh. The feast last night seemed far away, like some distant but pleasant memory. Peter and Susan sat together, deep in conversation. They discussed all that had happened, considered the merits of Narnia’s new young King, and wondered over what it was that Aslan planned to do with the prisoners and Telmarines who had been summoned to appear before him that day.

“All will be revealed in due course,” said a deep but beautiful voice, interrupting their discussion. “But that is for later. For now, will you walk with me son of Adam and daughter of Eve? There are some more pressing matters we must speak of first.” The two elder Pevensie children got up quickly and followed the Lion without a question. 

For a while the three walked in silence, one child on either side of the Lion. Aslan told them then that he would soon send them back to their own world. They were not surprised at this, as they knew that they had accomplished what they came to do. Unlike last time, Narnia had a capable ruler, and their time in Narnia would be brief. Aslan ordered Susan to bring the children’s school clothes to the gathering later that day so they could change before he sent them back. They walked on a bit longer in silence, before Aslan stopped and spoke again.

“And now, son of Adam, Ddaughter of Eve, it is time we said our proper good-byes, before rejoining the others.”

The children turned to face him, taken aback by this. Why couldn’t he wait until they all bade their farewells together, with Caspian and the Narnians present, and Edmund and Lucy? Why this private parting? Susan felt the hairs on her neck stand up with a sense of foreboding.

“But we shall see you again soon, shan’t we?” asked Susan, voicing their surprise. As she looked into his beautiful deep eyes, so full of both the joy and pains that the weight of this world brought him, she thought she could see something almost akin to sorrow.  Though this seemed like far less painful a sorrow than before, it reminded Susan of another day, so very long ago, when she and Lucy had walked with him by night.

 

“Oh Aslan, what’s wrong?” she asked.

Aslan seemed then to smile, a kind of wistful smile. “Nothing at all is wrong, dear,” he replied “All is just as it should be. But this will be the last time you and your brother come to Narnia and the last time you see me like this. You are growing up, my children. Again. And this time it must be in your world.”

“Oh Aslan,” said Susan, burying her arms in his soft hair. Peter too, hugged his mane, but with less obvious emotion. It seemed almost as though he had expected that this day would come.

The Lion continued then, explaining why it must be so. “You children have been called to Narnia, twice now, for two reasons: for the sake of Narnia and for your own sakes. For the Narnians, that you might bring them hope and freedom. And for yourselves, that you might learn to have faith.”

After a short silence, Peter spoke up. “Faith in what, Aslan?”

Aslan looked into his eyes, as though baring into his very soul. “Not in what, son of Adam, faith in whom? You have both served me well in this world. But now you must learn to serve me in yours.”

Peter and Susan looked at one another. They knew what he meant. They had often spoken before with each other about the unusual characteristics of Aslan, and they knew the similarities were not accidental. But Susan felt she had to ask the question.

“Aslan, does that mean…”

“I Am. You know, Susan, that I Am. You have always known this. And this is why I need both of you there now more than here. Your world is going through dark days. Some of the worst are yet to come, though a period of relief is not far off. I need men and women, boys and girls, who can stand for me in the days ahead. Narnia has been restored again, and the truth will be made known throughout the land. But in your world there is dire need of people to stand for what is right, just and true. I need you there.”

The children were silent again for a while. Peter spoke up first. “We will serve you with our utmost, as we have here. I will dedicate my life to studying your truth. And when I am a grown man, I will use the talents you have given me to make your truth known to our world as it is here.”

Aslan looked on him with pride mixed with something deeper, almost pity. “You speak well, son of Adam, and your motives are noble as they have always been. But be not too eager to grow up, and plan not too far ahead. Do what you can to serve me each day as it comes into your power.”

There again, was a hint of sorrow in Aslan’s voice, as if there were something he knew but could not speak of.

Suddenly, their conversation was interrupted by a different voice calling out.

“Peter, there you are! Caspian is looking for you!” It was Edmund. Peter turned to Aslan questioning what he should do, and the Lion nodded.

“Go, son of Adam. Use these few remaining hours to share your wisdom with the new King of Narnia. And remember your resolution to serve me. Your sister will keep me company a little longer.”

As the two brothers walked off, Aslan turned back to Susan.

“I know I’m not as good as Peter, but I will try my best when I get back to our world,” the girl ventured, not sure exactly what to say.

