Dumbing down the Books

[Essex]

This thread follows on from “The Examples of dumbing down” thread in the movie section, as Eurytus and myself have been asked to carry on our argument somewhere else!

This thread is meant to be dealing with the supposed dumbing down of tolkien’s book to the movie. It has gone off on a tangent somewhat.

[Essex]

Eurtyus, my replies are in BOLD to your post as it would get confusing using quotes all over the place: (a few of my previous quotes you answer are left in)
Maybe for a film (or radio drama) adaptation, but not for a book
Pretty much corroborates my main point. You say it yourself, a film is not a book. Therefore changes have to be made.

I am not disagreeing that changes have to be made. This does not mean, however, DUMBING DOWN in many cases.
PS Tolkien built this book as part of his history of arda. he was a professor of anglo saxon as you may be aware. his stories are supposedly set 7,000 years ago, so he has (correctly) decided to give a more 'ancient' air to the language.
In regards to the above point. That is true of the Silmarillion. It was not originally true of the LOTR. That Tolkien later changes his mind is apparent from the sudden shift in the books tone subsequent to FOTR and especially after Rivendell. LOTR was originally started as a sequel to the Hobbit. Nothing more. Hence why Aragorn was originally a Hobbit called Trotter with wooden shoes!!

I don’t understand your point. The story starts in the shire (i.e. middle England). It then moves on to the broader world, where the language of the characters changes. What’s the problem with this? And yes I’ve read the return of the shadow. It shows the work tolkien did to make this story as perfect as possible. 10 years with numerous re-writes.
one of Jackson's worst decisions in my view was giving the orcs cockney accents. this is an example of the improper use of language. (I am almost a cockney (i.e. not within the sounds of bow bells where I was born, but about 10 miles away), and it was embarrassing to hear them speak like this).
Actually I can see why this decision was made. There is a precedent within Tolkien’s own writing. The Trolls in the Hobbit talk with a distinctly Cockney feel and this may well be where the idea came from.

Good point. But the trolls were not altogether evil. The orcs are. I hate to hear them with my kind of accent!
What motivation did the following have to 'follow' the ring in the film: 1/ Merry 2/ Pippin 3/ Legolas 4/ Gimli NOTHING. At least these characters had motivation in the book.
In my opinion their motivations were not much better handled in the book. Sometimes comically so. Legolas basically appeared to be on a jolly although it was hard to tell given his comparative muteness.

OK, motivations.

1/ Merry and Pippin. In the film they (out of the most ridiculous of coincidences) happen to ‘bump’ into Frodo and decide to follow him!!!!!!!! The biggest case of dumbing down in the entire film, really. In the book, they set up a conspiracy and explain their situation fully to Frodo in Crickhowell. In the council of Elrond they just run up and say the line ‘tie me up in a sack’ and Elrond then let’s them go. In the book the motivation for them to be allowed to go are explained by Gandalf to Elrond through FRIENDSHIP.

2/ Legolas. He turned up at the council of Elrond to apologise for the woodelves letting Gollum escape. This is motivation for legolas to earn some redemption for their mistake.

3/ gimli, son of gloin, whose father’s company’s trip through the mountains help get them into this situation in the first place! Also, he was sent to find an answer to sauron’s asking for details on the ring bearer and putting pressure on his people in the north. Helping to get rid of the ring was a perfect anecdote to this.


As to your other point,

The most IMPORTANT thing in ANY story, be it film radio or TV, is not character (that is second) but PLOT. Tolkien’s is flawless.
Whilst I disagree to some extent with the first point. Great characters can effectively do very little in terms of plot and still make a story interesting.
BUT NOT IMPORTANT

Whereas a great plot will still be hamstrung by paper-thin characters if we debate it we will get in endless debates about their relative importance. They are not paper thin. We feel for these characters. Just because we don’t see what they are thinking internally in their heads doesn’t mean they are paper-thin!

However as regards the second point. Well I regard that as well wide of the mark. Firstly I will say that I cannot think of any work of art that can be termed flawless. Perhaps only Ein Kleine Nachtmusik by Mozart and Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony come close to me. Fine, well Tolkien’s lotr then, comes CLOSE to flawless for me.

In fact, take Salieri’s comment about Mozart’s music in the film Amadeus, “take away one note and there would be diminishment, take away a phrase and the structure would fall.” That is about as close to a description of flawless as one could get. Does it apply to LOTR. In my opinion, clearly not. Music and literature are two different mediums. You are using one to try and justify your position on another.

So what do I think are the flaws in LOTR? Well a couple would be as follows;

1. The Dark Lord Sauron. A being of supreme evil, already somewhat of a cliché even by the time LOTR was written. Hell even the Wicked Witch had more characterisation than Sauron. The best villains for me are the ones you can understand. You may not agree with them, you may hate them, but you should be able to see why (in their opinion) what they are doing is desirable. Can this be said of Sauron? Not really. Why does he want to conquer Middle Earth? What would he do with it when he has conquered it? Why? Because he was the lieutenant of Morgoth. He is willing to enslave the whole of middle earth because it was not set to the designs of his master. He wants to destroy all that was created because his master, who was thrown down by the powers that be who created middle earth.

None of these questions are clearly answered and all you are left out is a cardboard cut-out villain. No, it’s called mysterious. What, do you want a Jackson type end to the book. Out comes sauron and battles Aragorn at the black gate!!!!!???? You see another excellent version of this mysterious foe in Dracula by Bram Stoker. He is hardly seen throughout most of the book, but is STILL an amazing villain. You do not need to see these villains, just seeing their ‘work’ is enough.

He is evil because, well he just is, and all you need to know is that he opposes the good guys. For a great villain study the character of Jaime in a Song of Fire and Ice. For the first two books he is seen through the eyes of other characters and you hate him. But by book three you start to see things through his eyes and whilst it does not diminish the evil that he does. You can, at least, see why he thinks it necessary. The mark of great writing in my opinion. Tolkien was writing a character of pure evil. I have not read SoFaI so I cannot reply to this.

2. The ring. The ring was the only thing that Tolkien could think of to tie his two books together. He had originally planned to have Bilbo try to return his treasure but then settled on the ring as the important element. As a result some aspects of the Ring seem a bit haphazard. Firstly why does Sauron forge it? Well for power would be the obvious answer but do we really see any examples of the power this grants him. No. We don’t. Indeed shortly after forging it he is shown the worthlessness of his ring when the Numenoreans scare him rigid. No they don’t! This was a power play. He pretended to be ‘scared’ as you put it as this was his plan for their downfall. And it worked perfectly!!!!!!!!

It is interesting to note that he brings about their downfall without needing to rely on the Rings great power at all. In the book it does not appear to avail him any in the battle with Elendil and Gil-Galad either. In fact it seems to be more of a problem than a benefit. What this is showing, is that the ring is not altogether powerful. Tom Bombadil shows this perfectly in the book, and this is why he is such an important character. It still took the last alliance (or penultimate as Jackson no doubt calls it) 7 years to oust sauron from barad-dur, with the deaths of the 2 main protagonists to boot! Doesn’t appear to avail him? I think it does!

3. The Orcs. It has to be said that creating a race for your book that is born evil and incapable of anything other than evil is a little lazy. Basically it allows your pure-blooded heroes to slaughter thousands of them with total impunity. Far better to have some more shades of grey in there I think. Why? You have your shades of grey perfectly written by Sam’s thoughts on the (easterling?) who falls near his feet in ithilien. These people drawn into battle are not purely evil, but the orcs where created as a killing machine specifically for the purpose of evil.

4. Not dealing with the more interesting moral questions. One of the ones that interests me is the question of the Dunlendings. In the distant past they were evicted of their land by the blond haired, blue eyed Rohirrim. When they ally with Saruman to attempt to get their land back they are given a damn good kicking. Why is no attempt made to deal with the legitimacy of the Dunlendings claim to live on that land. Was it right that the Rohirrim evicted them from the lands? Seemingly it was fine. Why? Because the Rohirrim are the good guys so don’t ask questions. Much like questions were not asked when the native Americans were being thrown out of their land in the USA, for example. These things happen. It’s called the survival of the fittest. It happens all over the world and will continue forever unfortunately. This part of Tolkien’s history, is therefore TRUE TO LIFE. It deals with the morality of the point by showing in some cases it is inevitable that these things happen.

5. Lack of real loss. Tolkien vehemently hated being accused of this but I am afraid it does ring true. Frodo apart, no-one really suffers any in this story. Given that the heroes are often going up against near impossible odds the fact that they all come home again with hardly a scratch is very unrealistic and all the harping on about Frodo getting no credit and having to leave home won’t change that.
Losses other than Frodo’s
1/ sam – loses his beloved master
2/ pippin and merry to a lesser extent lose their friend and cousin.
3/ the hobbits lose their INNOCENCE
4/ Bilbo has lost his ring!
4/ gimli ‘loses’ Galadriel
5/ arwen loses her father
6/ Elrond loses his daughter
7/ Galadriel, for a time, loses her husband
8/ the elves finally now lose middle earth (i.e. lorien will fade, rivendell probably) and have to return to the west.
9/ Gandalf will no longer see the shire and the hobbits, which he loved.
10/ eowyn and eomer lose their uncle who was a ‘father’ to them
11/ merry loses theoden who was a ‘father’ to him.
12/ Faramir loses a brother and a father.
13/ Gollum loses his life!
14/ faramir, eowyn and merry almost die.
15/ Boromir loses his life
16/ wormtounge loses his pitiful life
17/ saruman is not allowed back to the west
18/ denethor goes mad and kills himself.

There are gains to go with these losses, but nearly all of the characters suffer in one form or another.

6. Cardboard characters. See Legolas and to a lesser extent Gimli. I can’t see how there is no time to develop them in a 1,000 page book. With Legolas the shallowness of his character is near ludicrous. Just because we don’t see these characters ‘think’ internally does not mean they are shallow. They build up a friendship together. Legolas pines for the sea and is suffering for it. Gimli pines for his love of Galadriel and suffers for it. They show suffering and joy throughout the book.
As well as that we have Boromir aka Bad Brother and Faramir aka Good Brother. Far too simple by far in the book. Boromir was far too simple in the film. I.e. a baddie from the first scene. In the book you can see his struggle with his pride and warrior feelings. Faramir too simple? He is one of the best characters. A master interrogator, and valiant warrior, but with a sensible head on his shoulders, who also craves for the love of his father.

7. Tom Bombadil. I have already stated how vital Tom Bombadil appears to be. i.e. he isn’t. All adaptations take him out. Why? Because he is an indulgence on Tolkien’s part. He was put in originally because he was based on a toy that one of Tolkien’s children owned and later Tolkien ascribed nuances of him being the spirit of the Oxfordshire countryside onto him. Either way totally non-vital to the plot. He was vital in two areas. 1/ for showing that the ring is not all powerful. 2/ for saving the hobbits at the barrow, and enabling merry to get the sword which helps destroy the witch king, which in turn helps save Minas Tirith.
Frankly nothing made me happier than when he was left out of the film. A stoned, dwarf hippy with yellow books would have invoked laughter from much of the cinema going public. And not in a good way.

8. An inability to start the quest. How many ‘safe houses’ does Frodo visit en route to Rivendell? Answer, too many. Let’s see. He has supper with the Elves, has the same with Maggot, has a nice bath in Crickhollow, the same with Bombadil, gets looked after to an extent by Butterbur too. Those first 4 happen in the space of less than a week. Jesus Frodo, get going boy. But this is the book, not a 3 hour dumbed down movie. So he just keeps on running with no sustenance or rest does he? This is true to life.

9. Convenient events. All too often the good guys have something happen to get them out of a jam. The most talked about of which is, of course, the Eagles. Throughout the Hobbit and the LOTR they show up to rescue Bilbo and Co, help out at the Battle of the Five Armies, save Gandalf from Saruman, pick up Gandalf from the top of the mountains after his duel with the Balrog, turn up at the Battle at the Black Gate and then go to rescue Frodo and Sam. Forget about the Istari, Manwe should just have sent more Eagles. Added to them you have the Ents and Huorns sorting out Saruman and Saruman’s army at Helms Deep and The Deadmen sorting out the fleet of Corsairs near Pelagir. All in all there are too many occasions when the heroes are helped out. But this was a battle of the whole of middle earth! Please don’t think that one group of people (i.e. the Americans in independence day) can save the planet!!!!!! This is not Hollywood. The Eagles were an intrinsic part of the plot of the books. They were not a coincidence. They were part of Middle-earth.

PS (separate to this conversation) The old jibe ‘just give the ring to gwaihir and let him drop it in the crack of doom’ does not work. He was a Maia I believe? He would have been tempted just as Gandalf etc would have been to take the ring for his own.

10. As I have already mentioned you also have the preference of description of surroundings to what goes on inside the characters heads (the latter is always more interesting) and the pompous dialogue that takes over in ROTK. This is a style of writing Tolkien was basing the books on tales of old, and was building a legend/mythology for Britain (that does not have one).

11. The latter point also illustrates that the LOTR is an uneven book. It starts out as a sequel to the Hobbit and then progresses into a sequel to the Silmarillion and the transition is not as seamless as it could be. It was part of the history of middle earth. It is both a sequel to the hobbit AND the Silmarillion. Yes it starts this way BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE SHIRE. I believe this was done purposefully by Tolkien, and reading the history of middle earth series shows this.

I think in total that to describe LOTR as flawless is a stretch too far. Ok, it is near flawless, and the best book ever written.
It’s a good book certainly and we can give thanks that it invigorated (though did not invent) the Fantasy market. But when you start claiming that the book is sacrosanct and that any change is blasphemy I do not. I stated that the films have been dumbed down. Where have I stated that the book is sacrosanct?
well there is really only one solution that one can suggest isn’t there. Make a version that satisfies yourself. In other words, I can’t criticize Jackson because I’m not a filmmaker myself!!!!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I realise that it is very easy for me to just jump in and defend Tolkien, but I'm going to do it anyway.

That is, I would have done it, had Essex not argued the points in such an excellent way. I have nothing to add to the argument, only agreement with Essex.

[Eurytus]

Ok Essex, now that we are in more legitimate surroundings let us continue. But first I would like to pull just one phrase out of your post.

Fine, well Tolkien’s lotr then, comes CLOSE to flawless for me.

Now THAT I have no problem with. My original post was in response to people saying it WAS perfect and I have serious doubts that anything can be. But there we go let’s continue.

I don’t understand your point. The story starts in the shire (i.e. middle England). It then moves on to the broader world, where the language of the characters changes. What’s the problem with this? And yes I’ve read the return of the shadow. It shows the work tolkien did to make this story as perfect as possible. 10 years with numerous re-writes.

My point can really be isolated to just the character of Aragorn who best illustrates this. Now in the FOTR he speaks in a way that is different to the Hobbits, that’s true, but it is still not too anachronistic. By ROTK he is spouting out Lo’s left, right and centre and speaking like he has swallowed the Old Testament. Now for a major character to change his speech patterns so much, well…. why? Is he trying to impress his new friends? Whatever it makes for a jarring disconnect between the FOTR and ROTK. Like it or not his speech changes too much to be believable.

Good point. But the trolls were not altogether evil. The orcs are. I hate to hear them with my kind of accent!

Your view is understandable in much the same way as Hollywood’s love of bad guys having a British Accent is tiresome. But like I say, I can see where they were coming from.

Perhaps Cockney rhyming slang would have been even better. Just think, when they were complaining about having nothing to eat they could have said, “I’m bloody Hank Marvin”.

1/ Merry and Pippin. In the film they (out of the most ridiculous of coincidences) happen to ‘bump’ into Frodo and decide to follow him!!!!!!!! The biggest case of dumbing down in the entire film, really. In the book, they set up a conspiracy and explain their situation fully to Frodo in Crickhowell. In the council of Elrond they just run up and say the line ‘tie me up in a sack’ and Elrond then let’s them go. In the book the motivation for them to be allowed to go are explained by Gandalf to Elrond through FRIENDSHIP.

As you say, it all boils down to friendship. I do not doubt that anyone would see that Merry and Pippin are Frodo’s friends in the film. And it did not need any long explanation to accomplish. It is brought out through how they interact with each other.

2/ Legolas. He turned up at the council of Elrond to apologise for the woodelves letting Gollum escape. This is motivation for legolas to earn some redemption for their mistake.
3/ gimli, son of gloin, whose father’s company’s trip through the mountains help get them into this situation in the first place! Also, he was sent to find an answer to sauron’s asking for details on the ring bearer and putting pressure on his people in the north. Helping to get rid of the ring was a perfect anecdote to this.


Is this much better than the film? I wouldn’t think so. In the film it is pretty clear that both Legolas and Gimli are portrayed as spokespeople for their races. As such this would seem a reasonable reason to take part in the quest.

Whilst I disagree to some extent with the first point. Great characters can effectively do very little in terms of plot and still make a story interesting.
BUT NOT IMPORTANT


I would argue that what makes a story interesting is the only thing of real importance. If it isn’t interesting then who cares?

They are not paper thin. We feel for these characters. Just because we don’t see what they are thinking internally in their heads doesn’t mean they are paper-thin!

Don’t think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this issue. For my part I just cannot see how Legolas can be seen as anything other than paper-thin. Let’s put it this way, had Dungeons and Dragons been out at that point Legolas would have been the archetypal Elven Archer. He has no real personality of his own.

Music and literature are two different mediums. You are using one to try and justify your position on another.

The same principles apply. Does not my statement, “take away one note and there would be diminishment, take away a phrase and the structure would fall.” Apply to a perfect book. I think it does. That would be what it would take for a book to be PERFECT. Change one word and there would be diminishment.

Because he was the lieutenant of Morgoth. He is willing to enslave the whole of middle earth because it was not set to the designs of his master. He wants to destroy all that was created because his master, who was thrown down by the powers that be who created middle earth.

All of which really boils down to “because he’s evil”. LOTR’s success has unfortunately produced a whole lot of these ‘Evil/Dark Lords’ in Fantasy literature and I think that the genre is the worse for them. Besides which I do not know if Sauron did want to destroy everything. Not according to the Mouth he didn’t. Seemed more like he wanted ‘control’ to me.

No they don’t! This was a power play. He pretended to be ‘scared’ as you put it as this was his plan for their downfall. And it worked perfectly!!!!!!!!

But it does not change the fact that he did not need his Ring to defeat his most powerful of enemies.

It still took the last alliance (or penultimate as Jackson no doubt calls it) 7 years to oust sauron from barad-dur, with the deaths of the 2 main protagonists to boot! Doesn’t appear to avail him? I think it does!

There is no indication that Sauron needed the Ring for this. Did the Ring help him during the siege? It’s doubtful. The Ring seems more of a convenient plot device than anything else.

What this is showing, is that the ring is not altogether powerful. Tom Bombadil shows this perfectly in the book, and this is why he is such an important character.

In my opinion you could have shown this without having a character who is basically a joke.

Why? You have your shades of grey perfectly written by Sam’s thoughts on the (easterling?) who falls near his feet in ithilien. These people drawn into battle are not purely evil, but the orcs where created as a killing machine specifically for the purpose of evil.

Sam’s thoughts last a couple of lines. I am afraid that against this you have some rather dubious traits. People with purer blood living for longer. And the evil races being predominantly ‘dark’ skinned.

Much like questions were not asked when the native Americans were being thrown out of their land in the USA, for example. These things happen. It’s called the survival of the fittest. It happens all over the world and will continue forever unfortunately. This part of Tolkien’s history, is therefore TRUE TO LIFE. It deals with the morality of the point by showing in some cases it is inevitable that these things happen.



Yes but Tolkien never presents us with any moral questions in this regard. The Dunlendings are portrayed as evil and the Rohirrim are portrayed as quite without their rights to slaughter them for daring to try and take back their homeland.
If we are talking about survival of the fittest then why is Sauron’s cause any less legitimate than say Gondor’s. If you look at what the Mouth proposed then how is that any less harsh than when the Numenoreans fled Numenor and took realms in Arnor and Gondor. I am sure the respective natives were damn pleased. So why is Sauron’s cause and desire to command the land any less valid?

Losses other than Frodo’s
1/ sam – loses his beloved master
2/ pippin and merry to a lesser extent lose their friend and cousin.
3/ the hobbits lose their INNOCENCE
4/ Bilbo has lost his ring!
4/ gimli ‘loses’ Galadriel
5/ arwen loses her father
6/ Elrond loses his daughter
7/ Galadriel, for a time, loses her husband
8/ the elves finally now lose middle earth (i.e. lorien will fade, rivendell probably) and have to return to the west.
9/ Gandalf will no longer see the shire and the hobbits, which he loved.
10/ eowyn and eomer lose their uncle who was a ‘father’ to them
11/ merry loses theoden who was a ‘father’ to him.
12/ Faramir loses a brother and a father.
13/ Gollum loses his life!
14/ faramir, eowyn and merry almost die.
15/ Boromir loses his life
16/ wormtounge loses his pitiful life
17/ saruman is not allowed back to the west
18/ denethor goes mad and kills himself.
There are gains to go with these losses, but nearly all of the characters suffer in one form or another.


So basically you have come up with 3 deaths and some people leaving Middle Earth. I am sorry but compared to real warfare these ‘losses’ are ludicrously lightweight. Who comes back to find their children slaughtered, 1,000’s of people massacred for racial reasons, their womenfolk raped, ethnic enmity set in place that will poison the future for hundreds of years? These are the real consequences of war. See WWI, WWII or the Crusades. See the wars of conquest fought in Latin America. Some of the things that go on boggle the mind. Admit it or not the LOTR is horribly clean and nice in comparison.

Legolas pines for the sea and is suffering for it. Gimli pines for his love of Galadriel and suffers for it.



With respect you could make this clear on a single piece of A4 and they are in a 1,000 page book!!
I’ve seen BoyBand profiles with more depth. Likes cars, doesn’t like Italian food, would like to visit Bermuda. That’s probably more depth than Legolas has right there!

Boromir was far too simple in the film. I.e. a baddie from the first scene.

WHAT!! Sorry, I can’t even debate that point as it is, in my view, so wrong as to be beyond discussion. In fact you have it reversed. In the Book he is a pantomime villain. He hardly gets a redeeming mention from any of the major characters until he is dead. If you can’t see that the film showed the two halves of his nature better than I guess there is not point discussing it. His scene with Aragorn in Lorien, with Frodo before entering Lorien, telling Aragorn that the Hobbits needed more time after Gandalf fell……Yeah, classic baddie behaviour.

He was vital in two areas. 1/ for showing that the ring is not all powerful. 2/ for saving the hobbits at the barrow, and enabling merry to get the sword which helps destroy the witch king, which in turn helps save Minas Tirith.



Both of these functions could have been dealt with by other means. Indeed it is plain that the ring is not all powerful. If it was then Frodo could have put it on and kicked Sauron’s arse. Of course he can’t because the ring gives power only to the measure of it’s bearer.

As to the sword. Why is getting it from the barrow any more valid than from Lorien. Does it really add that much apart from one sentence about it’s maker being glad to know its eventual use. Is this worth adding 45 minutes to the film for? And a fool in yellow boots?

But this is the book, not a 3 hour dumbed down movie. So he just keeps on running with no sustenance or rest does he? This is true to life.

Within a couple of days march from Bagend he stops in 4 ‘safe havens’. Yes I’d call it too much. Just start the damn quest already. Next he’ll be going back for his keys.

