Thoughts on The Lord of the Rings

Kathleen E. Giligan, in her piece about the temptations of the one ring in The Lord of the Rings is trying to convince her audience that The Lord of the Rings has parallels to Christianity. The audience that she is trying to reach would most likely be people that are familiar with The Lord of the Rings. However she writes the piece in a way that makes sense even if you have never even heard of the series. 

     For example, when she first introduces the subject she explains what the subject actually is. She introduces The Lord of the Rings by going through the history of the bbok and what its preludes were etc. This gives the audience a chance (given they haven't already heard of the series) to understand and learn some of the background behind the text that she gets most of her information from and not to mention what her main argument is about. 

     Evidence is extremely important in this piece. In fact she uses great evidence in almost every claim that she makes. For example when she talks about Galadriel and the temptations that she faces when the ring is presented to her she makes a reference to the greek translation of test the term she used referring to Frodo presenting her the ring. This reference to the greek translation which is a common technique used in Christian sermons gives the feel of a valid point. As a reader when you see this, you are most likely more inclined to believe in the validity of the statement or point that the author is trying to make.

     The author begins the introduction by explaining what The Lord of the Rings  is actually about and it also gives some history about the book and the author themselves. Then the writing goes on to discuss how one can actually analyze The Lord of the Rings in the way the she (the author) is analyzing it. She goes on to explain how Tolkien allows his personal life to influence his writings and she uses that as a proving point for her main thesis. The piece goes on in a way that seems to kind of evolve. At first she talks about the history of the book and the history of the author and how that ties in to what the author is trying to say but then it becomes more and more detailed. The examples begin to use specific names and comparisons between the actual characters in the novel to Jesus Christ himself. This not only helps validate the authors point but also helps the reader not get lost in the complexities of the two literary works. Her transitions are at some points rocky like the transition from the parallel between Smeagol and Deagol and Cain and Abel to Gandalf. It kind of goes from Smeagol and Deagol and then suddenly Gandalf is in the picture and some people might not even know who he is. But her transitions also work very well in other areas specifically in the beginning of the piece when she is talking about analyzing The Lord of the Rings as a religious reading to what The Lord of the Rings is actually about.

      The authors' diction in this piece is rather easy to understand. It does not write to impress with multiple polysyllabic phrases and words, but it rather uses more of a vernacular diction. 

     Regarding the question: "Does the piece confound your expectations in any way?" My answer would have to be no. I am quite familiar with The Lord of the Rings and I have actually thought of the series as a religious reading. But as for the question about the rules that I have been old over the years, I don't think this really violates any of these rules. But I say this only because I had A.P. Comp last year and we had no rules. I am sure that if there was just a direct crossover form Honors English 10 and A.P. Lit. then this paper would have a multitude of mistakes regarding sentence structure, paragraph outlining and other things that have no significant relation to literature or the piece itself.