“Susan,” he spoke gravely, “I do not doubt that you will try your best. But know that it’s not goodness I want from you, but faithfulness. And the power to stay firm will come from me, not your own resolve. Don’t forget that, Susan. Don’t forget me.”

“How could I ever forget you?” she asked, indignant.

“You will not see me in your world as you do here. I operate differently there, and the days of men seeing me in person came to an end at the fulfilled time. You know this, but you don’t realise how it can make the temptation to forget easier. Remember in the woods when Lucy could see me but the rest of you could not? Remember how easy you found it to dismiss her words as those of a child with a wild imagination?”

Susan nodded, tears beginning to well up. She felt rebuke and shame although she knew she’d been forgiven.

“Take that experience as a warning, Susan. For that is how it will be in your world.” Susan buried her head again in the Lion’s mane and he let her stay there for some time.

“Come, daughter of Eve,” said at last. “Let me breathe on you one last time and fill you again with courage. Your spirit is willing, but your will weak.”

As he breathed on her, his sweet breath, she felt his strength enter her mind one last time. But would it be enough?  

In Defence of Language Study: What is Linguistics?

 A little blurb on Linguistics for those of you wondering what on earth it is that I study...

Most people who have heard of Linguistics before know that it has something to do with languages. But beyond that, the general understanding of the subject becomes somewhat murky. As a relatively "new" and somewhat specialised subject, there is a lot of confusion around what it is all about and what linguists are actually interested in. The purpose of this post is to share a rough outline of what Linguistics is really about, at least in the understanding I have developed after studying it for the last five years.

What is Linguistics:

Traditionally we refer to it as "the science of language" but that is a slightly confusing and not very enlightening description. It is a science, but not a "hard science", and therefore belongs to the Humanities or Arts. Some might prefer to call it a Human Science, or even a Social Science, but not even these boxes are quite where it fits. It draws inspiration from a range of fields including: language teaching, literature studies, the classics, maths, the social sciences, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, geography, computer science, neuroscience, anatomy, medicine, acoustics, biology, genetics...the list could go on. In a way, it is one of the truly multi-disciplinary subjects. And yet it requires its own specialisation and jargon.

What Linguistics is not:

There are two common misconceptions regarding what Linguistics is about. Firstly, Linguistics is not about learning lots of languages. It is not about learning any languages. It is about understanding the phenomenon that is Language. A linguist does not need to be fluent in many languages. A person who is so would more appropriately be referred to as a Language Scholar, Language Expert or a Polyglot. Some linguists are polyglots. Some polyglots are linguists. The two are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive. Knowing many languages - especially different kinds of languages - will naturally contribute to understanding more about Language. But it is not a pre-requisite. If you are, like me, not a natural polyglot (you don't pick up languages easily or naturally) you can still do well in linguistics. Of course, as linguists, we deal with many different languages in trying to grapple with the phenomenon of Language. And to be a good linguist, it helps if you have had lessons in different languages and know things about the rules of their grammar. But learning about a language and its rules is not the same as being fluent in that language. And while fluency in many languages is preferable, it's not necessary. 

The second misconception is that Linguistics is about "rules of grammar" - grammatical and linguistic "correctness". Most linguists are not "grammar police". Our job is not to go around telling people how to speak and why they are speaking wrong. It is not to bemoan the decline in grammatical/language aptitude of our current generation, to preserve the perfection that is a language and to go around correcting and teaching those that can't speak properly. And even if we were interested in that, it is most definitely not about neat writing, correct spelling and punctuation. Writing, spelling and punctuation (in particular) are not Language. They are a means of expressing language but are largely human constructs. There are, of course, reasons why uniformity in these areas is important and useful to society (especially for clarity of expression and avoiding misunderstandings) but that is not the interest of the linguist.

The linguist is interested primarily in Language. That is our concern. What is Language and how does it work? That probably sums up the best what Linguistics is about.