But this was a battle of the whole of middle earth! Please don’t think that one group of people (i.e. the Americans in independence day) can save the planet!!!!!! This is not Hollywood. The Eagles were an intrinsic part of the plot of the books. They were not a coincidence. They were part of Middle-earth.

I didn’t say that one group had to win it. But when you have effectively unstoppable forces (the Ents, Huorns and Deadmen) taking care of plenty of your foes then you have a case of Deux ex Machina. In takes away from what the heroes should be accomplishing on their own.

PS (separate to this conversation) The old jibe ‘just give the ring to gwaihir and let him drop it in the crack of doom’ does not work. He was a Maia I believe? He would have been tempted just as Gandalf etc would have been to take the ring for his own.

Even Tolkien recognised this to be a weak point. And since it is the bearer of the ring that is tempted why didn’t Gwahir simply carry Frodo and drop HIM down the mouth of Mount Doom?

This is a style of writing Tolkien was basing the books on tales of old, and was building a legend/mythology for Britain (that does not have one).

I’m not going to belabour the point but this was the Silmarillion NOT the LOTR. The LOTR was a sequel to the Hobbit first and foremost which is why the publishers would not publish the Silmarillion at the time. They wanted a sequel NOT a mythology.

I believe this was done purposefully by Tolkien, and reading the history of middle earth series shows this.



Actually I think that reading the HOME series shows many instances of Lucas syndrome (making it up as you go along) and clearly shows that Tolkien lost control of the book and it changed DESPITE his intentions not because of them.

Ok, it is near flawless, and the best book ever written.

Could agree with the first part but not nearly the second. Straight of the top of my head I could pick several of Dicken’s novels that supersede LOTR. Not to mention some Tolstoy. Or the Catcher in the Rye. Or A Clockwork Orange.

I stated that the films have been dumbed down.

touches like the boys and old men being taken from their families in TTT prior to Helms Deep that add so much. As already stated Boromir is far superior in the film. And of course the lack of “Hey, Merry Dol Dollo” or whatever. Might as well have Gimli start singing “Hey, Ho. Hey, Ho. It’s off to work we go.” as put that in.

[The Saucepan Man]

First point to make is that, in the "Dumbing-Down in the Film" thread, Estelyn asked that a new topic be started in this forum to continue the discussion that had arisen specifically with regard to the book. So, this discussion should focus on the book alone. Any discussion about the films should be continued in the Films forum.

Secondly, I'm not sure that the title really works for this thread. I don't believe that there is any suggestion that the book has been "dumbed-down". Eurytus is arguing that the book, while very good, is not flawless, and has cited a number of examples of aspects where he/she feels that they are open to criticism.

On the question of whether LotR is flawless, I would agree with Eurytus that very few works of art, if any, can be described as perfect in every respect. Indeed such an ideal is surely nigh on impossible, if not actually impossible, to attain.

I would also agree with Eurytus that LotR, as a book, cannot be described as technically flawless. In fact, I think that contrary view in unarguable. There are many respects in which LotR doesn't follow what are generally considered to be the standard requirements of a novel.

Character development is a clear example of this. However much Legolas may have longed for the sea and however much his relationship with Gimli developed, the fact remains that they are still incredibly underdeveloped characters for a work of fiction of this breadth. In fact, I would say the same about Aragorn. He really is a rather two-dimensional character too. The reason for this? The book is written from the persepective of the Hobbits, mainly Frodo and Sam, but also Merry and Pippin in parts. So we learn far more about their thoughts and feelings, and see far more of their development as characters, than with the other characters in the book. And personally I think that this works well, since the reader can identify with them more than with the likes of Aragorn. We follow these innocent, unprepossessing little characters as they are propelled into events of great magnitude, see them grow in the face of such events and see how their qualities (bravery, loyalty, friendship etc) can win even the mightiest of victories. For me, this is where LotR is coming from, and so it makes sense that we see it all through the eyes of the Hobbits. And what would they know about Legolas' inner thoughts? smilies/wink.gif

Another fair point that Eurytus makes is that good and evil are overly simplified. It is all "black and white" and no "shades of grey". Again, however, I don't necessarily see this as a criticism. For all his absence from the pages, Sauron is an incredibly easy villain for all readers, young and old, to understand. In essence, he is evil and that is all there is to it. No further explanation is required because that's the way it is. If the book carried out a psychological study of Sauron and his motives it would certainly be a different book - but not necessarily a better one. Of course, we can discuss Sauron's motives by reference to Tolkien's other writings, but that is not necessary for the enjoyment of the book. Rather, Sauron's "one-dimensional" evil creates the perfect backdrop for the struggle which Tolkien portrays in LotR and, in many ways, Sauron's mystery makes him a far more oppressive and terrifying villain.

Similarly with the Orcs. The fact that they are born evil and remain evil may give rise to potential philosophical issues, such as whether they are capable of repentance etc, as Tolkien himself discovered in his later writings. But they make for perfectly simple and straightforward bad guys. Eurytus, you make the point that there are no "moral" issues with regard to the killing of orcs because they are inherently evil, and criticise this as being overly-simplistic. But it is for this very reason that orcs make such great bad guys. The reader does not have to worry about whether killing orcs is a good thing or not. Orcs are bad and so killing them is a good thing. There is no moral issue, and so we can sit back and appreciate the events that are being portrayed (whether they be Helm's Deep or Balin's Tomb) and their significance to the story that is being told, rather than being distracted by some moral dilemma. A story does not have to be morally challenging to be a good one.

And, if you want the "grey" areas, they are, as Essex points out, there in the Men that are pressed into the service of Sauron and Saruman. Sam's musings on the fallen Southron capture this issue perfectly. As for the Dunlendings, I don't think that Tolkien is suggesting that they are all bad and the Rohirrim are all good. There is, as with all these types of issue, fault on both sides (this comes out particularly in the Appendix, but is touched on in the book). And I believe that the Rohirrim showed the Dunlendings mercy following the battle of Helm's Deep and that the two races of Man made their peace thereafter.

As for lack of loss, I think that the loss that Frodo suffers is more than enough to cover this theme. Essex has noted a number of other ways in which the various characters suffered loss. Some of those losses are more grievous than others. But it is noticeable that Aragorn does not feature on the list. However, do we really have to see each of the characters suffer great loss in order for the story to work? For me, this theme is amply covered by Frodo's loss, which gives the book its bitter-sweet ending. It also ties in with the idea of the reader seeing the events throught the eyes of the Hobbits. It is one of these characters who we have "lived with" throughout the story that suffers the loss and so we feel it more keenly than had Aragorn, say, suffered in the same way.

You can look at the points discussed above as flaws. Or you can see them as strengths. It depends upon which angle you are coming at it from. Ultimately, it is all subjective. One person may regard a book as near as perfect, while another regards it as deeply flawed. It is the same book, but it resonates differently with each person.

In the end, I think that it is better to judge a book on its popularity and on the depth of affection that it generates, rather than on its technical qualities. LotR is not flawless. But, on these criteria, it must surely be counted among the all-time greats. On the basis of the odds assigned by the bookmakers, LotR looks likely to get a top five place in the BBC's search for Britain's favourite book, and it's still in with a chance of the top spot. And that, surely, makes it a pretty good book, flawless or not. smilies/cool.gif

Edited having read Eurytus' post: Many of the more detailed points such as the Eagles/Deus ex Machina issue have been addressed in detail in other threads. It might be better to stick to the broader points here, or this thread could go of in all kinds of directions (such as provoking discussion on the old "racism in LotR" chestnut, which also has a number of threads devoted to it).

Straight of the top of my head I could pick several of Dicken’s novels that supersede LOTR. Not to mention some Tolstoy. Or the Catcher in the Rye. Or A Clockwork Orange.

Eurytus, the point is, and my point is, that that is your opinion. Many others (myself included) would class LotR as their favourite book. Does that make it the best book ever written? It depends upon which criteria you are judgin it. In technical terms, no it's not. But the fact that so many people do class it as their favourite book must make it one of the most popular books ever written. And since books are written to be read, popularity is surely one way of defining quality. Ergo, I would say that LotR can justifiably be described as one of the best books ever written. smilies/tongue.gif smilies/smile.gif

[ October 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Kalimac]

Just wanted to say that I'm in full agreement with Saucepan Man - very well done, O Corpus Cacophonous! The only thing I wanted to add is that it seems to me that it's precisely *because* we're seeing it from the hobbits' point of view that certain other issues might seem overly simplified.

We're seeing about 95% of the story from the perspective of creatures who have been oblivious to everything that led up to it and had no idea there was a crisis going on until being shoved right into the eye of the storm. This, I think, was quite clever of Tolkien, as anybody picking up LOTR for the first time was in exactly the same position as the hobbits as they began reading the book - Oh, how nice, how amusing, that's fun, and WHAT??? The reader, along with the hobbits, experiences Gandalf's (rather stripped-down) explanation of the Ring's history, and along with the hobbits we have no idea what the he** the Nazgul are when we first see them, and so forth. The hobbits, knowing as little about ME's and Sauron's history as a first-time reader does, are not going to spend a great deal of time analyzing what it is they're facing, and trying to figure out its motivations. To portray Sauron as a one-dimensional evil and unstoppable force is just right for the way this book is written, because the hobbits don't have the benefit of either previous historical study or sufficient distance to see him as anything else. Similarly for the Orcs. Their first encounter with the Orcs is in Mazarbul, and after an introduction like that - and their subsequent encounters - it's not surprising that they can't see the Orcs as anything except slavering ghouls who enjoy the prospect of tearing them to pieces - in what other capacity have they ever seen them?

The hobbits are living both in great ignorance and the daily, highly realistic expectation that they running a huge risk of dying horribly for reasons largely beyond their control. They're not going to waste time painting Sauron with shades of grey and trying to figure out whether it's possible for an Orc to be redeemed. Furthermore, they don't see the lands of the Southrons et al, or even much of Rohan and Gondor (and of course Frodo and Sam don't see these things at all). Doubtless there was massive rape/bloodshed/pillaging etc, they just were aware of it only as a distant fact, not something happening right in front of their faces - and in a situation like that, you're just too busy staying alive to spend a lot of time on other people whom you can't save and don't know. Not saying it's the most compassionate way, but it's true.

If the book were written from Aragorn or Gandalf's perspective (now there would be something) I'm pretty sure that Sauron and the Orcs would be seen very differently. Not necessarily seen as any *better* - but with the leavening perspective of knowledge of their history, not to mention a more realistic weighing of the odds. While the hobbits realize that they're in danger, I don't think it really sinks to anyone except Frodo, towards the end, that their odds of failure are about 99.99%. It's for that reason that I think that while LOTR from the perspective of a more knowledgeable character would be interesting, it also be very difficult to read, both for complexity and the sheer weight of its pessimism for most of the story.

[Finwe]

The greatest joy that I derived from reading the Trilogy was discovering that Frodo and Sam had that 00.01% chance of succeeding in their Quest, and that they did indeed succeed. The innate pessimism in the books up until that point seems to drag readers down, and then suddenly, as the Rohirrim ride onto Pelennor Fields, as Gollum falls into the fires of Mt. Doom, and as the dark towers of Sauron fall, that pessimism falls away from readers' hearts, and is replaced with a newfound hope. That is the true beauty of the Trilogy, and it does take some getting used to. I have heard many people complain about Tolkien's fatalism, and how all the characters seem to end up in bad situations, but those people have to realize that "Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer."

[Eurytus]

After reading all the above posts I can say that Saucepan Man has my general point of view pretty well nailed down. As I have mentioned in this thread and the previous ones in the film forum, I like the book. It is one of my favourites. It contributed greatly towards the overwhelming fondness for books that I now have.
The point I really started by arguing against was the type of poster for whom ANY change from the book is flawed since the book is in itself flawless.
Hence I felt compelled to list some of the ones I have seen.

I have read countless books since LOTR and some of these have pointed out the flaws in LOTR that were not always apparent at the time. My point about the simplified nature of evil is really based on the view that great books get you to think. And moral questions are often the ones that promote the most interesting thoughts. LOTR is far too simplistic in a moral sense for this to work. We are told far to often what to think. What are opinion should be. Who is evil and who is good. A great book would simply paint the characters as they are and give enough information about their actions, their motivations and the consequences thereof that the reader can judge for themselves. Is this person evil? Are they misguided? Can I understand where they are coming from?

I think that the comments above about the book only seeing things from the Hobbits POV are valid, and that this is a factor in the two dimensional characters. However, I would say that the choice of which viewpoint to tell a book from is the authors, and if they choose one which restricts their story then it is a mistake in my view.
I would also state that Legolas in particular is two dimensional to an extent that is not excused by the book’s POV. A character whose viewpoint we do not see can still be interesting and be shown to have hidden depths. The greatest characters in Dickens are never the ones that possess the POV. They are the secondary characters, the Fagins, Micawbers etc.
With Legolas I get the impression that Tolkien put him there because the Elves needed a representative. He does not really accomplish any specific tasks. He does not undergo any GREAT changes, short of liking Gimli. He undergoes no real spiritual growth. He is just there. When he’s not specifically mentioned you forget that he’s there until he’s mentioned again.

And as to the lack of a sense of loss? Well I can see that Frodo has a bittersweet ending to his story. That’s true. But the fact remains that the events in this book are portrayed as being an Era Ending War. Something that will change the world. OK, Sauron is destroyed but there is relatively little damaged. We are told continuously that the West is facing almost certain destruction, there is no real hope (well just a fool’s hope) and they cannot win. Well in those circumstances, in real war, things get nasty. Some will find reserves of humanity they never knew they had, but many others will regress to brutality, an every-man for himself attitude. Old enmities are settled, historical slights avenged, children slain, women raped…..it really does resemble hell on earth.

In LOTR the moral compass is always pointing in the right way. Those that fail this test are usually shown to have had some flaw prior to their fall. As if to justify it. How much stronger would Boromir’s loss have been had he been a great man? Maybe even superior in strength of character and kindness to Aragorn. Instead we are led to dislike him almost from the first. Hence his fall is not really a tragedy at all. We don’t really care.
As I say, I like LOTR but it does bug me when people claim it is without flaw and that to change any aspect of it is akin to blasphemy.

[Essex]

Eurytus,
your point:
As I say, I like LOTR but it does bug me when people claim it is without flaw and that to change any aspect of it is akin to blasphemy

Where has anyone in this thread and the other thread on the movies section stated your second point (in bold)? NOWHERE.

If people who love the books and have somewhat blinkered views bug you, then what are you doing on an LOTR Fan's Forum?????

People have different viewpoints. Yours are different to mine, but you don't bug me.

The ONLY thing that bugs me is when people shoot LOTR down in flames WHEN THEY HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK!!! (unlike yourself obviously)

[Eurytus]

Where has anyone in this thread and the other thread on the movies section stated your second point (in bold)? NOWHERE.

I guess this is the sort of comment I am referring to;

Where we are witness to PJ's 'interpretation' we often see dumbing down, poor directing and generally a 'sliding down the scale/octave
'.
It is a testimony to the greatness of the LotR that it survives as well as it does!

Wherein someone complete overeggs their criticism of PJ's direction for example because they do not like the choices he has made in how he handles the material.

Plus of course you yourself did mention that the book was 'perfect'.

There is a common attitude that any changes can only be for the worse and hence a focus on those changes.
Whereas in my view, and a viewing of the EE FOTR documentaries confirmed this, is that everyone involved in the making of these films is a fan. They involved two of the most respected Tolkien artists in every stage of the production. Even items as small as buttons etc have patterns on them that make reference to things from the books. The wonderful attention to detail in Bagend (just compare it to the Playstation 2 FMV type sets of any of the Starwars prequels to see what I mean) is superb.
For myself I am more thankful than I can say that the people who made these films cared. And they captured the core essense of the books perfectly.
Some areas they improved. Some were worsened. Overall they hit the ball clean out of the park in my view.

Just think what could have happened if someone like George Lucas had made these films.

If people who love the books and have somewhat blinkered views bug you, then what are you doing on an LOTR Fan's Forum?????

I have no problem with the first part of this comment. I don't know why I have to keep on saying this, but I have said several times that I love the books. OK.

It is only the blinkered views that do bother me, I will admit that. Blinkered views should, I think, be challenged. Whether it be in philosophy, politics or culture. In fact any view should be challenged. It is only though this that true growth and understanding can occur.

Why am I on a LOTR fansite.

A. I am a fan.
B. the site does say that it is a discussion forum. The site does not specify that the form of discussion can include no opposing viewpoints.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Just a small point Eurytus. You have mentioned twice now that in 'real' warfare, women get raped and children get slain, yet this does not happen in the Lord of the Rings. I'm not sure thats quite true. Just because the author doesn't mention every detail of the war, there is certainly space for these evils to happen, in the defenceless villages of Rohan for example.

[Essex]

But again Eurytus, no one has said it is blasphemous that Jackson has changed things from the books.

This thread started by saying he has dumbed down in quite a few occasions.

That is fact.

As long as we don't see Sauron fighting Aragorn, then I can stomach changes to the books (even though I might not agree with a lot of them), but I'm not going to hunt down Jackson with my special edition hardback book to whack him over the head because of the changes, as they are not blasphemous (even the faramir/osgiliath one!).

PS Stop moving the goalposts. You first stated that, apart from Frodo, no one loses anything or really suffers in the books. Frodo apart, no-one really suffers any in this story When I corrected you with approx 16 examples, you then stated that these pieces of loss or suffering weren't 'enough'. Make your mind up!

i.e. your ‘moving the goalposts’ point

So basically you have come up with 3 deaths and some people leaving Middle Earth. I am sorry but compared to real warfare these ‘losses’ are ludicrously lightweight. Who comes back to find their children slaughtered, 1,000’s of people massacred for racial reasons, their womenfolk raped, ethnic enmity set in place that will poison the future for hundreds of years? These are the real consequences of war. See WWI, WWII or the Crusades. See the wars of conquest fought in Latin America. Some of the things that go on boggle the mind. Admit it or not the LOTR is horribly clean and nice in comparison.

1/ Dying or 2/ losing a loved one are about as bad as you can get. None of us have experience of the first one, but I have experience of the second one. So trust me, in that on a personal level, what these characters go through is heartbreaking. That’s one of the things that make this book so special (and perfect).

[Child of the 7th Age]

I have been reading this thread for a few days and was intrigued with your interchange and decided to jump in. First, only the foolhardy would dispute your basic premise that the Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's other writings have certain flaws. If Tolkien was alive today, he would be the first one to admit this. His Letters are filled with self-reflective passages that pinpoint what he regarded as the greatest of these flaws.

The real questions boil down to these three:

1. Are the flaws such that they prevent us from understanding or appreciating the story as a whole?

2. Are their instances where PJ has done a "better" job of interpretation than the original author?

3. Are the particular instances you cite in the book legitimate instances of "flaws"?

I think we're all in agreement on the first point. No one on either side is suggesting anything different. The problem lies with your second and third questions.

First, in regard to PJ making improvements...Yes, I do think there are certain instances of this. My own favorite example is the character of Boromir. If you look in the Letters, you can see that there were some unique personal reasons why Tolkien "favored" Faramir in his story. This personal bias colored his handling of Boromir, even though he was trying to show an honorable character who was ensnared by the Ring. PJ's Boromir is a more sympathetic character than Tolkien's and I actually think this is an improvement and ironically more in line with what tha author meant to convey.

But, in general, I would say that PJ hits the mark best not when he "changes" Tolkien, but when he faithfully depicts what is contained in the writings. You yourself mention the example of the two Tolkien illustrators who provided the artistic input for the visual depiction of Middle-earth. I think PJ is right on the money here; nowhere does the movie ring more true for me than in these visualizations.

On changes in general.....Some changes are definitely necessary in plot and timing but I do think there are instances in the movie where PJ would have been better off sticking closer to what Tolkien set down on paper. And nowhere does this ring more true than in the case of characterization. PJ's changes do not "improve" the book; they merely take away from the integrity of the story. Frodo and Faramir are two cases in point, which I won't get into because these have been discussed to death down in Movies.

It is on the third point where I most strongly disagree with you. And here I'm going to zero in on your central criticism.

1. No one really suffers in this story.

So basically you have come up with 3 deaths and some people leaving Middle Earth. I am sorry but compared to real warfare these ‘losses’ are ludicrously lightweight. Who comes back to find their children slaughtered, 1,000’s of people massacred for racial reasons, their womenfolk raped, ethnic enmity set in place that will poison the future for hundreds of years? These are the real consequences of war. See WWI, WWII or the Crusades. See the wars of conquest fought in Latin America. Some of the things that go on boggle the mind. Admit it or not the LOTR is horribly clean and nice in comparison.

These points you make are related and I think you are off base on both of them.

First, the specifics.... Let me approach this as an historian, which I am. Tolkien is writing about warfare before the modern era. The kind of war you describe in the paragraph above simply did not come into existence until the technology was there to support it. Not that war wasn't hellish in any period, but the widespread conflagration or an intentional mass genoicide would make no sense in the context of this book.

Warfare just wasn't like that. It was self-limiting because the weapons were self-limiting. Yes, you could have a plague come through and wipe out one-third of Europe's population, but warfare itself wasn't going to do that.

Tolkien simply wasn't interested in depicting that side of the story. His model (also his training) was "mythological" -- the old epics focus on individuals and their fate rather than depicting deaths on a massive scale. Tolkien was more interested in depicting the impact of evil on the soul than in showing mass deaths and confusion. He never said the wider deaths weren't there and sometimes alludes to them but in a very personal way. I am immediately reminded of the scene where Sam has an enemy soldier fall dying into his lap and he wonders where the folk was from, how he got involved in the war, etc.

This kind of personal approach is far more effective and poignant to me than depicting general carnage and mayhem. What if Tolkien had ripped out that scene with Sam and instead put in a general description of all the battle dead? Would that have been a more powerful statement? Personally, I don't think so. It's when you get down to the level of the individual that it begins to touch your heart.

You mention "1000s of people slaughtered for racial reasons." Obviously, that wasn't a factor in this story. But I will say this. I have read widely in the history and literature of the holocaust. I have read books that listed and even showed photographs of the bodies piled up -- the kind of general horror that you suggest Tolkien might have wanted to include. But none of these had the impact on me of a simple book like Elie Wiesel's Night which showed how the world of one or two folk was totally distorted. Statistics and general carnage do not make me weep, but I can not read those passages of personal loss without having an emotional response.

This post is too long and I won't get into the specifics of loss in the LotR. You are oversimplifying things by saying only Frodo is involved. Just look at the relationship of Elrond/Aragorn/Arwen -- in one sense this is a "lose, lose" scenario. Whatever happens, someone will lose, a fact that is made amply clear by Arwen's death scene, when she still can not truly accept the bargain she made so many years earlier. As far as Frodo goes, I would say that the sense of loss is overwhelming. Here is someone who has voluntarily given of himself, who has done the "right" things, the things that any of us would hopefully step forward and do. Yet, even as he sails away to the West, we are left wondering if he can put the pieces back together within the circles of Arda. Yet to this day, we don't have an answer for that and neither did Tolkien. We have the wonderful depiction of the curtain pulling back to reveal a sparkling new land where healing seemed possible, but we also have the poem "The Sea Bell" ascribed to Frodo which suggests a far less optomistic outcome.

Indeed, to me the sense of loss in LotR is overwhelming and is admittedly one of the reasons that I return to this book again and again. An entire era is passing away. Something has been preserved but so much has been lost. There will be no more Elves, the dwarves are dying out and, as Tolkien said, hobbits are rarely to be seen today. Man will remain dominant but all alone. Think about it... All alone.... That is our fate as a race. In many respects, I find that scenario chilling and one which is all too frequently mirrored in our own personal situations. The "loss" is there all over the book...you just have to be tuned in to sense and feel it.

