"Mastery"

[Androthelm]

Hey all

Does anyone have good sources -- either outside scholarship or quoting directly from the text of Tolkien's writings -- about the terms "Master" and "Mastery"? I'm working on a bit of an essay on the topic, and wanted to get a sense of things I might be missing. I mean "Mastery" in terms of Tom Bombadil being "Master" of his land and (perhaps?) Sauron's "Mastery" of the Rings -- so, Sam calling Frodo "Master" is interesting, but not 100% relevant. So far I have:

Tom is "Master"
Gandalf "do[es] not seek mastery"
Treebeard is the Master of the Wood
Sauron's "Mastery" of the Rings
Gollum's oath to "serve the master of the Precious."

Anything I ought to add, or outside work I should read? Any relevant Letters that y'all can think of?

[Boromir88]

Good to see you back @Androthelm. I actually picked up where I left off reading the books all those months ago. As I was reading The Siege of Gondor the word "master" or "mastered" come up frequently! And what's interesting is it seems Tolkien uses the word to get across different meanings.

Denethor is a Ruling Steward, it's a position that comes with power and authority, the Stewards are charged with the rulership of Gondor, "until the King comes again." In the Siege of Gondor, "master" is associated with Denethor many times. He is called "Master of his [Faramir] council." Pippin and Denethor's servants have an exchange:

At the door he turned to one of the servants who had remained on guard there. 'Your master is not himself,' he said. 'Go now! Bring no fire to this place while Faramir lives! Do nothing until Gandalf comes!'

'Who is the master of Minas Tirith?' the man answered. 'The Lord Denethor or the Grey Wanderer.'

"Master," when it's associated with Denethor it's possessive, it means ownership. Denethor is "master of Minas Tirith," and "master of Faramir's council," it denotes his position of authority/ownership in those matters.

It's quite different from Bombadil. When the hobbits hear "Tom is Master" they aren't able to fully understand, they ask what he "owns." Goldberry is equally confused by the hobbits question and says he doesn't own anything, but just "he is Master." I think it's related to Gandalf and Denethor's conversation about Stewardship vs. stewardship:

"If you understand it, then be content," returned Denethor. "Pride would be folly that disdained help and counsel at need; but you deal out such gifts according to your own designs. Yet the Lord of Gondor is not to be made the tool of other men's purposes, however worthy. And to him there is no purpose higher in the world as it now stands than the good of Gondor; and the rule of Gondor, is mine and no other man's, unless the king should come again."
"Unless the king should come again?" said Gandalf. "Well, my lord Steward, it is your task to keep some kingdom still against that event, which few now look to see. In that task you shall have all the aid that you are pleased to ask for. But I will say this" the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor, nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anythig else passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flawer again in days to come. For I am a steward. Did you not know?" (Minas Tirith)

The difference between Denethor's "Steward" and Gandalf's "steward" is intentional to show different meanings of the word. And I think we get the same differences in how "master" is used. Tom (and Gandalf) are "masters" but I would say it means they are masters of themselves. They're not masters in terms of having ownership/possession over anything, other than themselves. When "master" is used with Denethor, it seems to be closer associated to Sauron. Denethor is not his own master, but he is the "master" of possessions, because he is the Steward of Gondor and the "rule of Gondor, is mine and no other man's."

Hope that helps and good to see you back.

[Androthelm]

Hey hey @Boromir88, that was incredibly helpful! To pull the curtain back a little bit -- I'm trying to write a bit of something about exactly the difference you've noted there, between 'Mastery' as a potentially aspirational thing in Tom's case, which is to say (I think, anyway) 'Mastery' in the sense of a skill and deep connection, in the sense that Saruman might be called a 'Master' of Ring-lore, and 'Mastery' in a Melkor-y way of seizing and controlling -- in line with your reading of Denethor, here, which I agree with. I'll add him to the list

[Chrysophylax Dives]

hi @Androthelm, like @Lailyn's 'isolation' on another thread, your term seems an acute one for thinking about LOTR and Tolkien. But where (political) isolation is something I've long thought about in relation to Appeasement and WWII and the turn of the story in Moria, it never before occurred to me to think on the word 'master'. I'm curious what you end up with (and hoping you tell us!)