Linguistics is the study of how language works

If we take the statement above as our starting point, all the sub-fields that make up the science of Linguistics fall nicely into place. Linguistics needs to be thought of as a super-discipline: an over-arching term that covers a whole range of sub-fields, some of which are and operate very differently from each other. In the same way the (hard) sciences may be divided up into chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology etc. so does Linguistics have many sub-fields. Unlike experts in the hard sciences, linguists are generally expected to have expertise in a few different (even seemingly unrelated) sub-fields of Linguistics. In part this is because it is still a relatively new discipline (in its current form, that is) and hasn't reached the level of specialisation some of the hard sciences have, and in part because the various disciplines, though different and able to be treated in isolation, do in fact influence each other.

So what are these sub-disciplines? Well they all address the question of how the phenomenon that is language works. But they do so in different ways.  

Sociolinguistics looks at how language works in society. It addresses issues such as dialect variation, identity, and bilingualism within communities, at the level of small social groups and at national level. It examines the role and interaction of different languages within a society and how power-relations are played out through those languages.

Psycholinguistics looks at how language works in the human mind. How are individual languages acquired and learnt by children and adults? How are mental thoughts converted into spoken language and how is spoken language understood and de-constructed back into mental thoughts by those who hear or read it? The related field of Neurolinguistics looks at how language is physically processed by the brain. Which parts of the brain are responsible for processing language, what kinds of language formations are more difficult for the brain to process and why, and how are brain defects related to language defects?

Historical Linguistics looks at how languages are related to one another. What "genetic" connections are there between the different languages of the world and how and why do languages change over time (why do dialects, and eventually different languages, develop)? It looks at trying to understand, through reconstruction, rules of sound and grammatical change within the history of language groups.

Then there is a group of sub-fields within linguistics that may be grouped together under the heading Formal Linguistics. These fields look at how Language works internally by analysing the different building blocks that make up Language. These sub-fields, in particular, can use very formal methods derived from mathematics and logic. Phonetics and Phonology look at the underlying sounds used by humans to string together words and sentences. They examine particular rules that govern how these sounds are combined to derive different meanings. Semantics and Pragmatics look at the meaning behind individual words, how these words are combined to convey larger amounts of information, and how meaning is related and conveyed by different contexts. Morphology looks at how individual words are formed in different languages and made more precise by combining root meanings with semantically meaningful or grammatical forms like prefixes and suffixes. Syntax examines sentence structure and the way words of different types (nouns, verbs, adjectives, function words etc.) are combined according to particular rules in different languages to convey meaning.

The last two fields make up what you may more generally know as "grammar". But again, what we are interested in as linguists is not whether grammar is used "correctly" or not, so much as what the "natural" rules underlying the grammars of different languages are, why they work like that and why there are differences in different languages.

I've tried to keep this description simple, but it is hard to convey accurately what Linguistics is about without getting into technical terms. This, in a nutshell, sums up the basic ideas behind Linguistics and the focus of the different sub-fields. It is not an exhaustive description, and perhaps not even fully accurate. But the idea was to convey the gist of it.

Many of these fields are still in early stages of development and there is a lot of contention and debate within each field. Although language is something every human being is familiar with, it is also abstract and intangible; especially when one is trying to work out how language works in the mind or how the internal structure of a language is built up. No one can physically see or measure these things and so we are working with many theories and conjectures. Like with other sciences that deal with the intangible, it means there are disputes. But we are not simply grasping at straws. We use scientific methods to test our theories and have some evidence for their correctness. But we still have a long way to go.

And that, in part, is why I study Linguistics. There is still so much to learn about how language works. This amazing ability which we use almost every day of our lives and which almost every linguist will tell you is unique to humans is so very little understood. In the same way a biologist studies a life form to try and learn better what beautiful creatures exist in our world and what makes up this complex thing called life; in the same way an astronomer studies cosmic phenomena to better understand what is out there in the universe, and perhaps through that seeks for understanding in how our universe is made up; so the linguist wishes to study this beautiful and complex ability called Language.

Not all linguistics would feel the same, but for me, as a Christian who believes language was created and built into our genetic make-up by God, as a means of communicating with one another and hence enriching our lives, I can think of few better things to do than study this amazing ability with which he has blessed us. And in understanding these things, to gain a better appreciation for the great God whose imagination and power brought such a great phenomenon to be.

So that is what Linguistics is all about and why I study it. I hope it has shed some light on what I spend my time doing. I plan a follow-up post looking into more detail about why Linguistics is important to me, the Descriptive versus Prescriptive debate (which relates to the issue of grammatical correctness) and what that means to me as a Christian.