Sorry about this monstor post, but I felt the need to say these things.

[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Eurytus]

When I corrected you with approx 16 examples, you then stated that these pieces of loss or suffering weren't 'enough'. Make your mind up!

Essex, I have and had made my mind up. These examples do not create enough feeling of loss. Like it or not the depiction of war within Tolkien is horribly sanitised.
In general the good boys go to war, kick the enemies behind and come back again.
A couple of exceptions does not an era ending war make.

Also, I should point out that you cannot claim 16 examples.

Nearly dying is not an example.

Claiming 2-3 examples for one death is not a way to increase your count either.

Likewise for keeping Sam and Merry & Pippin's loss of Frodo seperate so that you increase your example count.

Elrond losing Arwen, Arwen losing Elrond being seperated into two seperate examples.

I think it is obvious you were stretching it a bit to even reach 16 examples.

[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: Eurytus ]

[Eurytus]

Child of the 7th Age, I agreed with some of your post but there are a couple of things I disagree with.

PJ's changes do not "improve" the book; they merely take away from the integrity of the story. Frodo and Faramir are two cases in point, which I won't get into because these have been discussed to death down in Movies.

I do not agree that the changes to Frodo or Faramir hurt the story and since I have found others with the same view I do not think that this is a universal viewpoint.

Let me approach this as an historian, which I am. Tolkien is writing about warfare before the modern era. The kind of war you describe in the paragraph above simply did not come into existence until the technology was there to support it.


If you are a historian then I hope you do realise that the things I talked about did in fact happend throughout the history of warfare and conquest. Just because the scale may have been smaller it does mean that this did not happen.

Whilst the Bible may not be a historically accurate record of events, the manner of warfare it often depicts in the Old Testament was not unusual. This often involved wiping out the other tribe.

Take a look at Boudica's revolt in Britain to see that warfare was not 'clean'.

Or at what happened to the cities of Troy and Carthage.

Or what happened to cities that tried to fight the Mongol hordes.

Or the aforementioned Crusades.

Cromwell's campaigns in Ireland.

The conquest of the new world and in particular, Latin America.

Leading right up until the modern era. One thing they all show is that inhumanity to man is not new, or confined to the modern era of war.
Racial and religious intolerance, mistreatment of women and children, the obliteration of other cultures...
They have all been around for as long as we have and the more sanitised depiction of warfare in LOTR is not realistic.

His model (also his training) was "mythological" -- the old epics focus on individuals and their fate rather than depicting deaths on a massive scale.

So focused on the individuals in fact that they were all paper-thin depictions.

[Eurytus]

Just because the author doesn't mention every detail of the war, there is certainly space for these evils to happen, in the defenceless villages of Rohan for example.
Eomer, the question I was debating here was about the flaw that the LOTR did not show much of the consequences of war, the suffering.
Hence the fact that the book does not show these things combined with the minimal casualties amoung the main characters shows that the book has this flaw.

[Maéglin]

I agree with Eurytus on this one smilies/biggrin.gif
Everything in LOTR seems all nice and clean, no nitty gritty details about the sacrifice of people in Numenor for example, nor anything about the 'great slaughter' that Men did to the orcs. When the bad guys are killed in Tolkien's world the audience feels "Alright! look at Hurin! 70 trolls!" and the fact that the main villains are not even human makes it even less likely for us to sympathise with them.

But of course this does not necessarily make it a bad book albeit imperfect as has already been justified. Personally I appreciate LOTR and other related works because of its almost biblical scale. It is really an epic and mythological work, as Tolkien admits. I do want to know about Anarion and how he died, or what happens to the Dunlendings and Easterlings after the war. But IMHO the details are not what makes the books so great. So even we cannot settle this, let's just all agree to disagree.

Bah, how did we talk from dumbing down the books to this smilies/smile.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

Eurytus,

I only have time for a quick response, but here goes.

First regarding the quote you disgreed with..you have chopped off the first half of it which actually explains what I was saying.

Your comments in the thread:

The part of my post you quoted: PJ's changes do not "improve" the book; they merely take away from the integrity of the story. Frodo and Faramir are two cases in point, which I won't get into because these have been discussed to death down in Movies.

Your response: I do not agree that the changes to Frodo or Faramir hurt the story and since I have found others with the same view I do not think that this is a universal viewpoint.

Now here's what I actually said:

Some changes are definitely necessary in plot and timing but I do think there are instances in the movie where PJ would have been better off sticking closer to what Tolkien set down on paper. And nowhere does this ring more true than in the case of characterization. PJ's changes do not "improve" the book; they merely take away from the integrity of the story. Frodo and Faramir are two cases in point, which I won't get into because these have been discussed to death down in Movies.

As I stated earlier in my post, changes in plot and timing are frequently necessary. Changes in characterization alter the nature and spirit of the story, and I am not comfortable with them.

It seems to me that the author's preferences in this instance -- that of film adaptation -- outweigh those of either of us. Tolkien said exactly the same thing I did in the Letters when he was discussing a movie script. He was willing to consider other changes but not dramatic alterations of character.

Secondly, I do not agree with your assessment of traditional warfare. Yes, war is horrible in any context, but modern and pre-modern war are not the same. It is possible in the middle ages to have a battle with 1000 people where 999 are killed. It is also possible to have a raid on the part of a band of soldiers who go looting villages, raping and killing. But it is not possible to have this happen on such a widespread level that the entire civilian populace is wiped out. You do not have the railway trains to drag people off wholesale to a death camp or the weapons to decimate a city and flatten every building in just a moment or two. The late nineteenth and twentieth century can be proud of the fact that this age was the one to make such wholesale slaughter possible.

In pre-modern society, pestilence and famine, or hundreds of years of slaving raids, were far more likely to accomplish this than a series of battles on the field. This is precisely what happened with the Spanish in South America....even with their deceit and lies, the "explorers" could never do the damage to the Indians that smallpox did.

Could you have more vivid depictions of the widespread effects of war in the LotR? Absolutely. Tolkien could easily have added passages describing the battle deaths, villages being looted, etc. He had seen modern warfare at work in WWI, the father of all such beasts but he chose not to focus on that.

Instead he stressed individual heartache and loss and character interaction, and I am glad for that. There are many modern books, movies and tv episodes that give us widespread graphic horror. What we are in danger of losing is the personal side....something that elicits an emotional response because we actually care about the people involved. It becomes more than just characters shot down in a video game. And this is what I think Tolkien has done.

So focused on the individuals in fact that they were all paper-thin depictions.

If you really believe the words above, I am puzzled why you choose to read Tolkien or discuss his books. Perhaps just because you enjoy a good back-and-forth? How can you enjoy a "good yarn" if you feel the characters are so lacking? Also, I did not see you make this same charge of PJ's movie. Do you feel PJ has done a 'better' or more multi-dimensional job with his characters than Tolkien?

If you truly feel Tolkien's characters are "paper thin", what is there that draws you back to read and discuss the book?

[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Essex]

Eurytus,

Your earlier point:
Lack of real loss. Tolkien vehemently hated being accused of this but I am afraid it does ring true. Frodo apart, no-one really suffers any in this story.

I rattled off 16 examples (off the top off my head - I could find many more)

And then your quote:

Elrond losing Arwen, Arwen losing Elrond being seperated into two seperate examples.

Of COURSE they're seperate examples. You asked who suffered?

They both did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me (again) state WHO SUFFERED other than Frodo and you can explain why I'm wrong. See my earlier post for details on why…

1/ sam
2/ pippin
3/ merry
4/ Bilbo
4/ gimli
5/ arwen
6/ Elrond
7/ Galadriel
8/ Gandalf
9/ eowyn
10/ eomer
11/ theoden
12/ Faramir
13/ Gollum
14/ Boromir
15/ wormtounge
16/ saruman
17/ denethor

[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

Could you have more vivid depictions of the widespread effects of war in the LotR? Absolutely. Tolkien could easily have added passages describing the battle deaths, villages being looted, etc. He had seen modern warfare at work in WWI, the father of all such beasts but he chose not to focus on that.
Actually, Child I think he DID focus on an aspect of that, although not in the realm of the thick of battle and loss of human life, so I agree to an extent but not all the way. The aspect I speak of is the loss of the rural way of life and the intrusion of the modern mechanized and imposed system of life (a sort of "rape of the Earth" if you will). This is illustrated not only in the Shire, but also in the despoiling of Saruman's own surroundings in Isengard, his felling of Fangorn's trees for the fueling of a larger scale war that included both Rohan and the Shire and had aspirations for even more. I think perhaps it could be argued that his focus on the Good forces struggling in the way they did against Saruman and Sauron illustrates a deep desire that the deluge that overwhelmed Britain and the whole world in WWI and WWII could have been diverted and brought into a new, more idealistic age if only there was a return to the old heroic traditions in their truest form, a purity of individual hearts and a purity of action as illustrated most keenly in Frodo and Aragorn.

I used to think as you may do now, Eurytus that some of the characterizations were thin. Aragorn is the main case in point here for me. I find, though, that the more I reflect and the more I read of Tolkien's stories, the more I find depth in his characters. I see the difficulties of Aragorn's position and the uncertainties in his mind more because of the richness with which the entire situation of Middle Earth on the brink of war is drawn. Tolkien's strength was in the intricate and complete drawing of an entire realm, and this does not allow for as many momentary glimpses into the trivialities of everyday life, or even the not so trivial events that seem to hold sway in more socially focused novels today.

I find there are refreshing aspects of his choice to tell the story from the hobbits' POV, and I also admit there are uneven parts where the level of the language is hoisted above those same hobbits, but I do not begrudge this to him, for I also realize that the language is slowly rising with the level of involvement of the hobbits in the greater affairs of Middle Earth, and it is in the paradigm of language that Tolkien is most at home.

One could argue the flaws until doomsday, but I'll leave off soon! I would only say that your views of the novels being flawed, Eurytus seem to issue from expectations that Tolkien's work does not address, a sort of modern mentality that Tolkien was running from as fast as his legs could carry him. Certainly there is massive loss in the War of the Ring that he admits he does not address. He only briefly relates that, in addition to the massive Battles of Pelennor Fields and at the Gate of Morannon, where there was, of necessity, great loss of life, there were also battles at Erebor and in Lothlorien, where the Dwarves and Elves sustained great losses. It was truly a "World War."

Thanks for allowing me to spout off a bit! I do enjoy discussion forums for just that property!

Cheers,
Lyta

[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lyta,

I think your points are well taken about the depiction of "loss" in the desecration of the land, the felling of the trees, and the imposition of modern mechanized methods despite the hobbits' dislike and resistence. I came to Lord of the Rings while I was at college in the late 60s and it was this aspect of the book, the rape of the land and the rejection of the excesses of industrialization, that initially intrigued many of us.

And these points tie in very nicely with the wider argument you make later:

One could argue the flaws until doomsday, but I'll leave off soon! I would only say that your views of the novels being flawed, Eurytus seem to issue from expectations that Tolkien's work does not address, a sort of modern mentality that Tolkien was running from as fast as his legs could carry him. Certainly there is massive loss in the War of the Ring that he admits he does not address.

I think I was hinting in my post at what you've said much more clearly here. Tolkien chose to write a certain book in a certain way with a certain mindset: on the one hand focusing on individual loss and change, and on the other depicting the passing of an age, the widest canvas anyone could ask for. And laced throughout that book is an underlying sense of sadness, and a rejection of certain attitudes and modes of thought that are generally part of the modern mentality.

If that message of bittersweet change from one era to the next resonates with you, if the wide canvas Tolkien paints evokes a response, then the book will strike a cord. Yes, you may have specific characters and scenes to criticize but your overall assessment will remain postive. But if your own expectations are widely divergent from these, if you're looking for an author to give you scenes of gritty realism in the depiction of battle scenes and widespread images of suffering, such as is true in much literature that speaks with the voice of modernity, then I believe it's prudent to seek your meaning and enjoyment in another work. You're asking for something the author never intended to deliver.

[ October 25, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Never have I read a messier thread. There are so many points that we keep jumping back and forth between! Very good discussion though.

Eurytus, in every story, there are main characters and minor characters. Earlier you gave the example of Legolas and how he is not afforded great character detail. I think he is given sufficient detail for what he is, that is a minor character.

And I do disagree with the view about Aragorn, that he is not detailed enough. I think Aragorn is a very good character who intrigues me exceedingly every time I read or think about the books.

[Eurytus]

Ok, I will deal with many of the different posts in one reply, and be as brief as I can be since I think this discussion is approaching its limit.

Point one. The title of this thread is somewhat misleading as it was starting by Essex as a place for us to discuss the presence of ‘flaws’ in the book. He had indicated a viewpoint whereby he thought the book was perfect (later downgraded to nearly perfect) and I was arguing against that.

Point two. I standby my view that not really showing the impact of war is a flaw when you are trying to portray something as being the ‘end of all things’. Essex, I am really not going to argue any more about your list. You have a couple of deaths in that list and the others are things like “lost her father”, “lost their friend” etc. Those are pretty damn minor in terms of the potential losses in times of war. At the end of the day the good boys go to war (8 of them) and they all come back. The fact that one needs to take an extended rest break in some west coast Saga holiday is not really a great hardship.

Point three. As regards 7th Childs views on pre-20th century war. Sorry, but I going to continue to disagree with you. The North African city of Carthage was basically completely destroyed by the Romans. You might want to see the example of Anglesey too, the population of which was nearly wiped out by those pesky Romans. There are other examples too. All of which were completed without the need for 20th century weapons or transport systems. And with the example of the Smallpox, you have to remember that in North America it was a deliberate policy of spreading with infected bed sheets that helped this problem arise.

Point four. Paperthin characters. Sorry but I cannot see any room for manoeuvre here. Legolas IS laughably paperthin. It is not possible to start saying that he is a minor character. He is one of the nine members of the fellowship. Is that minor?
And then Aragorn is not a lot better. One of the books is named after him and yet he is also an archetype of a character.

Point five. As I have said MANY times before, I still like the book. None of this flaws are by themselves critical. But this discussion was originally started to debate just how flawless or not the LOTR is. Hence I have pointed out some.

[Essex]

Eurytus,

The fact that one needs to take an extended rest break in some west coast Saga holiday is not really a great hardship

Nice one! Ok, so Frodo leaving behind his beloved Shire and his friends and family FOREVER is not a great hardship!!!!!????

So then you wouldn't mind leaving behind your friends and loved ones then? Oh dear, I hope none of your relations visit the Barrow-Downs Forums!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Just because Legolas hung out with Frodo for a time doesn't mean that he wasn't a minor character. And once again I must state that I don't think Aragorn is a paperthin character. I can see his motivations and emotions and I feel for him in his hardships. Granted, he is hardly the most detailed character in literary history (not even this book) but to call him paperthin is going way over the top.

[Lyta_Underhill]

And once again I must state that I don't think Aragorn is a paperthin character.
I certainly agree with you now, Eomer; however, it took a few readings for me to come to the realization, and the first time I read the books, Aragorn DID strike me as paper-thin, but I've learned better in subsequent readings. Aragorn is a "slow burn" character for me, but he just gets better every time. As for Legolas, he isn't terribly developed, but he doesn't need to be, either. He accomplishes what he needs to do without a whole lot of personal detail. And after having read the Silmarillion and seen the Elves of the First Age at work, it resonates interestingly with the modest character of Legolas so as to work to his advantage--Son of the King of Mirkwood and yet never one mention of it. Legolas strikes me as having to some extent, a receptive and humble personality that must stand some indoctrination, but that bears it gracefully and to advantage. The good thing about characters that aren't overdrawn to the last line on the face is that we, as readers, can see within the "webwork" of the construct and draw a more personal relationship with that character. (I hope I got that across OK). Legolas is not my personally favorite character, but for those for whom he is the focus, I can sympathize and understand their POV, even if there is a dearth of direct detail.

My summarized point, I suppose, is: Tolkien adds just enough detail to draw the scene and place the characters, but does not ruin an idealized inner picture of the characters with too much detail. For many stories, this will not fly, but Tolkien makes it work because of the grand scale of the world he draws around his characters, and for other reasons I'm sure I haven't figured out yet!

Cheers,
Lyta

[Eurytus]

I must admit that I find it surprising that people are very accepting of the lack of characterisation and will say things about how it allows you to fill in your own details and is the better for it.....

....and yet Tolkien describes scenery in mind-boggling detail. In my view it makes the work unbalanced and indicates that Tolkien is more interested in the world that he had created than those that inhabited it.

In my view a person is always more interesting than a mountain and therefore deserves more attention.
But maybe that's just me.

[Essex]

I'm trying to think what mountain Tolkien described in "mind-boggling" detail....

To repeat, in my opinion I don't need to know exactly what all the characters in a novel are thinking. As mentioned before by others, just the main characters thoughts will do. If I want great characterisation I will read other authors (Stephen King springs to mind) but if I want a story with a superb plot AND great characters (not what you think Eurytus) I will read LOTR.

Because the book is so MOVING I return again and again, as do other people. You only get this feeling from a book where you FEEL for the characters, and therefore how can they be paper thin? I feel mainly for the characters of the hobbits, probably because the story is based around them and that they are believable and strong characters.

PS We are going round in circles and repeating our opinions which is a waste of time. I've been here before (on a different forum) and it can turn into an unpleasent experience. We should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

(Of course Eurytus I'll let you have the last word if you like.........)

[Aiwendil]

Eurytus wrote:
In my view a person is always more interesting than a mountain and therefore deserves more attention.

Tolkien seems to subscribe to the idea that character should be revealed through actions rather than through description. This is at odds with the modern trend, but a great many examples can be found in earlier works. Take the Iliad or the Odyssey. Or the Aeneid. Or even Beowulf. In each of these works (as in LotR) we learn about the characters not by being told about their inner thoughts, hopes, and desires, but rather by being shown what they do. And, again as in LotR, there is a multitude of characters of intermediate importance about whom we learn very little. If you call Tolkien's characters paper-thin, you will have to level the same charge against the characters in these works.

A mountain cannot act, and thus must be described.

It is only modern literature that has developed a curious preoccupation with the inner lives of the characters, and has drawn a disjunction between the internal and the external.

Each way has its advantages and disadvantages. Tolkien's way has the virtue that it presents the characters in a book in the same way that we are actually presented with characters in real life - that is, through their actions. It also makes characterization less burdensome a process, allowing a superior flow of plot. And if done well, it can imply a great deal, and in great detail, about a character's inner life (a prime example in Tolkien is Turin).

The modern way has the advantage that it often allows closer sympathy with the characters and provides us with a more comprehensive characterization. And if done well, the inner lives of the characters can be made into focal points for the plot, so that the plot can proceed relatively unimpeded.

Maybe you prefer the latter way, but I don't think that it is in any obvious way better than the former.

[Eurytus]

Tolkien's way has the virtue that it presents the characters in a book in the same way that we are actually presented with characters in real life - that is, through their actions. It also makes characterization less burdensome a process, allowing a superior flow of plot. And if done well, it can imply a great deal, and in great detail, about a character's inner life (a prime example in Tolkien is Turin).
I find it interesting that your prime example is Turin, which might imply that a character in one of Tolkien's unfinished works is better drawn than those in the LOTR.
And you may be able to develop character by showing their actions but since most of Legolas's actions consist of nothing more than shooting, fighting or running there is little character description obtained. Indeed there is only some throw away details about him walking on the snow etc to show that, hey he's not a man he's an Elf! Beyond that his actions tell us absolutely nothing about him at all. No more so than watching a guy working on the roadworks could indicate that he is interested in chess, or spends his free time re-enacting medieval battles or any number of things.
Is it more interesting watching him wield a pickaxe than to get inside his head and see what makes him tick? Does it tell us more about him?
I personally think not?

As to it following the trend set by the Iliad and the Odyssey.
That may be so, but constructing a pastiche of a style 2,000 years old is not really the way to go about writing a book for a modern audience.
After all, very few modern readers will read either of those books.

And there is no way I am ever going to believe that it is not a flaw to ascribe more detail in describing the development of Pipeweed by Hobbits than to the motivations, character quirks etc of Gimli and Legolas put together (nearly a quarter of the fellowship before anyone complains about them being minor characters).

[Aiwendil]

I find it interesting that your prime example is Turin, which might imply that a character in one of Tolkien's unfinished works is better drawn than those in the LOTR.


Well, I think that Turin is his best character. But there are also good examples in LotR - Boromir, Denethor, Wormtongue. I would say Gollum, but this is one of the few instances where Tolkien does give us something approaching a look inside the character's head.

And you may be able to develop character by showing their actions but since most of Legolas's actions consist of nothing more than shooting, fighting or running there is little character description obtained.

As I said, in many works that lie in the tradition of characterizing through action, characters of less than central importance are not given more than minimal characterizations. Is this good? Certainly not. But does it really detract from the work? I don't think so.

That may be so, but constructing a pastiche of a style 2,000 years old is not really the way to go about writing a book for a modern audience.
After all, very few modern readers will read either of those books.

So the Odyssey and the Iliad are no good?

Or perhaps they are good but it is the duty of modern authors to write for modern audiences that aren't familiar with the classics? But as the popularity of LotR seems to show, modern audiences don't need to be familiar with those works to find elements of their style effective.

In other words, if you are claiming that the Iliad and the Odyssey are not good, then I must simply disagree. But if they are good, then there is no reason that their styles ought not be used.

And I'm not sure why LotR is "pastiche" simply because it utilizes a style found in earlier works. Is the Aeneid pastiche because it resembles the Odyssey in style? Surely not; and yet the Aeneid is far more like the Odyssey than is The Lord of the Rings.

I do agree that The Lord of the Rings has a few minor flaws. But I don't think that the style of characterization is in itself a signficant one.

[Eurytus]

In other words, if you are claiming that the Iliad and the Odyssey are not good, then I must simply disagree. But if they are good, then there is no reason that their styles ought not be used.
Just because something is good does not mean that its style should be used.
Is A Clockwork Orange good. Clearly. Should you write a book in the same style? Probably not, it would clearly be a pastiche of the former.

Is Beowulf (the original poem) a great work of fiction, again clearly. Should it's style be used now? Again no, it would come across as blatantly false.

I have little problem with Tolkien aping the Illiad for the Silmarillion. That after all was attempting to be a mythology.
But the LOTR was not. It was written primarily as a modern book, a sequel to the Hobbit which was likewise, a modern book.

Compare FOTR to ROTK and you can see how Tolkien totally changes the style and it jars.

[Aiwendil]

Just because something is good does not mean that its style should be used.
Is A Clockwork Orange good. Clearly. Should you write a book in the same style? Probably not, it would clearly be a pastiche of the former.
Is Beowulf (the original poem) a great work of fiction, again clearly. Should it's style be used now? Again no, it would come across as blatantly false.


This is a view that I think is surprisingly common and with which I must say I disagree fairly strongly.

First of all, I still don't understand why you equate imitation with pastiche. It seems to me that a work is pastiche only if it poorly applies the techniques of earlier works. Again - is the Aeneid pastiche because it's similar to the Odyssey? If an author were to employ the style of A Clockwork Orange well, surely it wouldn't be mere pastiche.