Two thoughts to add to your pot. Firstly, I have most of JRRT's writing in digital and so searchable form. Opening FOTR, what you immediately find is that 'Master' is introduced into the story as a conventional Shire term, recalling (of course) slightly antiquated (say, late Victorian) English usage. The number of Masters is quite remarkable - Master Everard Took, with a Miss Melilot Brandybuck, start dancing on a table before Bilbo finishes his going-away speech, Bilbo always calls the Gaffer 'Master Hamfast', many copies of the Red Book were made for the descendants of the Gaffer's son, Master Samwise, and so on. And turning to Farmer Giles, though the dog calls the farmer 'master' - lower case - two of the main persons of Ham refer to each other, at least when being ironically polite, as Master Aegidius and Master Miller.

Secondly, and as a next step, while I appreciate the stories speak for themselves, if you are asking about Tolkien and his intentions then, in exploring this term, your starting point must be philology, the study of the origin and history of words, for the man was a philologist, and so you should absolutely look up the term in the OED. As a cheat, I looked up the etymology of 'master' online (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=master, where the first thing we are given is the verb:

c. 1200, maistren, "to get the better of, prevail against; reduce to subjugation," from master (n.) and also from Old French maistriier, Medieval Latin magistrare. Meaning "acquire complete knowledge of, overcome the difficulties of, learn so as to be able to apply or use" is from 1740s. Related: Mastered; mastering.

The noun entry that follows is much longer, and takes us to the title of Master as given in the Shire and in Ham, as of course also much else. But the first part of the verb definition - to get the better of - seems to pin precisely Goldberry's intended meaning when she declares that Tom is Master. It is not just that Tom cannot be caught - and so cannot be reduced to subjugation - but also that his getting the better of all who attempt to subjugate him (in the 1934 poem Old Man Willow, a barrow-wight, and a badger all try to catch Tom) is bound up with his 'knowing the tune' of all he encounters (as he himself puts it in relation to Willowman).

I'm sure that could be put better, and is not at all thought through on my part. But I'm quite struck by how neatly that meaning of the verb fits with a meaning of Goldberry's title that makes sense - an element of the story that I'd never made sense of before; which seems to me evidence that the term you bring to the story is acute, and likely to draw out all sorts of meanings (as @Boromir88's current pursuit of Denethor already indicates).

PS. I added a third thought on The Hobbit vs. The Silm thread.

[Boromir88]

The noun entry that follows is much longer, and takes us to the title of Master as given in the Shire and in Ham, as of course also much else. But the first part of the verb definition - to get the better of - seems to pin precisely Goldberry's intended meaning when she declares that Tom is Master. It is not just that Tom cannot be caught - and so cannot be reduced to subjugation - but also that his getting the better of all who attempt to subjugate him (in the 1934 poem Old Man Willow, a barrow-wight, and a badger all try to catch Tom) is bound up with his 'knowing the tune' of all he encounters (as he himself puts it in relation to Willowman).

Fascinating. I never thought it's almost like the opposite of the word. Tom cannot be subjugated, but as you say it's more than that, he "gets the better" of all who attempt to subjugate him. I always thought "Tom is Master" as being a language barrier between the hobbits and Goldberry, because Goldberry doesn't understand Frodo's question.

...'He is the Master of wood, water, and hill.'
'Then all this strange land belongs to him?'
'No indeed!' she answered, and her smile faded. 'That would indeed be a burden,' she added in a low voice, as if to herself. 'The trees and the grasses and all things growing or living in the land belong each to themselves. Tom Bombadil is the Master. No one has ever caught old Tom walking in the forest, wading in the water, leaping on the hill-tops under light and shadow. He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master.' (In the House of Tom Bombadil)

The hobbits would define "master" as "to prevail against, reduce to subjugation." In the same way Denethor is the "master of Minas Tirith." Minas Tirith is under Denethor's subjugation, the rule of Gondor "belongs" to Denethor. This type of mastery, from Goldberry's understanding of the word, would be burdens. To "master" - to seek the subjugation of wills, lands, objects - increases a person's burdens. It's as if the things you seek to master is a physical and mental strain that comes with a price (they become burdens). Melkor and Sauron's mastery, they end up over-extending themselves, because they seek subjugation over everything.