Second, I think this view is mistaken in attaching critical importance to the circumstances under which a work is written. If it were discovered that Beowulf was in fact written in the early 20th century and that claims of its antiquity were part of some massive conspiracy, would that make it a lesser work? Clearly not, it seems to me.

It seems that this view values works of literature only for their historical value rather than as works of literature in themselves.

I hope I haven't mischaracterized your view.

But the LOTR was not. It was written primarily as a modern book, a sequel to the Hobbit which was likewise, a modern book.

Where was this ever declared? I don't claim that LotR is not modern; but on the other hand I don't think it's quite right to call it a modern book and then judge it by standards peculiar to "modern books". The Lord of the Rings simply is what it is. It should be judged simply as a work of literature, not as a modern book, not as an ancient epic.

Compare FOTR to ROTK and you can see how Tolkien totally changes the style and it jars.

Ah! This is a complaint of a completely different kind. This kind of criticism seems perfectly valid to me. I personally disagree that the stylistic change is jarring, but I do take your meaning.

[The Saucepan Man]

Compare FOTR to ROTK and you can see how Tolkien totally changes the style and it jars.

Although it never really occured to me before, I do see your point here Eurytus. But I think that this goes back to the book being written primarily from the Hobbits' point of view. FotR largely portrays situations where the Hobbits are interacting with the other characters on a one to one (or four to one smilies/wink.gif ) basis and where their adventures are the focal point. This begins to change at the Council of Elrond and with the formation of the Fellowship when the much wider struggle, of the free peoples of Middle-earth, comes into play. By the time we get to TTT and RotK, we are witnessing these events of global significance more directly, and frequently the Hobbits (specifically Merry and Pippin) become virtual bystanders.

I think that this change in style is intentional and that it actually works well since it serves to convey this sense that events of great significance are taking place. Merry and Pippin can only stand by and record them, feeling rather useless (like unwanted baggage, as Merry says) until they are pitched directly into the action. The fact that Merry and Pippin actually tell us of their discomfort at being on the periphery shows, I believe, that this was intentional on Tolkien's part.

I would disagree that this characterises the whole of TTT and RotK. The chapters depicting the journey of Frodo and Sam and the adventures of Merry and Pippin in Fangorn still contain those close inter-personal relationships that characterise the early parts of FotR. But, when we are reading of the great events taking place in Rohan and Gondor, the transition in style is evident. And I don't feel that it jars. Rather it reflects the scale of the events being portrayed.

In effect, the narrative style mirrors the transition of the story from the parochial to the global, but always seen through the eyes of the parochials. And by the end, these parochials have become sufficiently mature and worldly-wise to take on the challenge of their own nation's struggle.

[Eurytus]

OK, this time its going to have to be my last post on the subject or I am going to just keep on going forever (well unless there is something I feel I just have to comment on of course).

As regards using an archaic style like the Iliad being wrong. I truly believe this to be true, in fact I also believe it to be extremely pretentious. Put it this way, the Iliad is written in that form because that is how they chose to write at the time it was written. To purposely copy that form of writing now is just false.

Or to put it another way. If Robert Jordan’s next fantasy book came out and he started using “Lo’s” everywhere and deliberately archaic language, what would people think? Somehow I doubt he would get praise. It would come across as an affectation and rightly so.

It is not necessary to use the language of the old epics to write an epic. War and Peace is an epic but its writing language is pretty ageless. To imitate antiquity for the sake of making your story appear more epic seems wrong to me.

As to the changes in language jarring. Again I truly believe this. The biggest example is Aragorn of course. His speech patterns change totally from FOTR to ROTK. In ROTK he is practically Fingolfin, whereas in FOTR he retains the DNA of a hobbit with wooden shoes called Trotter. Either he was purposely speaking ‘down’ to the hobbits in the first book or the change is not realistic. Either way its bad.

And in fact, it is the fact that LOTR is supposed to be written from the point of view of the hobbits and from he recollections of their friends that makes the change all the more jarring. I take the point about Frodo and Sam’s story retaining the same style. That is true. But take the chapters where Pippin or Merry are the hobbit representatives in the hosts of Gondor and Rohan. Things are described in terminology that a hobbit simply would not use. Take the quote from the post Mount Doom celebrations where the host’s joy is described as being “like swords”. Would a hobbit talk in such a manner? There is not prior or post indication that he would. Or the description of Theoden charging the leader of the Southrons. Again language is used that just doesn’t fit with the view of a hobbit relating this story.

For as long as I read the books I will believe that Tolkien made a mistake here. It was started as a sequel to the hobbit but by the latter stages he wanted to make a publishable Silmarillion. I think his desire for this overcame his logic. He should have gone back and fixed the earlier part of the book if he wanted to have ROTK written in the way that it was. And he should certainly have removed the suggestion that LOTR was the memoirs of hobbits.

[The X Phial]

While I disagree with the idea that imitation of older styles is wrong, I am not going to argue the point. It's an opinion, fair enough. What I take issue with is the characterisation of Aragorn's change in character as affected.

Aragorn is a complex character. If he acted the same way in Gondor as he did in Bree he would not make a very good leader. He is old enough to be able to change roles with the situation. Tolkien changes his tone and his behavior as he gets closer to taking on the new role as King. He is sincere in his simple care for the hobbits in FotR, and he is also sincere in his more complex motivations in RotK. Just because a person can adapt does not make them false or affected.

Also, the hobbits change as the story progresses. The hobbits of FotR might not use the simile you mentioned, but a blooded Pippin or Merry certainly could have. If the tone changes, it is to reflect the differences in how the hobbits perceive the world. And, though they are people of simple pleasures, they are not stupid. Bilbo writes poetry with imagery not common to hobbits. Why hem them into a particular style? Do all humans write the same way?

So, in short, while I agree that the tone changes, I disagree about the motivation behind it. Aragorn is not false, the hobbits can and do grow and change, and Tolkien's use of archaic language is to simulate a culture that no longer exists, not to make his prose more "important" sounding.

Ok, those are my two cents. Toss them in the next wishing well you find.

[Eurytus]

Tolkien's use of archaic language is to simulate a culture that no longer exists, not to make his prose more "important" sounding.

If you write a story set in Ancient Greece do you need to write it in Ancient Greek? Do you even need to write it in a style similar to the way the Ancient Greeks wrote.

A good writer should be able to evoke any era or situation he chooses without needing to change his language forms to support it.

[The X Phial]

How do you change tone without changing the use of language? That doesn't make any sense to me. Gondor is the last remnant of an ancient people. If someone is writing about, say, Romans and Celts, they use different expressions and turns of phrase when people from those two groups are talking. This is a common literary device. Perhaps it is more pronounced because Tolkien was a philologist and, as such, relied on that device more than others would. Still, it makes sense, at least to me, that people from different areas speak differently. Using archaisms is one way to indicate that the area is older and more formal and traditional, that is all.

[Eurytus]

I was not just talking about language that the characters speak although that is certainly part of the problem. I certainly do not see the need for the men of Gondor to speak in a more archaic way that do other men, and Elves who are more ancient than anyone. If Gondor spoke in an antiquated style then we would have seen hints of it in Boromir but we do not.
The jarring difference in language I spoke of was more than just how people talk. Take this passage;

“Then Theoden was aware of him, and would not wait for his onset, but crying to Snowmane he charged headlong to greet him. Great was the clash of their meeting. But the white fury of the Northmen burned the hotter, and more skilled was their knighthood with long spears and bitter. Fewer were they but they clove through the Southrons like a fire-bolt in a forest. Right through the press drove Theoden Thengel's son, and his spear was shivered as he threw down their chieftain. Out swept his sword, and he spurred to the standard, hewed staff and bearer; and the black serpent foundered. Then all that was left unslain of their cavalry turned and fled far away.”

Would you see a passage like that in FOTR? No, you would not. You would see it in the Silmarillion. Would a hobbit write such text? I doubt it, especially when there was no hint of such language being used in FOTR. And it is no use saying that the hobbits have grown and hence use this language by ROTK. They were not writing the book as a diary as it happened. They were writing it years later, hence there is no conceivable reason why Frodo would change his style so greatly within the same book.

And I truly believe that if a fantasy book came out by any other author and used that sort of language it would be derided as “trying to be more epic than it is”.
For some reason Tolkien gets a free pass though.

Basically "Great was the clash of their meeting" is not really good writing.

[Liriodendron]

Writers should feel free to use any language they wish...to create whatever they aim to! When I paint a picture, I may do it in a beautiful, (imitative) classical style, because I want that. I see no reason why a story cannot be written with speech or language of different eras, to invoke a aura of something different! This is artistic expression! (IMO) If that is the effect the author wishes to create, go at it! Whether it works or not depends on the skill of the writer. I like the "lo's" and formal flowery speech of certain characters, at certain times. This makes it fun, much enjoyed escapism, for me. I really don't think there should be "rules". Reader's will enjoy it, or they won't! Tolkien wins! smilies/smile.gif Of course, people are also free to criticise at will... smilies/wink.gif

[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Essex]

Eurytus,

Re: Would a hobbit write such text? I doubt it, especially when there was no hint of such language being used in FOTR. And it is no use saying that the hobbits have grown and hence use this language by ROTK. They were not writing the book as a diary as it happened. They were writing it years later, hence there is no conceivable reason why Frodo would change his style so greatly within the same book.

Here’s my 2 cents on the basis of the red book of westmarch being written by characters from the book itself.

I would say the book was mainly written by 3 authors:

Bilbo
Frodo
Sam

They would all have different types of writing styles.

I would vouch for Bilbo in that his style could be appropriated to the quote you mention above. ie "Great was the clash of their meeting" (which is perfectly good English by the way). Bilbo spent a lot of his time translating from elvish into the common tounge, so may have been influenced from there.

Frodo could at least speak a smattering of Elvish, and again could have been influenced to a lesser extent by this.

Sam could have written the first couple of chapters which I concede do have a different style than the rest of the book. (ie mentioning the fox, for example…)

The book was then handed down by Sam to his daughter before he went across the Sundering Sea. Further updates to the book took place over at least the next 60 years by the Fairbairns.

Different authors have different styles. Why can’t a particular hobbit write in the stylized language of ROTK?

[Eurytus]

I think that this topic can truly be termed the Beast that would not Die!


OK, I do not have my copy of LOTR with me at the moment so I will have to write this response from memory and it is a little while since I read the books so here goes….

If my memory serves the handover of the Red Book of Westmarch goes something like this.

Bilbo initiates it and hands it over to Frodo when the latter returns to Rivendell after the events of the War of the Ring.
Now up to that point, Bilbo would have written the Hobbit for definite (in a somewhat childish style).
At that point the only further bits Bilbo could have written were the events leading up to the Ford of Bruinen. And even that only had Frodo filled him in on ALL the details prior to setting out with the Fellowship after the council of Elrond. But given the detail of description present it is far more likely that someone who had been there had written it, ie Frodo after he returned to BagEnd.

Frodo later hands over the Red Book of Westmarch to Sam before he departs for the Grey Havens. At that point Sam states, “Oh, you’ve finished it” to which Frodo replies that the last chapters are for Sam to complete. That dialogue and the time which Frodo has had available to him at BagEnd would seem to indicate that Frodo has completed it up until the scouring of the Shire and that Sam would complete the re-ordering of the Shire and the story of the last trip to the Grey Havens.

All the evidence points to the most likely scenario being that Frodo is the one who has written 95% at least of what we know as LOTR. It makes no sense at all for Sam to have written the LOTR and had Bilbo written the first book of FOTR then his Elvish expertise obviously didn’t change things much.
But in all likelihood you have the same author being responsible for the insight into the Fox’s state of mind and the description of Theoden. It just does not stack up. I am sorry but given that Tolkien wanted the book to be as if written by the Hobbits, the change of styles (which is extreme, there’s no two ways about it) does not work.
Unfortunately the book does clearly illustrate that Tolkien started off with a sequel to the Hobbit and changed mid-way through to a sequel to the Silmarillion. The fault is that he did not then go back and fix this flaw. He could have changed the tone of the first book or could have removed the theory that the Hobbits wrote the book. What he actually did was leave in a very visible flaw.

p.s. I am going to have to disagree with you on “Great was the clash of their meeting” being good English. Indeed I think that most people would find it to be pretentious has it been in any book other than LOTR. Had it been written by Terry Goodkind for example. It is an example of someone deliberately aiming for an old style of writing to attempt to give an increased antiquity and epic scope to a story.
If the writing is good enough then it is not needed. Did William Shakespeare write Anthony and Cleopatra is a style aping the writings of Cicero?
No, he did not, he wrote it in the style of his day.
Did it make the play any less great?
No, not in my view.

[Essex]

As I'm sure someone has said before, Tolkien wrote LOTR to create a 'legend' for England, as he believed it did not have any great old stories that were truly English. (Even the Legend of Arthur was not truly English)

This is why he wrote it in the style we see.

PS In my view, who says Sam, Frodo and all did not help Bilbo write the fellowship (up to the council) while they were at rivendell. And in my view who says Sam or his descendants did not update the book?

[Ransom]

I am going to have to disagree with you on “Great was the clash of their meeting” being good English."

On what basis? Your objection seems to be to style, not technical compitancy. Most buisnesses prefer writing with short sentences, little adjectives, and extreme brevity. On that basis, I can argue that most modern fiction writing is "not good English."

Technically:

Great = predicate adjective
was = trans. verb
the = article
clash = subject
of = preposition
their = pronoun
meeting = object of preposition.

Great modifies clash. The preposition describes clash. The punctuation's correct. It's just an inverted sentence akin to me saying, "A malfunction in the new package is the problem."

[Bêthberry]

I have been following this discussion from afar but perhaps it is now time for me to make some observations.

I have, to start, some sympathy with the general position of Eurytus, although I would not make all the claims he does, nor couch my position as he does his.

There is, I feel, a great reluctance here at the Downs to 'deconstruct' Tolkien, to consider where the fault lines lie in the geopgraphy he molded, and to consider why the tectonic plates grate against each other, or where.

For me, they do, and this is one of the fascinating points about Tolkien. Nor do I share in the elf-like nostalgia for days of eld. I do share in the profound regret and horror over the brutal mechnanization of life and for the stubborn insistence that forms of power, domination, and bullying denigrate the human spirit and warp human potential. (For me, the error lies within human species and not merely in the modern age.) And I think that, brooding over his work is a contemplation of change, mutability and death which marks the best of modern literature, even as he is, quixotically, a conservative author who does not share some of the traits of other modern authors.

What amazes me about Tolkien is the breadth of his imagination, his respect for the importance of fairie, and his remarkable efforts throughout his life to bring this seething, teeming mass of idea and material under some kind of coherent artistic vision.

It is this constant revision and effort to bring everything together which marks Tolkien as a modern writer, bequeathing us with so many forms of stories and revisions.

The multiplicity of the forms is what, I would suggest, compels us as readers. We want to find that grand unifying theory which Tolkien himself strove for. We want to say definitively if balrogs have wings or not even if Tolkien himself was not consistent. We want to know definitely who Tom is, even if Tolkien himself gave us the dodge that he is an enigma. Instead of viewing Tolkien's ideas as a progression from the comedic children's tale of The Hobbit to the dark vision of LOTR, with The Silmarillion wavering in the background as some kind of palimpsest (a parchment from which writing has been erased or partially erased to make room for another text), we want to continue his efforts to create an ultimate form.

This is our joy as readers of Tolkien, I think.

It is also our bane, for if the author who gave life and meaning to the story failed, how can we hope to rewrite him correctly?

How does this relate to questions of his style?

Tolkien's materials were many, various, widespread and contradictory. His mind was not of an authoritarian, dogmatic bent, rigidly restricting his ideas to the rule of the One Ring. Instead, he sought to bring his ideas and materials together into symbiosis and synthesis.

For example, the influence of Beowulf and the Norse and Germanic mythologies and Celtic legend and philology is clear and irrefutable, but like the Old English poem itself, the fault lines run up against each other. It is (or was, in the past) a major point of critical discussion how Beowulf combines the old warrior ethos with Christian ethic, so it is no wonder that precisely pinpointing with the accuracy of Cruise missiles (hah!) the same feature in LOTR is going to be one of our favourite endeavours--or not, depending upon whether this feature of faith is crucial in your reading of Tolkien. Both texts hold the features in potential.

My point, however, is to argue that Tolkien's vision is amorphous and syncretic. And it does not always work flawlessly. But such works rarely do. And if they did, they would likely be the less for it.

Tolkien was able, through the strength of his imagination, to envision hobbits who were creatures of the past who could nonetheless speak with a contemporary dialect. What he could not do was imagine a noble, heroic dialect for his own age. This is why Aragorn's lines ring so ludicrously archaic, and Legolas' too and sometimes Gandalf.

(For reference, look at Legolas' description of Edoras in TTT, chap vi, The King of the Golden Hall, and Gandalf's response, especially the archaic "are come".)

Inversion of grammar is a part of the structure of the English language. As is oversubordination. (There are even formal names for these elements of style in classical rhetoric, which Tolkien knew.) However, the constant reliance upon these structures alone represents a point where Tolkien's desire to represent a noble spirit fails. Perhaps this was because, for him, history is 'a long defeat' and because he could see nothing noble or heroic in his own age. I cannot say or argue here.

I can only say that the tremendous range of Tolkien's reach covered many styles, features, archetypes of characters, and psychologies of characters. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't. That is one reason why he revised and revised and revised so fervently throughout his life.

I would think we could, with truth, admit that the plates shift. It does not mean that the centre does not hold.

[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Eurytus]

I would think we could, with truth, admit that the plates shift. It does not mean that the centre does not hold.

This I agree with, my position from the start has always been against the totally uncritical viewpoint held by people I see on Tolkien boards from time to time.
An uncritical viewpoint which is in itself, damaging in my view. If you are uncritical then you are effectively just a sponge absorbing all the information a book throws at you. If you do not view it with a critical eye how can you explore its intricacies?

[Eurytus]

It's just an inverted sentence akin to me saying, "A malfunction in the new package is the problem."
That’s your view and that’s fine for you. But to me that sentence is

1. Not the way people spoke when Tolkien wrote the book
2. And therefore is a conscious attempt to sound archaic
3. And so is an example of writing with a false voice, solely to give your work a mythic tone that the quality of the story and writing should give it.

[Eurytus]

As I'm sure someone has said before, Tolkien wrote LOTR to create a 'legend' for England, as he believed it did not have any great old stories that were truly English. (Even the Legend of Arthur was not truly English)
This is why he wrote it in the style we see.

PS In my view, who says Sam, Frodo and all did not help Bilbo write the fellowship (up to the council) while they were at rivendell. And in my view who says Sam or his descendants did not update the book?


As to your fist point, seriously unless you can find a quotation to support this then you cannot make that point. Tolkien wrote the Book of Lost Tales as a mythology for England and had somewhat abandoned the idea by the time he was tidying up the Silmarillion, hence the vanishing of concepts like Tol Erressa being the British Isles.
The LOTR was simply NOT written as a mythology for the UK. Sorry but it simply is not true. It was written, at the request of his publisher as a sequel to the Hobbit. The fact he started to ape the style of the Silmarillion by the half way point does not change this.

As to the latter point. Sorry but you are simply making suppositions to support your defence of the style change. The book makes it pretty clear that when Frodo hands the book to Sam it is nearly complete. Can you see Sam editing his beloved master’s words? No, not easy is it.
However it is attempted to be justified, Tolkien wanted the book to appear as written by the Hobbits. The greater proportion of this was by Frodo. The style changes GREATLY and inexplicably.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

But a real archaic English is far more terse than modern; also many of things said could not be said in our slack and often frivolous idiom. Of course, not being specially well read in modern English, and far more familiar with works in the ancient and 'middle' idioms, my own ear is to some extent affected; so that though I could easily recollect how a modern would put this or that, what comes easiest to mind or pen is not quite that. But take an example from the chapter that you specially singled out (and called terrible): Book iii, 'The King of the Golden Hall'. 'Nay, Gandalf!' said the King. 'You do not know your own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better.'

This is a fair example - moderated or watered archaism. Using only words that still are used or known to the educated, the King would really have said 'Nay, thou (n')wost not thine own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall...' etc. I know well enough what a modern would say. 'Not at all, my dear G. You don't know your own skill as a doctor. Things aren't going to be like that. I shall go to the war in person, even if I have to be one of the first casualties' - and then what? Theoden would certainly think, and probably say 'thus shall I sleep better'! But people who think like that just do not talk a modern idiom. You can have 'I shall lie easier in my grave', or 'I should sleep sounder in my grave like that rather than if I stayed at home' - if you like. But there would be an insincerity of thought, a disunion of word and meaning. For a King who spoke in a modern style would not really think in such terms at all, and any reference to sleeping quietly in the grave would be a deliberate archaism of expression on his part (however worded) far more bogus than the actual 'archaic' English that I have used. Like some non-Christian making a reference to some Christian belief which did not in fact move him at all.Letter #171

The archaisms are deliberate and have a purpose. Tolkien wasn't trying to sound important: he genuinely believed that modern English is too slack and frivolous properly to convey the thoughts and feelings that he wanted his characters to express. In an essay on Beowulf, Tolkien once wrote "Personally you may not like an archaic vocabulary, and word order artificially maintained as an elevated and literary language. You may prefer the brand new, the lively and the snappy. But whatever may be the case with other poets of past ages (with Homer, for instance) the author of Beowulf did not share this preference."

I might say the same for Tolkien. He was choosing a voice that he thought best suited what he was trying to say, and although we may not agree with him, we must at least acknowledge what it was that he was trying to achieve. This was not a case of trying to sound like Homer (note that Tolkien, who had read Homer in Greek, regards his style as quite snappy and crisp), or even of aping the Bible. He was using every trick he could think of to give his work a voice that suited the feelings and situations that he was attempting to portray. In concluding the above letter, he wrote: I am sorry to find you so affected by the extraordinary 20th C. delusion that its usages per se and simply as 'contemporary' - irrespective of whether they are terser, more vivid (or even nobler!) - have some peculiar validity, above those of other times, so that not to use them (even when quite unsuitable in tone) is a solecism, a gaffe, a thing at which one's friends shudder or feel hot under the collar. Shake yourself out of this parochialism of time!I find it difficult to disagree with his reasoning.

[Liriodendron]

Yes! I loved reading that Theoden bit. Whatever Tolkien did with the language sounds wonderful. Analyze, schmanalyze! I could tell you some things that might not suit me about LoTR, but an artist's choice of tools to create his work doesn't seem "correct or incorrect". (of course, you may like it or not) The bits in the movie where more contemporary language is used jump out at me. (and bug me) I love the older style, it sounds more eloquent. That is probably why it was said that the best lines were the direct quotes from the books. It's that snazzy language man! smilies/wink.gif

[Eurytus]

Shake yourself out of this parochialism of time!
I find Tolkien's quote here greatly amusing. He seems not to realise the hypocrisy of that statement. That someone who greatly disliked the modern world and consciously sort to antiquate his book should accuse someone else of parochialism of time is slightly bizarre.

As to the antigue text being necessary and helpful to the tone, I have to disagree. War and Peace is an Epic, does its style of writing try to ape the old epics? No.

Besides which, whatever tone Tolkien is saying he tried to achieve and whether it suited the work does not square with the fact that it was meant to be written by Hobbits. The same hobbits who wrote book one. Why the change? It simply does not add up.

[The Saucepan Man]

Besides which, whatever tone Tolkien is saying he tried to achieve and whether it suited the work does not square with the fact that it was meant to be written by Hobbits. The same hobbits who wrote book one.