I think Denethor is in some ways the same, but in some ways different. What I mean is the "rule of Gondor" is by right, and legally, Denethor's. Would this lessen the burden on Denethor? Perhaps. I think where Denethor goes wrong though, is he over-extends himself, increasing his burdens. He attempts to master the palantir, he is the "master of Faramir's council" and in the end, he would not have relinquished being the "Master of Minas Tirith" to Aragorn, or anyone else. Because in Denethor's eyes, Isildur's line is: "a ragged house long bereft of Lordship." (The Pyre of Denethor)

Gandalf asks Denethor what would he have then, if Denethor could have his way; and the word "master" pops up again in his response...

'I would have things as they were in all the days of my life,' answered Denethor, 'and in the days of my longfathers before me: to be the Lord of this City in peace, and leave my chair to a son after me, who would be his own master and no wizard's pupil.' (The Pyre of Denethor)

Denethor can only define "master" as to "reduce to subjugation" that's how he views everything, and thus Gandalf has "mastered" Faramir.
Denethor believes Faramir is a "wizard's pupil." But Gandalf is not the master of Faramir and Denethor cannot see that.

[Androthelm]

Thanks so much for all responses -- @Chrysophylax Dives please do not hesitate to give outside advice like that! It's exactly the hole in my own knowledge I'm looking to patch (my own academic background, while occasionally helpful when it comes to Tolkien, is far far away from this stuff).

So, to recap what we've got so far -- I'm feeling pretty good about my initial thought that there are (at least) two different definitions of 'Master(y)' that we're looking at here, with a negative form exemplified by Denethor's possessive mastery over Gondor -- mastery when it ought to be stewardship, that is. I'm reminded of Ulmo's warning to Turgon, to "love not too well the work of [his] hands and the devices of [his] heart" when building Gondolin, and remember from where true hope and salvation will come -- which ties things back, Chrys to the conversation in the other thread on Isolation. Isolation and belief in one's own Mastery (over works, possessions, devices) seem to go hand in hand. That's where Sauron fits -- a craftsman who, rather than love his craft for its own sake, seeks to dominate it and use it to dominate ('Master') others.

On the other end of thing, we have the kind of Master which Goldberry applies to Tom. I think @Boromir88 is right in acknowledging that Denethor's sort of Mastery would indeed seem a burden to Goldberry -- although there is some overlap, in that one of Denethor's greatest fears is being Mastered by another. Consistent to both definitions -- both the objective, where one masters another, and the individualized (we might call it nominative, ha!) where one is one's own master and the idea of others "belong[ing]" to you, as the Hobbits assume Mastery must entail, is burdensome -- is the idea of personal freedom from tyranny, which I think is significant through all Tolkien's work -- appearing even in Mythopoeia, where the speaker says:

I bow not yet before the Iron Crown,
nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.

Now, I am less sure about some of our other examples: the Hobbit-use of Master as a title doesn't seem, to me, to fit into either of these definitions well -- at least, not anymore. Although the Frodo and Friends draw assumptions about ownership from the phrase "Master of wood, water, and hill" in the common use as a title this implication seems (at least partially) lost -- the appendixes tell us that 'Master' Everard is in fact quite a young hobbit, and Bilbo call the Gaffer 'Master' respectfully despite a fairly distinct class difference between the two. I think your examples from Farmer Giles, Chrys, might be the most helpful -- Master is being used as a term of respect, sometimes ironically and sometimes not -- probably ironically in the case of Everard, and probably with genuine care in the case of the Gaffer. So we have a third use of master, which is something more similar to our modern English usage of the term 'Gentleman' -- one no longer needs to be of high birth to be addressed in the group 'Ladies and Gentlemen.' But if that's the case -- how do we read the confusion of the Hobbits when Goldberry says "Master'"?