Well, I think that the Letter quoted by Squatter shows that Tolkien certainly intended to highlight the difference in the styles of speech adopted by the rustic and down-to-earth Hobbits on the one hand and by the Kings of Men on the other. Whether it works or not is clearly a matter of opinion.

I was poking around the BBC's Big Read forum earlier today, and there are numerous examples of clearly well-read and erudite individuals who find that Tolkien's style is not to their taste. And part of this arises from the archaic tone adopted in parts of the Book, I am sure. For example, I saw a number of comments made by people to the effect that they loved the Hobbit but could not get on with LotR. And the one thread that I saw discussing the Silmarillion clearly indicated that this is very much an acquired taste (which I can appreciate having given up on it myself first time round).

But there are also a significant number of people for whom Tolkien's style works, and who see no problem in reconciling the different styles. And, this being the case, I don't see how this can be described, from an objective standpoint, as a flaw. As I said, it is a matter of opinion. For my own part, I had never previously noticed the difference in styles (on a conscious level at least), so it clearly didn't jar with me. And reflecting on it now, I can appreciate the way in which this serves to assist the reader in the journey from the cosy world of the Shire to the wider world and the great events that are unfolding there.

As for the Hobbits' authorship, is it stretching the imagination too much to suppose that Hobbits who had mixed with the nobility of Rohan and Gondor might adopt their tone when describing their part in the War of the Ring? Certainly, it makes sense that those seeking to create an accurate record of the events (as the Red Book of Westmarch is intended to be) would use the style of speech employed by them when recording their words.

[Aiwendil]

Well, I've dug out Letters and tracked down the relevant passage, only to find that The Squatter of Amon Rudh has beaten me to it.

I've never been much impressed with (or perhaps have never understood) criticisms of this sort - criticisms about "pretention" or lack of modern style. Such arguments come with a host of meta-artistic assumptions. They seem to be criticisms not of the work of art itself, but rather of the author. For surely a text alone cannot be "pretentious"; it can only be so in a certain context, and given certain preconceptions about what pretention is. Hence a charge of "pretention" only has force if one accepts the view that the quality of art depends on the artist rather than the art itself.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have always been interested in the art, and interested in the artist only as a related matter not concerned with my primary enjoyment of the work. I like the Iliad not because it is old, but because it is good. I would like it just the same whether it was written three thousand years ago or last year. But I suppose there has been a great trend in academia toward the opposite view: that ancient literature is only interesting for its antiquity, not as literature in itself. (This, by the way, is a view that Tolkien certainly disagreed with).

An accompanying view is that modern literature must be modern in style. But again, unless it is not the works of art themselves in which we take an interest, there can be no reason for this. Unless, I suppose, it is the belief that the modern style is simply innately superior to all others - and if this isn't an example of temporal parochialism, I don't know what is.

It is quite a different matter when one encounters a poor attempt to write in an archaic style, as Tolkien points out in letter 171:

The proper use of 'tushery' is to apply it to the kind of bogus 'medieval' stuff which attempts (without knowledge) to give a supposed temporal colour with expletives, such as tush, pish, zounds, marry, and the like.

But such writing is bad simply because it is bad, not because it is outdated.

Tolkien points out quite rightly that there are simply some things that are better expressed with archaic language. Archaic English really does have a terser, nobler quality to it than modern English, quite in keeping with the heroic spirit of heroes from northern mythology. Tolkien was, more than most authors, keenly aware of the close relation between language and content. If you are going to write a mythic story about heroism in an ancient world surely it makes some sense to write in a mythic, heroic, and ancient style. Writing about these things in a modern style would result in a subtle disjunction between form and content. The Shire is, in quite a few ways, more modern than other regions of Middle-earth, and it makes sense that those portions of the book which it concerns employ a more modern style.

It is hardly parochialism to suggest that the style of a book should match its content. It certainly is parochialism to insist that one's own native style is the only style that ought to be used.

Certainly there are examples of modern epics, like War and Peace that do not use an antiquated style. Why should they? They are about the modern world. Even were they not, no one is insisting that an archaic style is the only way to write about archaic things. It is simply the way that best preserves unity of prose and content.

I do think that there may be a problem with supposing that the hobbits wrote all of this in its high style. But this is quite a different criticism. And I am not altogether convinced that Frodo was incapable of grasping the higher style - he was rather a learned hobbit. But there are other problems with the framing device as well: there are two passages (one in book I about a fox that observes the hobbits and one in book IV about Gollum's near-repentance) describing things that none of the hobbits could possibly have known about.

I should perhaps defend myself against the charge (made against the forum in general) that I refuse to criticize The Lord of the Rings in any way. It's my favorite book, and so I find very few things to criticize. But there are flaws. The book would benefit from an improved characterization of Aragorn, for example, whose personality is somewhat ill-defined, considering his central importance. The entrance of Sam and Frodo into Mordor relies a bit too heavily on coincidence and luck. There is a certain insensitivity with regard to the portrayal of race. These and others, though, are very minor flaws in my estimation.

[Eurytus]

As for the Hobbits' authorship, is it stretching the imagination too much to suppose that Hobbits who had mixed with the nobility of Rohan and Gondor might adopt their tone when describing their part in the War of the Ring? Certainly, it makes sense that those seeking to create an accurate record of the events (as the Red Book of Westmarch is intended to be) would use the style of speech employed by them when recording their words.

But it’s not just when describing their words is it? Suddenly they are describing events and even landscapes in a very different way and it simply does not ring true.

[Eurytus]

Tolkien points out quite rightly that there are simply some things that are better expressed with archaic language. Archaic English really does have a terser, nobler quality to it than modern English, quite in keeping with the heroic spirit of heroes from northern mythology.

I utterly disagree with the opinion that archaic English can somehow express things of a nobler quality than modern English. Modern English can express anything its author puts their mind to, if the author is good enough. There is no inherent superiority in archaic English for this purpose.
For example Atticus Finch is one of the noblest characters in fiction. Was he required to say things like “Thus” and “Nay” and other Faux-Old English terminology?

no one is insisting that an archaic style is the only way to write about archaic things. It is simply the way that best preserves unity of prose and content.

A unity of prose that was shot to bits by the divergence between books 1 and 3 of course. I say again, Aragorn did not seem to find the need for endless “Lo’s” before he got the ROTK and Tolkien decided that it needed to be more epic and to convert the book into a sequel to the Silmarillion.

The reason I will always like LOTR and especially the Silmarillion is because of the one talent that I think Tolkien had spades of. The wealth of invention he displays, particularly in the Silmarillion which is my favourite book of his. But without that invention would I read Tolkien? Very doubtful.

His books set outside Middle Earth show no particular merit and even his attempt at a sequel to LOTR shows that once the inspiration of invention wears off, his writing talent is not enough on its own. The remnant we have of A New Shadow is of a quality that would fall below pretty much any book in the fantasy shelves of your local book store.
With Tolkien, the invention, the construct is all.

[Essex]

Eutytus, your quote But it’s not just when describing their words is it? Suddenly they are describing events and even landscapes in a very different way and it simply does not ring true.

One of the main themes of the story is the CHANGE to the hobbits, what they have gone through and how they have grown. They were little more than adolescents when the book starts. Through the events of the War of the Ring we see them develop into adults. We can clearly see this in the Scouring of the Shire when they take control of the situation and defeat Saruman. They have been totally affected by the situations that unfolded in the book. How can you categorically state that their style of writing and language did not change? They spent 2 months in Rivendell, 1 month in Lorien, they spent time with the people of Gondor and Rohan, rubbed shoulders with the Great of these lands - how could they NOT be affected by this?

As Mr Saucepan puts

For my own part, I had never previously noticed the difference in styles (on a conscious level at least), so it clearly didn't jar with me. And reflecting on it now, I can appreciate the way in which this serves to assist the reader in the journey from the cosy world of the Shire to the wider world and the great events that are unfolding there.

I agree totally. Though (mainly as the film is coming out but partly because of this thread) I am re-reading the book again (for the umpteenth time and still enjoying it) and am taking your (Eurytus) main points here into consideration. I think the BBC Radio adaptation hits the nail on the head when you can hear Strider’s disguised West Country accent when speaking in Bree, and he slowly changes it as events unfold at the Prancing Pony and we leave towards Weathertop. We have the language of the Shire and the lands west of the Misty Mountains and move onto a different style as we approach the lands of Gondor and Rohan.

The book makes it pretty clear that when Frodo hands the book to Sam it is nearly complete. Can you see Sam editing his beloved master’s words? No, not easy is it.

No, but I can see his descendants doing this. Written history is always being updated as we move forward in time, is it not? I have a set of Britannica on a shelf next to me here. It explains many of the same situations it did 100 years ago, but is very different to the original.

If you do not view it with a critical eye how can you explore its intricacies? I can accept all your other points as valid opinions, but cannot except your point that people cannot explore the intricacies of the book because they can see very little wrong with it! I get a different view every time I read the book and study it’s plot, language, history etc. It has the ability show something new every time I read them. This time I’m noticing the many weaknesses of the Nazgul as I read. I must have read lotr 10 times before I read the Silmarillion and some of the Histories of Middle-earth, and on re-reading lotr it had another level to explore. So please, don’t say that people who (to you) have a non critical view of the great qualities of Tolkien’s work cannot grasp the intricacies of Tolkien's work.

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[Essex]

Eurytus,
Your point:

As to your fist point, seriously unless you can find a quotation to support this then you cannot make that point. Tolkien wrote the Book of Lost Tales as a mythology for England and had somewhat abandoned the idea by the time he was tidying up the Silmarillion, hence the vanishing of concepts like Tol Erressa being the British Isles.
The LOTR was simply NOT written as a mythology for the UK. Sorry but it simply is not true. It was written, at the request of his publisher as a sequel to the Hobbit. The fact he started to ape the style of the Silmarillion by the half way point does not change this.


Ok, so I’ve picked up ‘Letters’, haad a very quick scan, and what do I find?

Letter 124 To Sir Stanley Unwin
[Allen & Unwin had passed on a reader's enquiry as to whether Tolkien had written an 'Authentic History of Faery'.]

In parts it states:

…it (lotr) is not really a sequel to The Hobbit, but to The Silmarillion….. I feel that it is tied to the Silmarillion. It (the Silmarillion) has captured The Lord of the Rings, so that that has become simply its continuation and completion

Therefore the Lord of the Rings has completed the work that was started on the Silmarillion i.e. a Legend for England.

To continue:
131 To Milton Waldman[After Allen & Unwin, under pressure from Tolkien to make up their minds, had reluctantly declined to publish The Lord of the Rings together with The Silmarillion, Tolkien was confident that Milton Waldman of Collins would shortly issue both books under his firm's imprint…. with the intention of demonstrating that The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion were interdependent and indivisible.]

In parts it states:

But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite…….

Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing………..

The Hobbit, which has much more essential life in it, was quite independently conceived: I did not know as I began it that it belonged. But it proved to be the discovery of the completion of the whole, its mode of descent to earth, and merging into 'history'. As the high Legends of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view – and the last tale blends them…….

The sequel, The Lord of the Rings, much the largest, and I hope also in proportion the best, of the entire cycle, concludes the whole business – an attempt is made to include in it, and wind up, all the elements and motives of what has preceded: elves, dwarves, the Kings of Men, heroic 'Homeric' horsemen, ores and demons, the terrors of the Ring-servants and Necromancy, and the vast horror of the Dark Throne, even in style it is to include the colloquialism and vulgarity of Hobbits, poetry and the highest style of prose.

Is this proof enough for you that lotr, as part of the whole, was Tolkien’s version of a mythology for England?

[Eurytus]

One of the main themes of the story is the CHANGE to the hobbits, what they have gone through and how they have grown. They were little more than adolescents when the book starts. Through the events of the War of the Ring we see them develop into adults. We can clearly see this in the Scouring of the Shire when they take control of the situation and defeat Saruman. They have been totally affected by the situations that unfolded in the book. How can you categorically state that their style of writing and language did not change? They spent 2 months in Rivendell, 1 month in Lorien, they spent time with the people of Gondor and Rohan, rubbed shoulders with the Great of these lands - how could they NOT be affected by this?
No, but I can see his descendants doing this. Written history is always being updated as we move forward in time, is it not? I have a set of Britannica on a shelf next to me here. It explains many of the same situations it did 100 years ago, but is very different to the original.


I cannot believe I am still having to retread the same ground again and again. As to these two contradictory points.

1. You used the latter point to justify the change in tone in an earlier post.
2. you now state in the first point that the tone changes because the Hobbits themselves changed.

How do these two posts tie together. Sam’s descendants haven’t changed have they?

Besides which the fact the Hobbits change is totally and utterly irrelevant. I repeat, they are not writing this book as a travelogue. It is not being ‘written on the road’.
Evidence and plain logic indicates that Frodo wrote the whole thing when he returned and therefore there is NO reason for the change in tone at all.

And if you find this “If you do not view it with a critical eye how can you explore its intricacies?” insulting then I have to conclude that you are too thin-skinned for your own good. Indeed since I have kept this discussion on the level from day one and have kept emotion out of it I find being accused of insulting people in itself insulting.

[Legolas]

Please focus on the points of the discussion, not the negative feelings you get from the points. If you find something insulting, simply ask more about it or present your own take on the matter without taking offense. Additionally, negative comments on the character of a forum member are far from on-topic and not allowed. That goes for everyone. No one is required to post on a thread they find insulting or repetitive.

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[Bêthberry]

Hello Squatter, Eurytus, Sauce, Essex, Aiwendel, and All others interested here,

Squatter, your quotation from Tolkien's letter actually demonstrates my point rather than refutes it. I had said Tolkien was unable to imagine a modern idiom that could be heroic and his letter suggests that. And I would agree with Eyrutus that is it preposterous to say that only archaic language can be heroic. Language can be anything a good writer makes it.

After all, I am trained as a scholar of English literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; I studied five languages, including Old English; I taught classical rhetoric and oratory as well as public speaking and modern literature as well as medieval. I say this not to set myself up as an authority, but to dismiss the ludicrous notion that my argument disparages antiquity in favour of modernity.

My point is that it is possible to write in a heroic modern style, but that Tolkien did not.

He did not, I suggest, because he could not conceive of heroism in the modern age--it was not only that his ear was attuned to his beloved texts of old.

However, rather than simply say yea or nay in the burgeoning ranks of a controversy, I would like to do two things here. First, I would like to offer examples of modern heroic language, to demonstrate its terseness and its power. Second, I would like to offer a plausible reason why Tolkien was unable to imagine this kind of style.

An address on the battlefield of a monumental slaughter from a war which really was a prelude to modern warfare, Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


From an earlier to a subsequent war: some of Winston Churchill's oratory:

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, What is our policy? I will say; "It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy." You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."

to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940 in his first
address as the newly appointed Prime Minister.

"...We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."

And, finally, something a bit more contemporary, John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address:

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

All of these examples are terse, all are completely within a modern idiom (all verb forms are modern, all word inflections are modern, only "four score" has an old flavour, since 'score' has fallen into disuse, and all employ stylistic traits of classical Greek rhetoric for their sentence structures, such as inversion. And, all were in their day and remain today examples of heroic calls to action which do not sound archaic, false, or deliberately old fashioned.

Why, then, was Tolkien not able to conceive of a style like this, but felt the need to employ a style of deliberate archaisms? I would point out that he has something in common with the war poets of his generation, men who saw action in WW I and who were devastated by it so that all thoughts of heroic sacrifice were horrible, brutal deceptions. Tolkien's love of the old warrior epics inspired in him a deep respect for the heroic ideal, but his personal experience of war left him mute in the face of contemporary expression.

I am going to post this now and return to edit with some examples of those poets who were Tolkien's contemporaries.

Here is Siegfried Sassoons's poem "Survivors:

No doubt they'll soon get well; the shock and strain
Have caused their stammering, disconnected talk.
Of course they're 'longing to go out again,' ?
These boys with old, scared faces, learning to walk.
They'll soon forget their haunted nights; their cowed
Subjection to the ghosts of friends who died,?
Their dreams that drip with murder; and they'll be proud
Of glorious war that shatter'd all their pride...
Men who went out to battle, grim and glad;
Children, with eyes that hate you, broken and mad.

Craiglockhart. October, 1917.


And this, Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum est", which probably expresses most succinctly the emotional effect WWI had on people:

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!-An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.


For me, Essex and Sauce and Aiwendel, this kind of critical analysis is not a ripping apart or to shreds but a movement towards a fuller understanding of what the text means. For me, to think of Tolkien in the context of the English war poets and as affected by war as they were makes LOTR a richer text. Plenitude rather than destruction.

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Essex]

Eurytus,
re

And if you find this “If you do not view it with a critical eye how can you explore its intricacies?” insulting then I have to conclude that you are too thin-skinned for your own good. Indeed since I have kept this discussion on the level from day one and have kept emotion out of it I find being accused of insulting people in itself insulting.

Legolas,

Please focus on the points of the discussion, not the negative feelings you get from the points. If you find something insulting, simply ask more about it or present your own take on the matter without taking offense. Additionally, negative comments on the character of a forum member are far from on-topic and not allowed. That goes for everyone. No one is required to post on a thread they find insulting or repetitive.

I apologise for my negative response and have edited it out. Maybe I am too thin skinned when someone tells me I can’t explore LOTR’s intricacies……

[Essex]

2 points Eurytus: what about my post above regarding examples of lotr being part of a Legend for England, as you asked me to prove?

And:

1. You used the latter point to justify the change in tone in an earlier post.
2. you now state in the first point that the tone changes because the Hobbits themselves changed.

I’m stating two examples of how the style could have changed taken from the view that the book was written by Hobbits. They are not contradictory, and can go hand in hand.

[Eurytus]

Bethberry, my reply to your post will be succinct.

Great post.

[Eurytus]

I apologise for my negative response and have edited it out. Maybe I am too thin skinned when someone tells me I can’t explore LOTR’s intricacies……
My point about looking at it with a critical eye was not meant as an insult to those who like or love Tolkien.
But I do believe it to be true. A critical eye is necessary to analyse any work of art successfully.
After all someone who reviews art is called a critic.....

[Essex]

OK, but does a critic need to find fault when analysing art? No, they do not.

I could find no major faults with the work when I FIRST read it, (when you can say I had a critical eye), not just on subsequent readings.

There are some minor faults in the book, but to me the style of language is not one of them.

I find the real faults in The Silmarillion rather that lotr, but that is another post.

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps, Essex, the point of confusion here is that you view the word 'fault' with such negative connotations.

I used the word fault, for example, in conjunction with a metaphor from geography, to suggest that there are places where the differences intrude upon each other.

It seems to me, if I can say this without being thought abrasive, that to fail to see differences in the text would be to not attend closely enough to the reading, to see that Tolkien was attempting to do something with the style.

For me, seeing this difference allows me not to be dismissive of Tolkien but to understand something more or better about Tolkien the writer. I can now see how much he shared the elves's nostalgia and well as the hobbits rootedness in land.

[Essex]

I don't think the argument is about whether you can

fail to see differences in the text

but why they are there. Eurytus says it is jarring, and I am trying to give reasons why it changes and why I feel it is not jarring.

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Essex ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I utterly disagree with the opinion that archaic English can somehow express things of a nobler quality than modern English. Modern English can express anything its author puts their mind to, if the author is good enough.
That means nothing, nor is it what I have been trying to say. If an author is good enough he can write his entire story in the manner of Robert Burns and still get his point across. However, couching an entire 100,000 word book in Highland dialect might not give the work quite the voice that this hypothetical author intended. Nothing can be better expressed in archaic English, but it can be expressed differently, and in a manner that is both more appealing to the writer and more expressive of his thoughts and intentions. In the case of The Lord of the Rings these were complicated and multifarious, as one might expect: Tolkien wanted to portray a wide range of characters of massively variant ages, races and what we might loosely term nationalities, but who use a common tongue. At the same time he wanted his work to appear to have been written by some of its protagonists after the fact and then translated by the actual author at a much later date. Although this technique falls down in places, it retains the great advantage that it explains dichotomies of style even better than the idea of the final work having different authors. Basically by presenting himself as the translator of an existing work, Tolkien makes himself a minor and peripheral character within his own story; and his own linguistic preferences find their way into the text because a translator will naturally use whichever English words he thinks best express the sense of those that he is trying to translate. This is all covered in the notes on translation at the end of The Lord of the Rings, but consider the fact that Westron follows the Romance convention of having formal and informal versions of the second person of the personal pronoun. Translating this into English, what would you do? English has no equivalent of a formal 'you', but since most people are familiar with the archaic 'thee', 'thou', 'thy' and so forth from the Bible (hardly the most informal work to be printed in English), it does not seem to me such a great leap of the imagination to use those to translate the idea, however imperfectly. How else could one contrast Pippin's mode of speech with that of Denethor in a manner that is instantly apparent to English-speaking readers? In German, or in the Romance languages it would be simple, but modern English simply does not have the same concept, just as it lacks the Old-Norse and Old-English duals of the personal pronoun that allow 'we two' to become a single word.

Is this a cop-out? Possibly, but Tolkien does mention in his letters that the point of writing his original stories was to provide a narrative framework for his languages, and that The Lord of the Rings was written to provide a context in which elen sila lumenn' omentielvo would be a recognisable greeting. If this is the case, and I see no reason to assume that it is not, then it does not seem so unrealistic to consider that Tolkien was writing The Lord of the Rings as a translation from the Westron from the very beginning, and that at least some of the oddities of style were included deliberately. This could just as easily be an elaborate explanation dreamed up during the composition of the appendices, but since Tolkien was very pressed for space when compiling these it seems odd that he would have chosen to waste so many words on a rebuttal for pedants.

Of course there are variations in style between the opening chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring and the conclusion of the book, and although this can be put down to literary technique I don't think that we can discount the fact that the former were written in the late 1930s and the latter were written in the mid to late 1940s. So many years are a long time to spend writing a large and detailed story, but if that time includes the most hectic and violent years of the century, with increased pressure of work and an uncertain future, it is not at all conducive to narrative consistency. However, it seems to me that the voice of the earlier chapters, light-hearted and bantering as it is, perfectly matches the spirit in which those chapters are presented, just as the more distant, less familiar and more difficult archaism in later chapters supports themes of inadequacy, of suddenly being a very small part of something inexpressibly huge and strange. Along with the Hobbits, the reader is learning that there are creatures alive who learned their language before the Shire even existed. How would a man born in 1550 speak if he were alive today? Would he adapt to suit modern parlance or would he revert to the mode of speech of his youth, much as someone might revert to their native language in moments of stress? What of someone who is more than a thousand years old? How would they speak? From the structure of some conversations it is clear that Tolkien had considered all of this, and used different flavours of archaism to suggest differing modes of Westron that would otherwise become invisible in the great all-enveloping cloak of modern English.

That isn't to say that Tolkien was perfect. far from it, he was pedantic and a niggler, who seemed either to write pieces in one sitting or to revise them endlessly; but I do not believe that his use of the language that he taught merits such vehement criticism. Nor do I believe that he deserves veiled implications that he was not a good enough writer to use a modern idiom, as though a modern idiom were the only voice that English can afford. I doubt that anyone would get very far these days suggesting that dialect and patois are not valid forms of communication, and yet it is considered that an academic or an archaic style, both of which can be almost painful in their adherence to the rules of English grammar, is no longer acceptable. Personally, I am rather fond of dialect, slang, archaism and other permutations of English. I find that they provide a refreshing break from the dreadful tedium that is the everyday vocabulary, so for me the very points of language for which some criticise Tolkien are points in his favour. Clearly that is a personal and not an academic opinion, but so is the opinion that Tolkien's use of archaism is annoying and misplaced. If it were I would have been the first to turn the full force of my pedantry upon it.

Just as with his voice, so with Tolkien's works. I consider those works of his that do not concern Middle-earth to be very readable. The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth is a moving yet ironic look at the aftermath of a battle, told in the style of an epic poem. The contrast of young Torhthelm's poetic idealism, which finds expression in his use of the high-flown language of the court poets, with the hard-headed practicality of the aged Tídwald makes for some amusing moments that nonetheless make very valid points about the portrayal and reality of warfare. Leaf by Niggle is a poignant little allegory that explores themes of personal fulfillment versus social duty, of the uncertainty of earthly posterity and of the way in which we view one another. I could go on, but although Tolkien wrote few books he left quite enough material that an attempt to pot all of his works here would be longer than the Midgard Serpent and about as friendly. Suffice it to say that Tolkien adopted a style that not everybody likes for some of his works, but it is neither a bad style nor the wrong style, just as it is not wrong for Iain Banks suddenly to begin narrating in Glaswegian dialect in The Bridge. If the author is no longer allowed to choose his own voice, what future is there for writing? More importantly, what is the future of a language that insists on forgetting half of its vocabulary every five-hundred years? George Orwell's little foray into linguistic invention can provide an answer, although it is hardly a satisfactory one.

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[Bêthberry]

If the author is no longer allowed to choose his own voice, what future is there for writing? More importantly, what is the future of a language that insists on forgetting half of its vocabulary every five-hundred years? George Orwell's little foray into linguistic invention can provide an answer, although it is hardly a satisfactory one.


Hmm. I thought it was clear, Squatter, that the point was not dissing archaic language and demanding that we ditch old styles in favour of today's flavour. And it is more than a little repugnant to insinuate an Orwellian form of doublespeak here.

No one is saying an author cannot pick his own style. What I at least am saying is that we have a right to discuss that style and consider how well it conveys what the author purportedly wanted it to convey.

Really, the issue is whether we think Tolkien's use of archaism is successful as writing or not.

Some of us think he dipped too deeply into purple ink and, instead of helping to convey heroic characters or elevated thought and feeling, rather wrote embarassingly overwrought passages which detract from the story and the characters. There, I've said it. It is bad archaic language. Horrors. Tolkien is not untouchable.

Some people prefer the style of the King James Bible for its rhythm, its metaphors, its cadences. Some people want God to sound old fashioned, but this old fashionedness was not a feature of the style of the orginal texts. And other people prefer the modern translation because the content is no longer lost through words which have changed meaning over time.

Frankly, I would need alot more evidence to convince me that Tolkien was extensively using his role as translator when he varied the style. There needs to be internal references to the translation, not simply a few points made in letters and appendices.

but I do not believe that his use of the language that he taught merits such vehement criticism. Nor do I believe that he deserves veiled implications that he was not a good enough writer to use a modern idiom, as though a modern idiom were the only voice that English can afford. I doubt that anyone would get very far these days suggesting that dialect and patois are not valid forms of communication, and yet it is considered that an academic or an archaic style, both of which can be almost painful in their adherence to the rules of English grammar, is no longer acceptable.

And, again, I don't see why a sincere and honest attempt to articulate a reading of Tolkien's texts has to run up against this idea that we are throwing mud. There is no vehemence in my comments about him. No author is beyond criticism or analysis or discussion or debate. I didn't say he was not a good enough writer to use a modern idiom; he clearly did with the hobbits. I said that his imagination could not conceive of a modern heroic idiom. There is a difference.

But then, you didn't quote me in your post but someone else so perhaps I should not have replied.

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Eurytus]

More importantly, what is the future of a language that insists on forgetting half of its vocabulary every five-hundred years?
Actually it is false to sugges that modern English is somehow less worthy than Old English as you seem to be suggesting above. Nor is it true to say that it somehow has 'fewer words' than the older English. In fact English is probably more diverse a language now than at any time in the past. The fact that many of today's youth choose to ignore much of it is somewhat their own personal choice.
But modern English is as rich (or richer) than that which went before and is fully capable of expressing everything and anything that the author so chooses.

[Eurytus]

Eurytus says it is jarring, and I am trying to give reasons why it changes and why I feel it is not jarring.
And I think we have probably gone as far as we can in that aspect of the discussion. I think we ca nsee each other's viewpoints now, though we may not agree with them. Perhaps there is something else we can now discuss or perhaps we will talk again in another thread.
But I have enjoyed the discussion.

[Aiwendil]

Squatter of Amon Rudh wrote:

Nothing can be better expressed in archaic English, but it can be expressed differently, and in a manner that is both more appealing to the writer and more expressive of his thoughts and intentions.

Well said.

I expressed myself somewhat poorly when I said that archaic English has a "terser, nobler" quality. I did not mean that noble actions or noble ideas cannot be conveyed by a more modern idiom. I was not referring at all to the content of the language. I was trying to express what I find to be the peculiar flavor, as it were, of archaic English. "Noble" fails, I suppose, to convey it. "Terse" certainly does get part of it, but not the whole. But it doesn't really matter. The point is that different styles of writing do, undeniably, have different flavors. And, as Squatter points out, this flavor is part of the experience of one reading the book; and thus different styles may be used to achieve different effects. I find the style of The Lord of the Rings to be one of its great attractions.

Bethberry wrote:
Really, the issue is whether we think Tolkien's use of archaism is successful as writing or not.

Some of us think he dipped too strongly into purple ink and, instead of helping to convey heroic characters or elevated thought and feeling, rather wrote embarassingly overwrought passages which detract from the story and the characters. There, I've said it. It is bad archaic language. Horrors. Tolkien is not untouchable.

Ah! This is something different. You are simply saying that Tolkien wrote poorly. This kind of criticism is perfectly valid (though it is certainly possible to disagree with it - and yet not be an uncritical, unthinking fan).

It is only when the charge becomes "his writing is poor because it is archaic" rather than "his archaic writing happens to be poor" that the criticism begins to suffer, a priori, from all the faults which I and others have attributed to it. Perhaps you are not making this charge. But others have done so, often enough, and unless I am mistaken (and please correct me if I am), Eurytus has made it.

[Liriodendron]

Amazing! smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/wink.gif So many long posts, all saying pretty much the same thing. Clickety, clickety, click.

smilies/biggrin.gif

[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Eurytus]

But others have done so, often enough, and unless I am mistaken (and please correct me if I am), Eurytus has made it.

No, that is not quite correct. My position is that much of Tolkien's archaic language is overdone but the true fault is that his use of it creates a disconnect between the 1st and 3rd books.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

But then, you didn't quote me in your post but someone else so perhaps I should not have replied.

The perils of cross-posting. I would have addressed the more recent posts, particlarly your exploration of the use of language, but they were put up while I was still writing mine (a process that took several hours).

Obviously had I spotted the later post that mentions me by name I should have responded to it. As it happened, though, I was making no attempt to reply to any of your posts (mainly because I agree, particularly on the point that fan fora are too reluctant to criticise Tolkien), so if I've actually managed it, then it's more by luck than judgement.

The examples quoted above demonstrate that modern English is effective in conveying heroism and nobility, but I was never questioning that. What I do find hard to accept without examples is the idea that Tolkien did not believe this, or that his archaism is bad. My point was that archaic English is just another form that an author is entitled to use to create the atmosphere that he wants. It's quite possible that he did so badly, and "If it were so, it was a grievous fault", but it would help those of us with a less than perfect grasp of critical theory if some passages could be quoted, together with explanations of what makes them bad. Hopefully my admission that I find some of the more purple passages in The Lord of the Rings rather appealing will not be too great a cause for lamentation.

I would not agree that there ought to be internal references to the work as a translation. Aside from annotating the whole of The Lord of the Rings with the sort of spurious academic commentary that C.S. Lewis wrote on the Lay of Leithian I fail to see how the presentation of the work as a translated text could be referred to within it without bringing the entire device crashing down. As with a genuine translation, Tolkien offers a translator's note, which is separate from the body of the text. He points out difficulties in the languages with which he was working, and devices that he has used in an attempt to preserve the original feel of the piece. If we bear in mind that he used the same 'translation' plot device in The Hobbit, and that Allen and Unwin had commissioned the larger work as a sequel, it seems perfectly clear to me that The Lord of the Rings is presented as a translation by J.R.R. Tolkien of an earlier text. In my opinion, however unsuccessful was this device, it worked far better than it had when applied to The Hobbit, which reads exactly like a children's book.

As for Tolkien's ability or otherwise to depict heroism in a modern style, I think that too often the exchanges in Mordor during The Two Towers and The Return of the King are overlooked as examples of simple speech elevated to the level of heroic nobility. Frodo and Sam do not suddenly start exchanging 'thee's and 'thou's with one another when they decide to throw away their food and water (a scene in which they relinquish all hope of return), and it becomes clear that it was not a matter simply of showing us when heroic or noble events are afoot by throwing in some medieval or early-modern English. The two Hobbits in Mordor are more important than any of the mythic heroes on the great battlefields, who speak in the manner of saga heroes. The Hobbits are characters from a modern war, doing their best amid forces that are too great for them to influence directly; but Aragorn and other heroes are larger-than-life people, heroes from legend and saga, whose antiquated speech is written precisely to convey to the reader from just how far beyond the normal experience of the smaller protagonists these characters hail.

Returning to the two war poems that you quoted (from sometime collaborative writers Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen), I only see poetic language that reflects their respective literary education. Owen was a great believer that poetry should be beautiful, which for some time prevented him from writing about his war experience at all. He was heavily influenced by Keats, and I think that this shows in his phrasing, although since the Romantics were held as exemplars of poetic style by many at that time, it seems hardly surprising that a poet of the era should adopt that tone. Sassoon tended to adopt a much more personal, familiar style, falling more often into army slang or Edwardian idiom and drawing his reader towards his own anger at the war.

To my mind it is Owen, yoking the traditional style to new scenes and ideas that its originators would have been unable to imagine, who consistently manages to evoke the horrors of his subject. In the example above, he even makes explicit the dreadful gulf between peace experience and war experience that is already implicit in his sometimes violent variance between form and content.

My point is, of course, that this style, effective though it may be, was the result of the writer's education and inclination. This was not a retreat into archaism in an attempt to describe what he saw, but an attempt to describe the things that were happening around him using the literary tools at his disposal. How closely we can compare him with Tolkien is questionable. They came from different families, attended different schools and fought in different regiments. Tolkien was never the soldier that either Sassoon or Owen came to be, and his short time in the lines can in no way be compared with the long stints of his two contemporaries.

Now, this is not to say that the war was no influence on Tolkien at all, but that much of his high-flown poetic writing may simply be a product of his education rather than a deliberate retreat. If he were incapable of facing the grim realities of warfare he could have chosen something else to write about, and if he really did hide behind eccentric modes of expression why is it that possibly the most heroic part of his entire story is written mainly in standard 1940s English? I do think that his war experience had a deep effect on Tolkien: we can see it in the recurrence of themes such as the brevity of victory, the perversion of good intentions and the variance between the reality and depiction of the act of war itself. What I do not believe is that it forever soured Tolkien on the modern idiom's ability to portray universal concepts. It seems to me that he felt that the 'northern heroic spirit' of which he was so fond, which finds its voice mainly in saga and epic, was best expressed in the language of those forms. If anything, Tolkien was far too concerned with the close ties between language, people, myth, land and time, as Seamus Heaney puts it "...bedding the locale in the utterance" so that modern speech becomes for him discordant when it describes ideas or situations in the present tense that are absent from the world in which modern English is spoken.

For me the only valid criticism of Tolkien's style is either that it does not work as he intended or that it is inconsistent enough to introduce a disjointed quality to the narrative. I may be somewhat obtuse, but I have always found Tolkien's style to be most evocative, and any differences between The Fellowship of the Ring and The Return of the King to be entirely supported by the difference in their respective content. In fact for me it is often the use of modern English in a way that completely jars against the atmosphere of the overall work (as in Eddings' Belgariad) that meets with my irritation. Perhaps my ear is also affected, although I have less of an excuse than did Tolkien. Naturally I shall capitulate in shame if a passage can be dredged up from somewhere in the published writings that makes me cringe.

[ November 06, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[Aiwendil]

Eurytus wrote:
No, that is not quite correct. My position is that much of Tolkien's archaic language is overdone but the true fault is that his use of it creates a disconnect between the 1st and 3rd books.

Ah. I apologize. I thought that (earlier) you were arguing that since The Lord of the Rings was written at the time it was, it should not have used archaic language.

But it is quite different (and altogether more reasonable, I think) to claim that the writing is simply poor or that there is an internal clash of styles. I still disagree with these claims, but I can accept them as well formulated criticisms.

Liriodendron wrote:
Amazing! So many long posts, all saying pretty much the same thing. Clickety, clickety, click.

I'm afraid my posts are particularly vulnerable to this charge. Maybe I should be confined to the New Silmarillion project . . .

[Liriodendron]

Oh no! smilies/smile.gif You all just make me feel lazy! smilies/wink.gif

[Eurytus]

OK since someone has asked to provide examples of bad writing, here are a couple that I think to be pretty poor;

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hope along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!"

A lost mythology for England?? Suddenly I'm in Alice in Wonderland.
Never have I been so glad for a change from book to film. Not to mention the over-abundance of exclamation marks.

"Then Merry stooped and lifted his hand to kiss it, and lo! Theoden opened his eyes, and they were clear, and he spoke in a quiet voice though laboured."

Quite apart from sounding like a list (and, and, and, and) was the lo! really justified by Theoden opening his eyes? Although of course by now lo! is as ubiquitous as the word Excellent is in a Bill & Ted movie.

"And he sang to them, now in the Elven-tongue, now in the speech of the West, until their hearts, wounded with sweet words, overflowed, and their joy was like swords, and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness."

Sounding like another list (another 4 ands in one sentence!) this pearler contains the cracking phrase "their joy was like swords".

But the fact that we are supposed to believe that this was written by the same author as the one who wrote about a fox thinking to himself "There's something mighty queer behind this" He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it.

Now that is what I am talking about when I mention a disconnect between books 1 and 3. Reading the HOME series you can clearly see that the FOTR starts as a straight sequel to the Hobbit. The ROTK attempts to be a sequel to the Silmarillion. When Tolkien did that he should have gone back and fixed things. Elements like the language change and the Fox shows pretty clearly that he did not.

[Aiwendil]

I thought you had acknowledged that we had come to an impasse.

What response can there be to your examples save "I disagree"? I don't think any of those are among Tolkien's greatest passages, but I don't find any of them disgusting either.

If there is going to be a debate over whether particular passages sound good or not, it will be interminable.

[ November 06, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Liriodendron]

I agree. I think the Bombadil stuff is great! Crazy, wacky, simple joy for joy's sake. No rules, just right! smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

[Leighann]

I too also agree, Bombadil added a sense of wit and fun to the allready perfect story
smilies/smile.gif

[Eurytus]

I thought you had acknowledged that we had come to an impasse.
What response can there be to your examples save "I disagree"? I don't think any of those are among Tolkien's greatest passages, but I don't find any of them disgusting either.

If there is going to be a debate over whether particular passages sound good or not, it will be interminable.

Err, I was actually asked to supply passages. And "disgusting"? Nice bit of hyperbole there. I don't recall ever saying they were disgusting.

[Aiwendil]

Err, I was actually asked to supply passages.

Oh - I missed that. Nonetheless, I don't think that any number of passages could possibly settle the disagreement.

"Disgusting" was my own colorful description; I didn't mean to imply that you had used the word. I meant to say: I don't dislike those passages.

[Liriodendron]

This whole correct/incorrect slant is too "schoolish" for me. I see the criteria as sell/doesn't sell. LoTR's seems to have passed with flying colors.

[The Saucepan Man]

Eurytus. Looking at some of those passages that you have quoted in isolation, I can see what you mean. But they have never stood out to me when I have read the Book. When read in context, they do not jar at all to my mind.

With one exception. I have never really "got" Tom Bombadil. And the two chapters in which he features have always jarred with me. His rather ridiculous poetic verse always seemed to me to be at odds with the obvious power that he has. And he does seem "out of place" in the world in which the story unfolds. The explanation, I suppose, which I have learned since coming to this forum, is that he was a pre-existing character based on a doll who JRRT wanted to incorporate into his story. And so Toliken describes him as an intentional enigma, perhaps realising that he did not really fit in with the world.

But, of course, some people love him and (unlike me) lament his absence from the film. Which brings me back to my consistent point on this thread. It is all a matter of opinion. There are parts of LotR which I would regard as less than perfect. But overall, I certainly consider it as (for me) the best book ever written. Many people would disagree with me. They are of course entitled to. As others are entitled to disagree with my views on Tom Bombadil, or other parts of the Book which do not quite ring true to me (overly fortunate coincidences, for example).

But, in the final analysis, Lirodendron is, to my mind, absolutely right:

I see the criteria as sell/doesn't sell. LoTR's seems to have passed with flying colors.

LotR does seem to be one of the most consistently popular Books ever written. Chronos can only tell whether it will stand his test, but it looks to be doing pretty well so far. smilies/tongue.gif smilies/wink.gif

Edit: Technically, Tom appears in three chapters, but I always liked the Barrow-Downs. smilies/wink.gif

[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

You are, of course, quite right, Saucepan: most of this argument is a matter of opinion. There are, however, certain objective realities in play that have nothing to do with what any of us thinks. I always shy away from using popularity as a measure of quality: one only has to look at the bestseller lists or the music charts to see how seldom high sales figures indicate artistic merit. Most very popular work is intended to be so, and is thrust upon the general public by whatever means are available to its producers. Often that which has real merit is pushed into the shadows for fear that it will not sell, or that it might damage the commercial image of the company that produces it. However, sometimes a work of quality does achieve great commercial success. Somehow it makes its way into the public domain and succeeds on its own merit, and I believe The Lord of the Rings to be such a work.

We know that The Lord of the Rings wasn't originally expected to sell well from the unusual profit-sharing arrangement that Tolkien agreed with Allen and Unwin. He stood to make nothing on his book if it did not make money for the publishers. It's also blatantly obvious from the author's correspondance that he had early abandoned any attempt to give his publishers what they had originally requested. This indicates to me that for Tolkien himself, money was a secondary motive, and that Allen and Unwin were publishing more in hope than in certainty of a profit. As matters transpired this was a pretty clever risk to take: Tolkien made more money than he would have done with a standard contract and the publishers made more than they could possibly have hoped. However, this success took a long time to achieve, and was based almost entirely on public reaction to the work itself rather than to a campaign of placement and promotion.

Of course, this says nothing about the book's quality other than that a lot of people wanted to read it. Nobody here seems to be denying that the book is worth reading, and this is about all that one can say on the subject from the figures. What popular success can never do, though, is provide an objective assessment of the quality of the prose. It might indicate that people like it, but people like a lot of things that aren't necessarily very well made.

That said, I would inevitably opt for the quoted passages being, if not great writing, then at least fairly good. The problem with presenting just the passage without explaining the reasons why one considers it poor is that the rest of us, who might like that sort of thing, then have no grounds on which to respond other than flat agreement or disagreement. Tom Bombadil is obviously a matter of taste. Personally I think that a world that can encompass both Sauron and Bombadil has more depth and breadth than one in which all of the main characters are either impressive and good or impressive and bad, with only the lesser being comical or eccentric. The very idea of a powerful being who delights in simple pleasures and silly madrigals, and who is, most significantly, both happy in himself and a source of happiness to others seems to me a perfect counterpoint to the amorphous, threatening and overstatedly potent Sauron.

Tom's rhymes and songs are intentionally rather silly, employing a style that seems strange and imperfect with its reliance on nonsense words and half-rhyme. It did not seem so, however, to the medieval mind, nor to the minds of those who composed folk songs that employ just these techniques a mere century ago. It is entirely probable that Tolkien heard some traditional music as a boy that sounded much as Tom's singing does. The overall effect of his rhyming on us at the beginning of the twenty-first century is indeed odd, but since its purpose is to show that Tom is a strange, ancient and comic figure, whom some might regard as ridiculous, I think that it works very well. Tolkien sets up his character as a seemingly harmless eccentric and then shows that the great One Ring has no power over him. He pits a seeming clown against the great Dark Lord and the clown wins easily. For the first time the power of the One has been questioned, and by a character whose demeanour seems calculated to devalue both the ring itself and the will to power that is its main allure. Powerful characters who delight in nonsense words and silly rhymes are a common theme in fairy-tale and myth, so it seems to me perfectly reasonable that such a character was included in a book that was heavily influenced by those forms. Tolkien may have included the character to please his children, but he interpolates him in such a way that he makes an important point: Sauron and his works are not invincible.

Anyway, the Bombadil chapters are a good bit of fun, which is reason enough for me. It doesn't do to make everything deadly serious, even for an adult audience.

Personally I regard "their joy was like knives" as a fairly run-of-the-mill simile for piercing joy (a popular theme with Tolkien). Joy can stab and rend just as any strong emotion can, indeed as a sword can. Also it should be possible to spot dramatic repetition when it is used. It was a common technique in ancient saga, just as is the sort of warlike simile that compares happiness with a sharp blade. Similarly, the use of 'Lo!' in a descriptive sentence seems perfectly in-keeping with the Old-English poetic use of hwæt, which is often translated as 'Lo!', 'Hark!' or 'Behold!'.

The main objection to the above techniques would seem to be that they are completely out of character for a Hobbit. However, what if the particular Hobbit that wrote that section had before him a song made in Rohan as a eulogy for King Théoden? We know that Snorri Sturluson had before him mouldering scrolls of court poetry when he wrote his historical saga cycle Heimskringla. Imagine that the scribe in question unconsciously adopted the high tone of the formal state piece. I can't say whether or not this was intended, and the chances are that it was not; but since Tolkien was able to spot quite obscure grammatical errors when re-reading his work, it seems odd to me that he should leave writing in place that just looked wrong. Of course the difference between what Tolkien thought was wrong and what we think is wrong has already been covered. The point is that he typed out The Lord of the Rings several times, and on each of those occasions he refrained from re-writing the earlier passages. For such a compulsive reviser not to revise something implies for me either a lack of time or a disbelief in the need for revision. The number of years that passed between the completion of The Lord of the Rings and its publication discounts the time factor, which leaves us with Tolkien reading the whole work through and being content with the tone that he had set. We can believe one of two things: either an Oxford professor of English couldn't spot bad prose when he read it or we are missing his point. Of course, there is a third option: perhaps the author's taste was unusual and will thereore meet with strong criticism or defence depending on the personal opinions of those discussing him.

[Bêthberry]

Here is another example of cross posting. I was in the process of (finally) replying to Squatter, Aiwendil, Saucepan Man and others when Squatter took up his cudgel, er, pen, again.

Let me then try to salvage something here by combining replies.

Like Squatter, I would hesitate to count simple popularity as an indicator of quality, particularly when so many different factors influence book marketing and buying these days. For instance, when well-regarded authors claim to wish to produce a novel which can be read to completion during a transatlantic flight, there are many other factors involved in book buying. (I wonder if soon airlines will be adding garbage bins for 'finished' paperbacks, as the subway has in my town for newspapers.) Tolkien is in a far different league I would think.