What I think, having considered all of this, is that the issue actually lies in the preposition which immediately follows -- Tom is "Master of wood, water, and hill.". Is that 'Master of' meaning Master over, as the Hobbits assume, or might it be Master of as in Master from, that is Master-who-is-of-the-Wood in the same sense a Tree of-the-Wood, of-the-Water as a fish is of-the-Water, and of-the-Hill as a Hobbit, perhaps, might be of-the-Hill? That seems to me to fit Tom better, both in personality and in his relationship to the land and 'Mastery', our perfect example of the 'Nominative.'

Does that... make sense to anyone? y'all agree? Disagree? The conversation is very helpful, especially once I get this thing writing.

[Vorondir]

Mastery seems to me to mean control and responsibility, either earned or inherited. But most importantly it is a word signifying a feudal world's most important social construct. Perhaps it would not be very far fetched to claim that Mastery (and Service--the other side of the same coin) is one of the central themes in the Lord of the Rings.

In The Two Towers, Aragorn recites the "Lament for the Rohirrim":

Where now the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the hand on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing?
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning,
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?

This lament is clearly based on the Anglo-Saxon poem The Wanderer which features an almost identical verse:

Where has the horse gone?
Where has the young man gone?
Where has the treasure-giver gone?
Where have the seats of the feasts gone?
Where are the hall-­joys?

It's a poem about the grief of a warrior who has lost his Master. It paints a colourful picture of a time when the relationship between master and servant was that of loyal friendship, employer and employee, mentor and mentee, all wrapped into one; the kind of relationship that provided the backbone of feudal society. It is an intense and emotional bond:

Therefore knows he who must do without counsels of his beloved friend-­lord for a long time:
when sorrow and sleep at the same time together often bind the wretched solitary one,
it seems to him in his mind that he embraces and kisses his liege lord and on his knee lays hands and head,
as he at times before in days gone by enjoyed the giving-­seat.

He has lost his master and now he is condemened to walk the earth alone. Because who will trust him? Who will take him in? The job market is not a thing yet; you're either serving the family you were born into or you are a vagrant and a wanderer. Neither master nor serf--no longer a legitimate part of society. That is why Aragorn's fate is supposed to be so harsh, I think. He experiences life at the lowest rank of a feudal society.

And the relationship, of course, has a romantic dimension. The servant is grateful to the master for all that they offer, materially and spiritually. The master, I expect, has a sense of profound duty towards their ward. The two of them are no less than family to each other. They love each other. Such is the relationship between Frodo and Sam (technically an employer and an employee, but in an old timey-er sense, perhaps, that echoed feudal norms--Sam's father would have tended Bilbo's garden, I expect). That kind of romance is hinted at even between perfect strangers who slip into these roles; Denethor and Pippin, Theoden and Merry, Aragorn and Boromir, etc..

Admittedly one can be a poor master (such as Denethor) or a bad servant (such as Grima). But in the eyes of the characters in these stories, the relationship itself is inevitable--it's a staple of their world.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hi @Vorondir - what an excellent post! (I cannot resist copying this link" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gbf_mJRIHg to a translation into Old English of Tolkien's 'Horse and Rider')

At a basic level you have hit the nail on the head, not least in that Sauron and the Rings is a sort of perversion of the Lord who rewards his followers with gifts of rings (as, e.g. in Beowulf).

I have some questions, though, which are primarily historical. On a trivial level, surely 'feudal' is not the right term here - that is the kind of much more rigid landed society that grew out of this Anglo-Saxon world (with some Norman help). Use of the term is not so important but it does lead me to wonder if the same 'Heroic Age' ideas of master and follower as found in Rohan hold also for Minas Tirith? These two societies are envisaged as at very different moments of historical development, with the Rohirrim the more primitive or Homeric and so, presumably, with somewhat different notions of the relationship between lord and follower. Your account of the Anglo-Saxon ideas fits naturally with Rohan but does it fit so readily with Gondor? And following the same line of thought, is what we find in the Shire just an antiquated leftover of the kind of social relations still found in Rohan? Which is to say, what are we to make of the Frodo-Sam relationship in terms of mastery? And finally, of course, is 'Bombadil is Master' another offshoot of the same heroic age notion or something else entirely?

PS. @Androthelm it is not that I am ignoring your post it is just that it is a lot to think about! But one thing - I like the feel of your introduction of 'nominative'.