I would also say that more is going on in this discussion than the mere statement of personal preferences or opinion. We are, I think, attempting to explain various ways of reading a book, of accounting for its effect upon us. If such a discussion is not worthwhile, if it would concern simply the listing of 'unacceptable' passages, then we defeat the purpose of a discussion board such as Barrow Downs.

We are not attempting to prosyletize our own beliefs in the fervent hope of gaining converts. If I may speak here for Squatter (with whom I have, on and off, carried on this discussion somewhat haphazardly over the past year), we are engaged in debate, where the delight in framing our discourse counts as much as what it is we are discoursing about. I may be absolutely sure I am right, and I am sure Squatter is absolutely sure he is right, but every so often we delight in trying to see if we can box each other into a corner, so to speak, such that either one of us must concede a point due to the way we have framed our arguement. This is, of course, much what Tolkien himself spent his life doing.

However, to return to the question of Tolkien's style in LOTR. (I will not be quite so pedantic as Squatter in foregoing the acronym for the formally italicised name.)

In his two most recent posts, Squatter has set up two criteria for evidence. First, in his post of November 6/03, 11:12 he set up the requirement that someone must find a passage of purple prose which makes him cringe. This, of course, reduces the discussion to person perference and I think he has recognized the error of that approach, for today he has reframed his requirement for evidence:

[discounting time] ...which leaves us with Tolkien reading the whole work through and being content with the tone that he had set. We can believe one of two things: either an Oxford professor of English couldn't spot bad prose when he read it or we are missing his point. Of course, there is a third option: perhaps the author's taste was unusual and will thereore meet with strong criticism or defence depending on the personal opinions of those discussing him.


Squatter, as he loves to do, sets up Oxford professors as infallible authorities here. I suppose, if we are to take this point as insurmountable, we must regard Tolkien's dangling clause structure in this sentence as his rejection of traditional English grammar. (There is much in our traditional grammar that, based on Latin as it was, represented simply an aping of taste for a language which was more highly regarded than English, such as the old injunction not to split infinitives, or Dr. Johnson's insertion of the letter 'b' in debt merely in order to indicate the word's Latin debt.)

Borne upon the wind they heard the howling of wolves.

This sentence comes from p. 537 in my HaperCollins paperback edition, the chapter "The Road to Isengard" in TTT. It is typical of many of the sentences which Tolkien gives to Gandalf and Theodon and Eomer in this chapter in that it inverts the normal sentence order.

It seems our Oxford Professor of English has written, and accepted as correct, a sentence which, according to structural linguistics, would appear liable to misreading. Normally, such a subordinate clause is understood to refer to the subject of the main clause. Yet here, it is not the 'they' [referring to Gandalf and the company riding to the Ford] which are 'blown upon the wind' but 'the howling of wolves'. This sentence is an example of no less an error than a misplaced modifier. If the sentence had read:

They heard the howling of wolves borne upon the wind

there would be no problem for the clause then clearly follows the word it modifies. I would suggest that here Tolkien's preference for using a higher rate of inverted sentence construction led him to prefer the technically incorrect sentence structure. But since Tolkien was an Oxford professor of English apparently we must allow him this confusion of reference.

Now to Squatter's second point, that we are somehow missing Tolkien's point. Squatter has earlier characterized this point in this manner:


antiquated speech is written precisely to convey to the reader from just how far beyond the normal experience of the smaller protagonists these characters hail.

Squatter adds a codicil to this, however. For he now thrusts the argument about mere opinion to those of us who object to the style. He implies two errors on our part, in one fell swoop, that we cannot recognize what Tolkien's purpose was and that we won't allow for Tolkien's taste because it isn't ours.

Essentially, then, Squatter refers the entire discussion back to simple opinion, taste.

Language is, of course, very difficult to discuss. Often we become embroiled in outrage over lack of standards or poor taste, reflecting judgemental feelings. My statement that Tolkien's recourse to purple prose is not, however, based on my idea of what language ought to do. It is based on some of the following ideas about language. The derive from linguistics, which attempts to describe how language works rather than to prescribe or proscribe certain forms of language.

First: language has three properties. It is conventional; it is arbitrary; and it is dynamic.

By conventional, I mean that it obeys a system of regular patterns. (In English, John the hit ball[i] would not make much sense, although either [i]The ball hit John or John hit the ball would.)

By arbitrary, I mean there are no finite laws of the universe which decree how the language will have meaning. There is no final authority for idiom, word order and the distribution of items except what the speakers of the language have come to accept as appropriate. There is no reason why in English we say, "How old are you?" where the French say, "How many years have you?". Or why we are happy to use generally the pattern of Subject/verb/object but the Germans will be always their verbs at the ends of sentences putting.

By dynamic, I mean that language changes all the time. In Elizabethan English, sentences were about twice as long as they are now and generally more complicated. Today, we tend to use noun strings more than prepositional phrases ("English professor" rather than "professor of English'). The vocabulary of English nouns increases by leaps and bounds these days, but we do not increase the number of articles (the, a, an) or prepositions (into, of, over, under etc).

What does this mean? Our ability to interpret language depends upon our ability to recognize the presence of patterns and the absence or deviations from the patterns. This applies as much to literar language as to 'ordinary' language.

For example, this sentence does not make sense:

The of present kings about woman those the reminded prophecy old ancient.

This one does:

The old woman reminded those present of the ancient prophecy about kings.

Within these patterns and expectations there are of course, many varieties--regional, national, social, educational, class, and attitudinal, to say nothing of a person's or writer's idiolect (personal style).

Thus, when we discuss style, we invoke a great many things besides personal tastes for a normative standard.

When I discuss style, or, more particularly, purple prose, I do so not on the basis of what I personally prefer to read or want a writer to do. I attempt to discover the pattern and then see what the pattern appears to be doing.

With Tolkien, I see a habit, in parts of LOTR, which foregrounds (uses repeatedly) particular traits of the English language. I see a very high rate of inverted sentence structure (clauses rearranged out of the 'conventional' pattern), a tendency towards using passive voiced verbs and verb forms which are not temporal, and a vocabulary that challenges temporal expectations. None of this is inherently wrong to my mind.

Where I think the difficulty lies is in the frequency of these items. Tolkien uses them so often that they draw attention to themselves as features of the language. (Yes, I know readers, as Saucepan Man has suggested, don't always notice this. However, the lack of notice does not disprove or discredit the notice which other readers do make.)

It is not that I don't see what Tolkien was trying to do. He makes it almost impossible not to see. He hits me over the head with it so often that the particular quality of the style pulls away from the story, detracts from the story.

When a particular aspect of style is foregrounded in this way, we can ask ourselves what the author wanted to accomplish.

My point in quoting Owen's poem was to demonstrate that here was an author who was able to incorporate Latin into his writing so seemlessly that it was 'naturalized'. When I read 'Pro patria mori' I don't see a writer flaunting Latin in order to create a special effect. I see an author showing how a reference for Latin tags (beautiful old language) had blinded a generation into marching off to a brutal war.

And I find it disingenious to claim that Tolkien cannot be compared with Owen because their education and upbringing were so different.

What must Tolkien have felt on reading and rereading the letter from G.B. Smith which Carpenter claims was written to Tolkien shortly before Smith's death:

May God bless you, my dear John Ronald, and may you say the things I have tried to say long after I am not there to say them, if such be my lot.

Perhaps I will return to this post, editing it later for places where I think I have not been clear. I hope for now I have at least made a small claim to demonstrate that my unease over some of the stylistic features arises from a more serious reading of the text than mere rejection of the author's intention or refusal to allow him his own unique taste.

[Liriodendron]

When I said sells/doesn't sell, I was implying that LoTRs has sold better, and better (and better) smilies/smile.gif over a goodly length of time. This is not just "popularity". That nonstop, growing momemtum, over several decades, is the "flying colors". A book, not expected to do well, (From Squatter's post) that gradually gains fans nonetheless, over the years, to become enormously popular....this speaks to me. Correct or uncorrect....if millions of people like something, I am impressed. I do not disregard popularity. People are smarter than that! (IMO)

[Eurytus]

I do not disregard popularity. People are smarter than that!
I can only assume that you have missed the television program known as Big Brother then.
Or the mystifying career of Gareth Gates.
Or Ant & Dec.
Or...

[Eurytus]

The main objection to the above techniques would seem to be that they are completely out of character for a Hobbit. However, what if the particular Hobbit that wrote that section had before him a song made in Rohan as a eulogy for King Théoden?
In that case you are having to hypothesise things that are not in the book or stated by Tolkien to support the change in language.

My case is simple, in the book there is a line about a Fox's thoughts on Hobbits. There are numerous examples of relatively childlike writing somewhat akin to the Hobbit. Then you have the near constant examples of Lo, Behold and the inverted sentences that Bethberry has mentioned.

Tolkien's approach is that the books were written by Hobbits, and from evidence in the book, largely written by the same author, Frodo, at the same time, after the Quest has ended.
That being the case it simply makes no logical sense for the two radically different styles of writing to have been written by the same hand. It doesn't hold to the concept that Tolkien has tried to maintain.

[Liriodendron]

No...once again, not flash in the pan, "event of the year" kind of stuff (like the television show or whatever that other stuff you mentioned is smilies/confused.gif ), not movie "Titanic", not the CB radio craze, not "I'm ok, You're Ok" books, etc., etc., etc. I mean long standing, enduringly "popular" stuff, (for good reason) like LoTRs, The Beatles, Andy Grifith, I LOve Lucy, Van Gogh, Johnny Cash...I hope you understand what I'm trying to communicate here. smilies/smile.gif

I think you're splitting academic hairs when trying to find fault with such well loved/enjoyed books.

[ November 10, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Bêthberry]

One difficulty with this criterion of popularity is that it assumes there is a progressive trajectory where the greats just keep remaining popular or increasing in popularity and the chaff falls by the wayside.

This is not what really happens, for there are many kinds of historical changes in values, taste, idioms, access, reading time, etc. All kinds of writers are eclipsed by certain generations and then 'rediscovered' by later generations.

T. S. Eliot, for instance, championed John Donne, who had fallen into disrepute, so much so that another poet of the seventeenth century, John Milton, became less popular.

William Blake was largely ignored for much of the nineteenth and even twentieth centuries. It wasn't until Northrup Frye's book Fearful Symmetry--one of those wretched academic tomes--hit the stands that there developed widespread popular appetite for Blake's work.

Jane Austen was relegated to the back ranks of lady author until Lionel Trilling championed her.

If anything, the history of reader reception demonstrates that popularity is as much a social construct as is academic reputation. The 'discovery' of women writers, working class novels, colonial writers, black writers of the last thirty years shows that often our assumptions and expectations when we read preclude many other writers.

We all have our own personal preferences. What we can do is talk about them, in the hopes of understanding them better or of widening our perspective. But we cannot always assume that the past is a predictor of future value.

[Liriodendron]

I understand what you are saying (I hope! ) but I wonder what the standard is for "great"...if not sustained human enjoyment?

[Finwe]

This may sound cliche, but my standard for a good author is that they have to "whisk you away" into whatever land that they're talking about. For example, whenever I read LotR, I feel like I've been picked up and plopped down in Middle-earth.

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry: You point out, perhaps rightly, that we have been imprecise and contradictory in the criteria we use to judge "good prose". You then present a well organized and well thought out definition description of three important properties of language. So far, so good. But then you fail to formulate any specific criteria based on those properties, leaving us in the same state you so incisively criticized.

You seem to imply that one criterion is that the writing conforms in general to common patterns in phrasing and grammatical structure:

I see a very high rate of inverted sentence structure (clauses rearranged out of the 'conventional' pattern), a tendency towards using passive voiced verbs and verb forms which are not temporal, and a vocabulary that challenges temporal expectations.
Where I think the difficulty lies is in the frequency of these items.

I fear I may be misreading you here, but more on that in a moment. If I am correct about what you intended, note two things: 1. The definition of "good writing" depends critically on what styles other people, who have nothing to do with the writing in question, have used; 2. a work that is good at one time can become bad, or vice versa, given certain changes in style generally employed. These thing seem radically counter-intuitive to me; should not the quality of a work of art depend on that work of art rather than on other works of art?

It would seem quite absurd to suggest that a book written in English is inherently better than a book written in Finnish. It would likewise seem quite absurd to suggest that a book written in Modern English is inherently better than a book written in Old English. It seems equally absurd to me to suggest that a book written in a modern style is inherently better than one written in an archaic style. And it doesn't seem that it should matter where or when the book was written. If someone wrote a great work of literature in Finnish, would it matter whether he wrote it in Finland or the United States? So if someone writes a great work of literature in a somewhat archaic style, why should it matter that he writes it now rather than in the past?

I may be ascribing views to you that you don't hold, but I think that they are whither your arguments ultimately lead - if I understood your criterion correctly. It occurs to me that you may simply mean that the too frequent use of any kind of phrasing or grammatical structure is an detriment. But there are great modern works of literature that make incessant use of certain grammatical devices; and there are great works of older literature that make rather similar use of inversion and passive verbs to Tolkien. Surely these are not all poorly written.

I think it's easy to overlook the fact that Tolkien doesn't just use inversion for novelty or to make the tone sound falsely archaic. First of all, it would not be falsely archaic for it is about the distant past and about people who thought and spoke in that terse, elevated style. More importantly, though, "inversion" has a real purpose. It serves to emphasize the word or phrase put first in the sentence. "Borne upon the wind they heard the howling of wolves" emphasizes the wind and the role of the wind as an agent. "The howling of wolves they heard borne upon the wind" would make the howling more unambiguously the central point of the sentence, giving it a sort of urgency or quality of surprise; the role of the wind comes almost as an after thought. "They heard the howling of wolves borne upon the wind" emphasizes the hearing.

So the structure of these sentences is not arbitrary or complex for the sake of complexity. And by the way, the placement of participial phrases away from the the nouns they modify is not strictly incorrect; the trouble with it is that it is often confusing and often has an unintended double meaning. If, as I think the case is in the sentence under discussion, there is little ambiguity and not much further complexity to the sentence, it is perfectly fine to separate them.

Regarding the whole business of popularity: I've discussed this in several other threads (as have several others in the present discussion), which might be of interest:

Book of the Century? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000648)
LOTR vs. Scholars, or Academics Can Kiss My As-taldo. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=003164)
New Republic Article (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001742)
Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant) (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001564)

. . . though these threads all veered into a variety of subjects.

To briefly restate my point of view: I think that the criticism of popularity expressed here by Eurytus and Bethberry and elsewhere by many others confuses cause and effect.

Some time ago I heard an interview with Tom Shippey on NPR; Shippey pointed out the enduring popularity of Tolkien's writings and the interviewer criticized this logic, pointing out that Elvis is also extremely popular and that doesn't make him great. Shippey's response was, I think, not quite on target; he argued (if I remember correctly) that LotR exhibited a more enduring popularity than Elvis and that, moreover, maybe there is something to the claim that because Elvis is popular he was great.

I think this is a mistaken line of argument; I would rather say:

It would be absurd to claim that popularity is the cause of greatness, or to define a good work of literature as one that is popular. But that's the not the claim being made. The claim is that a great work of literature tends to be popular. The greatness of the work is independent of the popularity, but the popularity can be an effect of the greatness. Other things can also cause popularity, obviously. And it's possible that other, independent factors could have the effect of preventing a great work from becoming popular. But none of that contradicts the premise that there is some kind of a causal link between greatness and popularity. Certainly popularity cannot prove that a work is great; but it can be counted as a piece of evidence.

[Eurytus]

I think you're splitting academic hairs when trying to find fault with such well loved/enjoyed books.

i.e. you think them faultless.
I am not ‘trying’ to find fault. That would imply that I have some desperate desire to find flaws within Tolkien’s works. That is simply not true. In fact, I have ‘found’ flaws. I did not go looking for them. I did not necessarily want them to be there. But being there I will not avoid their presence.
Reading through this thread I have seen ever more convoluted arguments for these events;
1. The use of archaic language.
2. The jarring change in style and tone.
For the first we have the view that either things can only be presented in a certain way if the language used is archaic. Or that archaic language is superior for these descriptions.
When in my view the simply answer is that Tolkien simply wanted it to sound epic and to ape the works he was fond of.
For the second we have had different authors posited. We have had the theory of hobbits referring to funeral orations for Theoden when writing their account of the events.
When, after reading the HOME series, the simple answer is that Tolkien began the book as a sequel to the Hobbit, with childish names and woeful characters (a hobbit called trotter with wooden shoes indeed), and that once he had morphed this into a sequel to the Silmarillion (partly no doubt because he could not get the latter published) he failed to go back and sufficiently correct the earlier clashes of tone.
This is the only conceivable reason for presenting a Fox’s viewpoint within the same book that soon blossoms with Lo’s and Behold’s left, right and centre.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Aiwendil, Child, thank you for expressing thoughts similar to mine more eloquently than I could have. I too agree that the personal style of an author is being debated here and would like to see more "why did he use this" than "what's wrong with it" being discussed. That does not mean I consider Tolkien's work flawless, but I do not enjoy that particular train of argument.

However, I thank all who have taken the time to express their opinions thoughtfully and well-foundedly, and to explain their reasons for them, even when I do not agree with the conclusions they have made. There is nothing like an opposing opinion to keep my own thoughts from getting stale!

(In thinking about posting here, I realized how important the possibility of turning around the elements of a sentence is to me, in order to be able to emphasize through that choice what I feel important. "I too would like to express my opinion" has quite a different connotation than "I would like to express my opinion too"!)

[Liriodendron]

i.e. you think them fautless.

No, not that! smilies/eek.gif I think that the "greatness" of LoTRs was created by marvelous style, which certainly might include "flaws" (if that's what you choose to call personalized use of language! smilies/wink.gif ). I do not believe perfection is necessary for greatness. Therefore pulling out (debated smilies/tongue.gif ) "flaws" from the writing style does not alter my very high opinion of LoTR. smilies/wink.gif True, It can make for interesting discussion, (I enjoyed reading Aiwendell's and Child's most recent posts. smilies/smile.gif )But total correctness and perfection can be quite boring.
Being a painter, I usually imagine visuals when considering standards for enjoying art, but I think it works with language also. I'm imagining a lovely young movie star, getting plastic surgery to make her nose a little smaller, her eyes a little higher....poof! she subsequently loses her visual uniqueness, the very thing that appealed to many in the first place. Some of my best pictures have broken the rules, and easily pleased more people than the stricter, "correct" compositions. I think I'll bow out and read the "Academics can kiss my As-taldo" thread. smilies/biggrin.gif I guess (hope) I made my simple point several posts ago.. smilies/frown.gif( Time to paint!

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Bêthberry]

It is possible I should not be responding now, for I am a little frustrated with what has been made of my argument in my last post.

Aiwendel is ascribing to me points I never made and which do not follow logically from any of my points.(Edit: and I will respond to it in a later post.) Child is insinuating that for some reason I am discriminating against Tolkien because he is not modern. And Estelyn is saying the direction of the arguement is wrong. However, I read your posts as defensive rather than as a legitimate analysis of my argument.

For your information, I have supplied a plausible reason for Tolkien's use of archaic style. It is just that none of you like the reason.

I am sorry if my analysis impinges upon your faith and love of an author, but to say that other people are not being fair or right in their reading--people who like the author also--is taking authorial enjoyment a tad too far I think.

And, by the way, the issue about inverted sentences is not that they are wrong or should not be used. I did not say that. It is the way they are foregrounded in the text, the way they are used in the text. It is the pattern-making feature of literary language which makes it significant.

And, yes, "Borne upon the wind they heard the howling of wolves" is a grammatical error. It would be significant and meaningful if this kind of misplaced modification were a regular feature of Tolkien's style, as are the many, many ways which Joyce challenges language structure. But it is not. (Joyce, by the way, is not without his detractors, so when you refer to him, Child, you need to acknowledge that his 'modernity' does not go unchallenged. It is not a simple case of modernity being accepted and Tolkien's conservatism not.) And, if it is important to emphasise the aspect 'borne upon the wind', then the subject could easily be changed, so that the sentence could read, for example, "Borne upon the wind, the howling of wolves echoed over and again upon their ears." (I repeat, this is offerred as an example of the pattern only, not as a superior sentence.)

Perhaps I should explain that I pointed to this sentence not out of some pedantic demand to enforce the rules of grammar, but merely in a teasing way to Squatter, who had set up an "Oxford professor of English" as an authority beyond question. It was a rejoinder to his argument, not a requirement for flawless perfection. Edit: For the sake of clarity I would like to point out that my post of November 3/03 at 3:19 did point out what, for me, are outstanding features of Tokien's work--the breadth and extent of his imagination and his profound respect for fairie and, in fact, it takes as one of the strengths of LOTR its sprawling nature.

I would agree with Child that Tolien's article on Beowulf and the Monsters is a brilliant work of scholarship. (Liriodendron, when you feel so hostile towards academics, you should perhaps consider that Tolkien himself was one.) I have argued its excellence elsewhere on earlier threads. However, his brilliant writing on Beowulf (and in "On Fairy-Stories") does not automatically mean that his creative or fictional writing will implicitly be as good.

Furthermore, I think a legitimate avenue for discussion is how we go about defining, ascribing or recognizing quality in language.

I think Finwe has come close to providing one way to recognize a great read: when we are completely taken up in the created world an author presents to us. I, too, feel this way about Tolkien's world and writing. Yet I also feel let down. I come crashing back to 'reality' when I come to certain passages in LOTR and this is disappointing. I think it is an acceptable and legitimate endeavour to try to explain why this happens. And it saddens me when I am told I should not do this because it attacks the professor unfairly. This, I think, it where the cultish aspects of Tolkien fandom come into play.

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Aiwendil]

Eurytus wrote:
Reading through this thread I have seen ever more convoluted arguments for these events;
1. The use of archaic language.
2. The jarring change in style and tone.


I don't see how the following arguments are convoluted:
1. Archaic language imparts the writing with a special flavor, which may be desirable in itself. Also, in the present case, this flavor matches the flavor or feel of the actual events described.
2. The change in style is achieved gradually and thus is not jarring.

I do agree about the difficulty in believing that the hobbits would change their style to such a degree; I think this is a minor flaw. But it is a flaw of a very different sort than the charge that the change in styles is jarring, or that the prose is poor.

in my view the simply answer is that Tolkien simply wanted it to sound epic and to ape the works he was fond of.

after reading the HOME series, the simple answer is that Tolkien began the book as a sequel to the Hobbit, with childish names and woeful characters (a hobbit called trotter with wooden shoes indeed), and that once he had morphed this into a sequel to the Silmarillion (partly no doubt because he could not get the latter published) he failed to go back and sufficiently correct the earlier clashes of tone.


I think that you are confusing means and ends. A discussion concerning the merits and flaws in a book ought not to depend at all upon the motivations of the author, but rather upon the final product itself.

Bethberry wrote:
Aiwendel is ascribing to me points I never made and which do not follow logically from any of my points.

I had written:
I fear I may be misreading you here,
I may be ascribing views to you that you don't hold, but I think that they are whither your arguments ultimately lead - if I understood your criterion correctly.

I tried to indicate that I was unsure about your intent so as not to offend you by misrepresenting you.

Was I correct in surmising that you think "that one criterion is that the writing conforms in general to common patterns in phrasing and grammatical structure"? If so, I think that this line of reasoning eventually must lead to the kinds of problems I referred to - with the quality of a work of literature depending on where and when it was written, and so forth.