[Vorondir]

@Chrysophylax Dives , yes, that's quite right! Perhaps the better epithet would be "Manorial".

Manorialism specifically refers to the evolution of the Roman Villa system, featuring a fortified manor house and its dependents, while Feudalism implies that one may occupy and live in an estate that owes military service or labor to an overlord. This ethos of Mastery & Service, however, is prevalent in both, and I'd go one further; the Edwardian British Empire, in which Tolkien grew up, inherited some of that culture in the way that it stratified the classes of its society (what Bertie Wooster refers to as "the proper feudal spirit"). It would be proper for someone in the serving class to know their place and be grateful for what was offered. Accordingly, it would be proper for an employer or an officer to take interest in the well-being of their underlings, and perhaps even take an interest in the welfare of their families.

Rohan is Anglo-Saxon and manorial. Gondor is an advanced, feudal version of it, more conscious perhaps of the ancient Empire from whence it came and retaining some more complex structures.

The Shire, in my mind, is anachronistic. It's a fantasy version of the Edwardian English countryside of Tolkien's youth.

Tom Bombadil, to me, is, literally, Michael Tolkien's doll. When I learned that piece of trivia, I couldn't shake the notion that he is an entity beyond the fourth wall and thus cannot be really influenced by this world or ever be wholly (and dangerously) immersed in the story. Is this a sort of mastery? A sort of mastery that perhaps we, as readers, all share? I have no idea...

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Manorialism specifically refers to the evolution of the Roman Villa system, featuring a fortified manor house and its dependents, while Feudalism implies that one may occupy and live in an estate that owes military service or labor to an overlord. This ethos of Mastery & Service, however, is prevalent in both...

Images of Baldrick in Black Adder spring to mind. I'm still not quite happy with the terminology, though. Your Manorialism has a British-Roman foundation, but what Tolkien seems to have been after was a pre-Roman Germanic social relationship, as in whatever the deal was with the English tribes before they came to Britain, which is dimly discernible in Beowulf, or at least Tolkien thought so. (By the by, the term 'Heroic Age' was coined to describe this kind of society, not in reference to land but rather charismatic leadership of a warband in a time of social upheaval. But I don't think Tolkien bought into this kind of picture of the Migration Age and I'm fairly sure he does not use the term.)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Androthelm, what news on your essay?

[Androthelm]

@Chrysophylax Dives coming together! Got swamped with work this week but I'm hopeful I'll have at least something rough in the next few days.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Chrysophylax Dives coming together! Got swamped with work this week but I'm hopeful I'll have at least something rough in the next few days.

:) Thought you would say something like that. You bit off quite a lot on this one!

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Does anyone have good sources -- either outside scholarship or quoting directly from the text of Tolkien's writings -- about the terms "Master" and "Mastery"? I'm working on a bit of an essay on the topic, and wanted to get a sense of things I might be missing. I mean "Mastery" in terms of Tom Bombadil being "Master" of his land and (perhaps?) Sauron's "Mastery" of the Rings -- so, Sam calling Frodo "Master" is interesting, but not 100% relevant. So far I have:

Tom is "Master"
Gandalf "do[es] not seek mastery"
Treebeard is the Master of the Wood
Sauron's "Mastery" of the Rings
Gollum's oath to "serve the master of the Precious."

Anything I ought to add, or outside work I should read? Any relevant Letters that y'all can think of?

Pondering all this, what about Galadriel? Like Gandalf, she does not seek mastery, and in fact she goes beyond Gandalf in refusing even to offer counsel. With regards to others she is as passive as a mirror, merely reflecting them back to themselves. But in the great scene with the Mirror, where Frodo offers her the One, do we not see the greatest act of self-mastery in the story?

[Androthelm]

Pondering all this, what about Galadriel?

Every time you reply to this thread I delay the essay two more days

That being said... Yeah. I think you're right, and it brings up a whole new can of worms for discussion. We've talked about Mastery almost exclusively in terms of one mastering another -- Sauron mastering the Ring, Frodo as Sam's and Gollum's Master, etc -- but what about mastery of the self? Galadriel, as you point out, demonstrates it -- but Gandalf seems to believe that he could not, or at least would not, if offered the ring and taking it into his keeping. He does exercise the same self-mastery in the moment, since he refuses the Ring, but, like Galadriel, he refuses because he knows it would overcome him in the end -- he would not be able to keep self-mastery forever, and the Ring would master him.

I suspect that the most helpful comparison is actually go back to Tom, whose mastery is non-possessive and carries a touch of that self-control. Tom would also be a bad Ring-bearer -- not because it would master him but because it would have so little bearing that he would eventually, inevitably, lose it. Which is interesting in its own right -- it's the only way Tom is really criticized in Rings, that and by saying that his land will eventually fall too -- and that he will not act until it is surrounded. I wonder if there's a degree of overeager self-mastery we ought to consider -- self-mastery, that is, to the point of solipsism.

Quick edit: Tomorrow is my last day with the kids before they go on break. Hoping to hammer out a polished piece over the holidays. I'll make sure to link it here when it's up.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hi @Androthelm,

One other thought - which might have already been noted above, and which, though it seems important, i don't quite know myself what to do with. But the etymology at the root of things here seems to be the Latin, which gives us domus = house, then dominus = master of the house, and from here we get the English dominate (as well as domain, domestic, etc.)

I'm not sure how this helps, except that it seems (again) to point back to the House of Tom Bombadil.

Edit: I think we get domus -> dominus (house -> master) because the head of the house is master of the slaves of the house (and also the other family members). But immediately we turn to Bombadil we find a house shared with Goldberry and no hint of domination. So perhaps this is the precise place where Tolkien establishes the division, so that where Sauron seeks to master others here we have self-mastery? (Not put very clearly because I am not very clear on this.)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Your question itches, @Androthelm. You began by listing 5 personalities, and we have added some more to the mix. What about the One Ring? Does that not take the measure of each person's drive to mastery, self or other?

[Androthelm]

Your question itches, @Androthelm. You began by listing 5 personalities, and we have added some more to the mix. What about the One Ring? Does that not take the measure of each person's drive to mastery, self or other?

And then don't we get into the question of whether the Ring is really a distinct entity from Sauron? Or is it Sauron mastering the person, through the isolated catspaw of the Ring?

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Your question itches, @Androthelm. You began by listing 5 personalities, and we have added some more to the mix. What about the One Ring? Does that not take the measure of each person's drive to mastery, self or other?

And then don't we get into the question of whether the Ring is really a distinct entity from Sauron? Or is it Sauron mastering the person, through the isolated catspaw of the Ring?

That question indeed lurks and must be handled with care but is not insurmountable an obstacle. It is just that the relationship of the One to Sauron is different in kind from the relation of the One to everyone else (although Sauron and Bombadil share an opposite in this regard).

With Frodo and Boromir and everyone who is tempted by the One Ring, the Ring measures what they are, the qualities that help them resist the pull as well as the chinks in their armor that make them vulnerable. All have those chinks, even Gandalf and Galadriel and Faramir, except for Bombadil.

With Sauron on the other hand, his loss of the Ring = his loss of mastery; at the heart of the story is a Master who has lost his spell of mastery - though this center is shrouded in shadow and what is presented to us is rather threat - if the Enemy retakes the One all the land will be covered in a second darkness. All? In the end, as Gandalf (I think - someone at Rivendell) puts it, it will come down to the realization of the threat of the Dark Master and the actuality of Tom Bombadil, for whom the Ring appears no threat whatsoever. At Rivendell it is suggested that in this eventuality, Bombadil would fall. But there are grounds for suspecting confusion in their counsels concerning Bombadil and the Ring.

Anyway, I don't see the problem. Sauron has lost the One; many of those we meet in the story are tempted by the One; and Bombadil is Master (regardless of the One).

[Androthelm]

...In the end, as Gandalf (I think - someone at Rivendell) puts it...

I think it is Gandalf -- one of the elflords suggests Bombadil (along with throwing it into the Sea?) and Gandalf shoots it down.

That being said, thanks again for your comments. The link (or reflection, maybe?) between Bombadil and Sauron is interesting, and I'm going to try and incorporate it as we come around the final bend in this essay.