Or was I correct in my second guess, that you meant "that the too frequent use of any kind of phrasing or grammatical structure is an detriment"? If this is the case, then I stand by my reply - that a great many older works use a similar style to Tolkien's, and that a great many modern works employ other techniques of phrasing with equal frequency, and that I don't think that all of these are poorly written.

Or did you mean something else? If you did, please correct my error.

For your information, I have supplied a plausible reason for Tolkien's use of archaic style. It is just that none of you like the reason.

I would surmise that this is "because he could not conceive of heroism in the modern age", as you said in an earlier post.

First of all, let me point out that I neither like or dislike that hypothesis as an explanation for Tolkien's use of his particular style. But I don't think that Tolkien's motivation for using the style has much of anything to do with whether the style is good or not.

My answer to the latter question is that: 1. there is nothing inherently poor about the archaic style; 2. Tolkien's command of this archaic style was good; 3. the archaic style lends a feeling/flavor/atmosphere to the writing; 4. this feeling is appropriate to the content of the book and is also enjoyable in itself; thus the style is good.

I take it you disagree with 2 (and possibly with others). But I don't see how Tolkien's motivations for choosing the style he chose determine whether or not he was adept in the use of that style.

And, yes, "Borne upon the wind they heard the howling of wolves" is a grammatical error.

I'm going to have to simply disagree with you on this and leave it at that (for it seems neither of us can produce proof). I was always under the impression that this is one of those "grammatical rules" invented by nineteenth century scholars to enforce what they took to be good style (along with rules against "split infinitives" and not ending sentences with prepositions).

I think Finwe has come close to providing one way to recognize a great read: when we are completely taken up in the created world an author presents to us. I, too, feel this way about Tolkien's world and writing. Yet I also feel let down. I come crashing back to 'reality' when I come to certain passages in LOTR and this is disappointing.

But if this is to be the criterion, then we are back where we started. I never came crashing back to reality when I came to certain passages. Where does that leave us? With no room for debate.

[GreatWarg]

I think, Aiwendil, Estelyn, Child, that Bethberry is asking the 'why' question instead of the 'here is something that may be a mistake'. By pointing out something she believes to be something of discussion and worthy of questioning, she is asking the question 'Why did Tolkien put it this way, and not so-and-so way?' Or perhaps I am just mistaken with the nature of the argument.

I agree with Bethberry the fact that some of the professor's way of wording events can give one the impression that you have just 'fallen out of Middle-earth'. Sometimes, for me at least, it is wording that seems out of place, such as the fox's thoughts. I wonder what significance it adds, and why Tolkien left it where it was during his re-writings.

I think Estelyn made a very valid point on how wording affects the tone of the character or the story:

In thinking about posting here, I realized how important the possibility of turning around the elements of a sentence is to me, in order to be able to emphasize through that choice what I feel important. "I too would like to express my opinion" has quite a different connotation than "I would like to express my opinion too"!

"I too would like to express my opinion" gives us the effect of a more learned person who can give great ideas, while some of us may wince when one says "I would like to express my opinion too!" Perhaps this is the reason why some posting here tend to scare off the newbies?

So does Tolkien's writing gie us the impression of a learned man? I would say most certainly say so! Though perhaps one could argue over his usage of certain sentences.

EDIT: Aaah, cross-posting! Sorry, didn't see you there Aiwendil! I will attempt to make a reply.

We see that Frodo and Bilbo are exceptional hobbits, and their use of language is much different from, say Pippin or Merry, esp. when talking to folks of other kind:

For example, Frodo says in the chapter 'Three is Company' to the Elves:

The meaning of it, fair people, is simply that we seem to be going the same way as you are.

While Pippin and Sam tend to use less 'high' speech, as Pippin does when speaking to the Elves in the same chapter:

O Wise People! Tell us about the Black Riders!

This gives us the impression that Frodo and Bilbo are more learned.

Aiwendil wrote:

If this is the case, then I stand by my reply - that a great many older works use a similar style to Tolkien's, and that a great many modern works employ other techniques of phrasing with equal frequency, and that I don't think that all of these are poorly written.

No, not 'poorly written,' for I do agree that old pieces of work often re-use the same styles over and over, and they still remain very popular with me and many others. Do these, however, help the story or merely hinder it? It could be, once again, based on one's personal tastes and abilities to ignore exactly what is written but get the idea in their mind.

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: GreatWarg ]

[Bêthberry]

Normally here at the Barrow Downs we frown upon consecutive posts. I hope, however, I will be allowed to do this, as my response to Aiwendil's post really requires some extensive development which would make my previous post far too long.

I am sorry, Aiwendil, that my post on language was unclear and so liable to misinterpretation. Perhaps I can do a better job here.

First, when you quote me on the areas of sentence inversion and passive voiced verbs and older verb forms, you omitted the last sentence of my paragraph. Here is my paragraph in its entirety, with the final sentence now placed in bold font.

With Tolkien, I see a habit, in parts of LOTR, which foregrounds (uses repeatedly) particular traits of the English language. I see a very high rate of inverted sentence structure (clauses rearranged out of the 'conventional' pattern), a tendency towards using passive voiced verbs and verb forms which are not temporal, and a vocabulary that challenges temporal expectations. None of this is inherently wrong to my mind.


It is not the simple presence in itself of these traits which ruins my enjoyment of LOTR--and this is my wish here, not to nitpick and find fault but to understand why the magic evaporates for me at certain points. Let me backtrack for a minute.

When I offerred the model of how we make sense of language, derived from linguistics, I had not meant to imply that conformity to a normative pattern is the criterion for quality. Linguistics, as I said, is descriptive, not prescriptive. In attempting to keep a long post from becoming even longer, I did acknowledge great varieties in language--social, cultural, economic, etc.

The point is that language is meaningful because it is based on perceived patterns--and this can include the absence of those patterns and the deviations from those patterns. I am talking here not just in terms of lexis or meaning of words but of the structure of sentences and words.

One understanding of literary language, which is a very special use of language, depends upon this pattern-making aspect. Literary language is language which intensifies this pattern-making. And it is language which often challenges the more normative habits of language in other contexts (social, professional, intimate, formal, etc.). Literary language is more intense, more compressed, has a more self-conscious historical sense (particularly about genre), is more particular about formatting, uses figurative language more densely and more allusively. It is aware of itself as language in a way that our 'regular speech' tends not to be.

So, what I was attempting to do, when examining passages which for me 'don't ring true' (I put this in italics for I don't wish to make this definitive but simply descriptive of my reading), was examine the patterns here.
This is a standard method in both literary and linguistic analysis.

It is similar to the question asked about the novel Jane Eyre: there is a famous passage in chapter XII where Jane is wandering around unhappy with her lot. Often the passage is taken as a ringing defense of women's need for intellectual stimulation. Yet, once we ask why Jane's rumination--"It is vain to say human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquillity"--is immediately interrupted by her hearing the weird laughter of Rochester's mad wife (whose existence Jane does not yet know of), we can begin to see some sort of narrative comment or stricture on Jane's thoughts. That is, we can begin to see a pattern which conflicts with the claims of the first person narrator so that, ultimately, we can see that to read the novel we need to go beyond sympathetic acceptance of Jane's words alone.

Such an activity 'ruins' the novel as an uncomplicated feminist endorsement of female liberation. Yet it leads to a more complex (for me and others) appreciation of the novel.

So, when I come to places which ruin the magic for me, I step back and ask why? What is see is a use of language which is, if I can be allowed a word with a special, particular meaning, precious. The repetition of a collocation of language traits draws attention to the language traits themselves, rather simply functioning to present the characters or the events.

This is often done in literary language, of course, to greater effect. It is also often done in weaker writing where the effect detracts from the work. (What I mean can best be considered in bad poetry, where the regularity of rhythm and rhyme draws attention to itself rather than to the overall work.)

For Squatter, the effect is to create stronger characterization for the characters. For me, I am reminded of language which attempts to sound authentically archaic but which is not. Have I read more old literature than Squatter? I wouldn't think so.

My point in drawing a comparison with Owen is not to set his style up as the standard, but to point to another writer where I do not feel the use of archaic language detracts from the overall work. My intent was comparative and descriptive, again, not prescriptive.


As to your point that standards change, well, yes, they do. Or perhaps I should say enjoyment. My post to Liriodendron listed writers who works have undergone changes in evaluation over time. Even in my own reading, I have found that a rereading of an author, in a different context or several years later, changes my understanding and appreciation of that author. Belin Ibaimendi and I talked about this in chat last week, where we were mentioning Byron.


As for this paragraph:

It would seem quite absurd to suggest that a book written in English is inherently better than a book written in Finnish. It would likewise seem quite absurd to suggest that a book written in Modern English is inherently better than a book written in Old English. It seems equally absurd to me to suggest that a book written in a modern style is inherently better than one written in an archaic style. And it doesn't seem that it should matter where or when the book was written. If someone wrote a great work of literature in Finnish, would it matter whether he wrote it in Finland or the United States? So if someone writes a great work of literature in a somewhat archaic style, why should it matter that he writes it now rather than in the past?



Again, my point is not that I think the use of archaic language is wrong-minded, but that when it is emphasised as Tolkien uses it, it works counter to a significant meaning.

And, for me, comparing Tolkien with Owen opened up worlds of new understanding of Tolkien. That's why davem's post about the new Tolkien biography was so interesting to me. Thinking about what Tolkien did with archaic language and what Owen did with Latin made me rethink what the war meant to Tolkien. Perhaps for those of you who like the archaic language, this is not plenitude. But for me it is. I feel I have a better understand of Tolkien.

[Liriodendron]

I am not really "hostile" to academics, they just put me to sleep sometimes! smilies/wink.gif smilies/smile.gif I'll work on it. smilies/biggrin.gif

[Bêthberry]

Cross posting there with Aiwendil, again, alas.

I have time now for only one quick point and must leave others to a later post. Aiwendil, you wrote the following about my comments on "Borne upon the wind, they heard the howling of wolves":

I'm going to have to simply disagree with you on this and leave it at that (for it seems neither of us can produce proof). I was always under the impression that this is one of those "grammatical rules" invented by nineteenth century scholars to enforce what they took to be good style (along with rules against "split infinitives" and not ending sentences with prepositions).

I haven't the time now to research the history of prescriptive grammars, but my understanding is that this kind of'grammatical rule' is not prescriptive, but based upon a requirement for logical association between clauses in a sentence. I don't know what kind of 'proof' you would want or accept, but here is an explanation based on functional syntactics.

I refer you to A University Grammar of English, Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum, London: Longman, 1973. This is not, as I said, a prescriptive grammar, but derived from functional analysis, a standard in linquistics, which frowns upon the kind of prescriptive grammars you mention, Aiwendil (and which I mentioned also).

p. 329, chapter 11, The Complex Sentence, section 11.35, Non-finite and verbless clauses.

If the subject is not actually expressed in a non-finite or verbless clause, it is assumed to be identical with the subject of the superordinate [main] clause:

When ripe, the oranges are picked and sorted.

He took up anthropology, stimulated by our enthusiasm.

She hesitated, being very suspicious, to open the door.

He opened his case, to look for a book.

Commonly, however, this 'attachment rule' is violated:

?Since leaving her, life has seemed empty.
[The ? refers to usage of doubtful acceptability, to use the phrasing in Symbols and Technical Conventions]

In this case, we would assume that the superordinate clause means 'Life has seemed empty to me and that the subject of the-ing clause is also first person. Such 'unattached' ('pendant' or 'dangling') clauses ae frowned on, however, and are totally unacceptable if the superordinate clause provides no means at all for identifying the subordinate subject. In the following sentence, for example, it canot be a dog:

*Reading the evening paper, a dog started barking.

[The * refers to unacceptable usage according to the table of Symbols and Technical Conventions.]

In place of 'dangling' I used 'misplaced' because I thought that might be more clear.

Edit: typos and publishing info for the book.

[ November 11, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

I hope to be able to jump back into this very intricate and interesting, although at times over my head conversation...

First, I want to thank Bethberry for bringing up the comparative style of Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est." That, more sharply than just about anything, illustrated the purposeful use of archaic language to get a (rather ironic!) point across. And it also resonates in a way (although I'm too stuffed in the head and dim at the moment to recognize it and explicate it) with the whole World War One theme as covered in davem's thread on the new Tolkien bio, which I would dearly love to read, having an interest in the Great War myself!

But, back to the point I wished to add: regarding your question as posed earlier, Bethberry as to the purpose of Tolkien's stylistic irregularities--I think anyone who wishes more insight on this point might do well to go over the Appendix F at the end of ROTK (esp. part II-On Translation), wherein Tolkien explains not only the differences and evolutions of language, but also adds in an explanation of the Englishing of certain terms. He also says:
It will be noticed that Hobbits, such as Frodo, and other persons such as Gandalf and Aragorn, do not always use the same style. This is intentional. The more learned and able among the Hobbits had some knowledge of 'book-language', as it was termed in the Shire; and they were quick to note and adopt the style of those whom they met. It was in any case natural for well-traveled folk to speak more or less after the manner of those among whom they found themselves, especially in the case of men who, like Aragorn, were often at pains to conceal their origin and their business.
There is much more after that, even down to explaining Pippin's use of the familiar forms of address to everyone, even to the Lord Denethor, to explain why those in Minas Tirith may have mistaken him for a Prince of Halflings. It is obvious that Tolkien DID give a great deal of thought to his use of different styles of speech and to illustrating the differing customs and understandings or misunderstandings of different cultures within Middle Earth. I thought the quote appropriate to this discussion, so I figured I'd throw it out there. It seems to be a direct addressing of his choice to use differing styles and also to change the tone as the travels of the Hobbits progressed. What are your thoughts?

Cheers,
Lyta

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry: Thanks for clearing things up. I think I understand you much better now.

There are three different topics that have not, I think, been sufficiently distinguished in this thread, resulting in some of my confusion over your meaning. They are:

1. Is Tolkien's use of archaic style to the advantage or detriment of The Lord of the Rings?

2. Given an answer to 1, how does the style achieve this effect?

3. What was Tolkien's motivation or intent in using that style?

You have been trying to answer 2, given the assumption that Tolkien's writing is poor in places. The question I had been focused on was 1.

As to your point that standards change, well, yes, they do.

Hmm . . . did I make that point? As a matter of fact, I think that standards ought not to change; or that if there is an objective standard for good literature it does not change.

Again, my point is not that I think the use of archaic language is wrong-minded, but that when it is emphasised as Tolkien uses it, it works counter to a significant meaning.

Is this then the crux of your problem with Tolkien's style? It sounds like a more intriguing idea than the simple charge that the writing is poor (though I suspect that I still disagree with it). Does it involve your hypothesis that Tolkien could not envision heroism in a modern context? If so, I think that rather the opposite conclusion can be drawn about his style. But I don't want to launch into another argument against a view no one holds.

Regarding the grammatical question: I completely agree with the material you quoted from Quirk and Greenbaum. A sentence like:

Since leaving her, life has seemed empty.

is incorrect based on a simple analysis of its functional/logical structure (assuming that the intended meaning was not that "life left her" but that "I [or someone else] left her". The same goes for:

Reading the evening paper, a dog started barking.

That is, again, unless the intent is that a dog was reading the paper. The problem with these is that the participle has no subject and is thus not logically related to the main verb (and it is also not in an absolute construction). In other words, it is subordinated to nothing.

But Tolkien's sentence is quite different:

Borne upon the wind, they heard the howling of wolves.

The subject of "borne" is expressed. It is "the howling of wolves". The grammatical structure of the sentence is this: "heard" is the main verb; "they" is its subject; "the howling of wolves" is its object; "borne upon the wind" is adjectival, modifying "howling of wolves".

The only possible problem with the sentence is that "Borne upon the wind" is not placed next to "the howling of wolves". In some cases, this could lead to confusion, if it is not obvious to what noun the participle is subordinate. But I certainly can't see how it is logically/grammatically incorrect.

Lyta Underhill: I agree with what you say about the purpose of the stylistic changes. As the somewhat modern Hobbits enter and learn about the world of the Elves and the ancient kingdoms of the Dunedain, the change in style matches the change in content.

The same thing happens in The Hobbit and I believe its use there is discussed by Tom Shippey in the Author of the Century.

[Eurytus]

I agree with what you say about the purpose of the stylistic changes. As the somewhat modern Hobbits enter and learn about the world of the Elves and the ancient kingdoms of the Dunedain, the change in style matches the change in content.
Well if that were the case would anyone like to explain why the same style of writing and language is not used to describe the realm of Lorien or Rivendell, both of which are far older than the people in Gondor. Despite your statement it is a fact that the Elves do not use anywhere near as much archaic language as the men of Gondor/Rohan.

Who would be more likely to use archaic language? Someone who has been alive for thousands of years and remembers the glories of the 1st age or someone who has lived for a mere fifty?
Your explanation does not stack up to the facts.

[Liriodendron]

At the risk of having things thrown at me, smilies/eek.gif smilies/biggrin.gif may I suggest the reason was because Tolkien was not an anal retentive writer? (in this particular instance smilies/wink.gif )

[Eurytus]

Come on, he wouldn't need to be. Surely it would be relatively simple to work out that the more antique a realm the more archaic the language. As it is the book gets more archaic as it progresses and this doesn't logically fit anything apart from Tolkien's growing desire to write a sequel to the Silmarillion.

[Bêthberry]

Into the breach one more time ... smilies/wink.gif

GreatWarg, I do want to thank you for recognizing the purpose of my posts. I had been replying when you posted and did not see your post until after I posted.

Lyta_Underhill, I'm glad you enjoyed Owen's poem. Your reference to Appendix F is valuable as a reminder of Tolkien's stated intentions. His knowledge as a philologist enabled him to create very plausible derivations for his languages. However, there is one aspect of his assumptions about language which no longer holds--or which, I should say, we by and large do not ascribe to any longer.

This is his use of moral terms of evaluation for language. This is most pronounced in his description of the speech of Orcs and Trolls as 'degraded and filthy', "dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt, too long removed from good to retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of those to whom only the squalid sounds strong."

It is true that Tolkien eschews words of moral connotation when he describes the other tongues, yet his very contrast between languages (the hobbits using a "rustic" language, the Stoors' language being "queer" in its vaguely "Celtic" "feel", even his reference to older and "revered" tongues) suggests assumptions about the value of language which are no longer regarded as legitimate linguistic assumptions. For instance, Latin is no longer regarded as a better language than English simply because it is older or because it is inflected--that attitude was a holdover from the political power of the Roman empire. This older attitude about language reflected social, political and cultural attitudes, but they do not adequately describe how languages work. Social prestige is still a powerful factor in how people respond to language, but it is no longer regarded as the sole indicator of the worth of language.

This old view of language equated quality or beauty with moral worth and tended to confuse political agendas with appreciation of language. (Many of the Victorian missionaries who travelled to Africa reported that the African languages were "primitive", regarding the languages and the cultures from their self-appointed view of superior, progressive Westerner. When I refer to this, I am not ascribing such narrow mindedness to Tolkien, but simply pointing out a concommitant affect of the general attitude towards language which Appendix F holds.) This, I think, is one reason why many find his use of the antique style for Aragorn and Gondor embarassing--it suggests a moral worth, and this kind of assumption is no longer tenable. (At least, it is not in the fields of linguistics or sociology, or, even, literature.) No form or style of language is regarded as innately holding worth or being more worthy in itself than any other form. The criteria for effectivenss is always the entire range of linguistic interaction between sender and receiver, speaker and audience and context.

Thus, for me, authorial intention can not be used satisfactorily to support the styles of LOTR.

Aiwendil, to return briefly to this point about grammar which perhaps only you and I are interested in...

You have misinterpeted Quirk and Greenbaum's statement, "If the subject is not actually expressed in a non-finite or verbless clause, it is assumed to be identical with the subject of the superordinate clause." Your reading makes it identical with theobject of the superordinate clause.

This is a grammatical point, because, in linguistics, every string of two or more words is in grammatical relation (subordination, coordination, modification, predication, complementation, or augumentation) and every relation has two parts, a head and a constituent element. It is therefore a grammatical fault that 'borne upon the wind' is not 'beside' its constituent or completive part. Yes, we can 'guess' what the non-finite clause refers to because we know that Gandalf and company were not thrown about by the wind, but this is a lexical leap which would not pertain in every example of this sentence type.

Let me return later to your other points.

[ November 12, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Aiwendil]

Eurytus wrote:
Well if that were the case would anyone like to explain why the same style of writing and language is not used to describe the realm of Lorien or Rivendell, both of which are far older than the people in Gondor.

First of all, it must be said that we are talking about two different things here. There is on the one hand the style in which the book is written, Tolkien's style, the narrative style. Then there is the style in which the characters speak. They needn't have anything to do with each other (though they needn't be unrelated either).

The charge you are making (specifically) here, then, is not against the use of archaism, or against the quality of Tolkien's prose, or the change in his style, or anything like that; it is about the believability within Middle-earth that the Elves of Rivendell and Lothlorien speak in a certain style and the humans of Gondor in a certain other style.

But I simply can't find the stylistic discrepancy you refer to. In Elrond's speech can be found all the same sorts of devices and patterns of phrasing used by the Gondorians. The same is true for the speech of Galadriel and Celeborn. Certainly the more common Elves speak in slightly less elevated tones, but then so do the few Gondorians we encounter that are not of high station (like Ioreth).

To the extent that I am wrong and there is such a difference, I suppose it is a flaw in the book. But it is certainly a minor one compared with the oft-made accusation that Tolkien's writing style is poor (and it is also a completely different kind of flaw).

Bethberry wrote:
This is his use of moral terms of evaluation for language. This is most pronounced in his description of the speech of Orcs and Trolls as 'degraded and filthy', "dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt, too long removed from good to retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of those to whom only the squalid sounds strong."

Of course it is not appropriate to use moral terms in the study of language, just as it is not appropriate to use them in any science. But The Lord of the Rings is not a philological study. When we step into the conceptual scheme of Arda, we must accept its morality and its system of truths.

I do not think these are strictly moral terms, by the way; they are subjective evaluations of a slightly different (through related) sort.

But surely it is possible for a person, or even a group of people, to find a particular language "ugly" or "queer" or "rustic". Provided adequate definitions, it is perfectly correct to use these terms. Of course, it may be undesirable to use them (since they may offend people or be interpreted as intended to describe speakers of the language rather than the language itself).

Tolkien thought Gaelic was uglier than Welsh. So what? He didn't take this as the basis for any scientific conclusions, and he didn't mean that Welsh people were superior to Irish or Scottish people. He thought that the Black Speech was uglier than Quenya. There's nothing wrong with that.

One could consider a language queer if it exhibits features that are markedly different from related languages, or from most languages. One could consider a language rustic if it tends to spoken in rural areas and retains certain archaic vocabulary that has been dropped in more populated areas. One could call a language "dreary and repetitive" if it has a limited vocabulary, if it has few roots and thus many very similar words, or if it has an especially restricted phonology. "Lacking verbal vigour" would seem to mean something like being "dreary and repetitive" - not having many roots or word.

The language of Trolls and Orcs is filled with "hatred and contempt" because Trolls and Orcs are filled with those things. And it would seem to be the simple fact within Arda that these languages have been "too long removed from the good".

The upshot of all of this is that while I agree that all such subjective evaluations should be kept out of real linguistics and philology, they have every right to be made within Arda, by Tolkien, and (perhaps most importantly) by the Elves and humans of the West who are supposed to have written the histories.

You have misinterpeted Quirk and Greenbaum's statement, "If the subject is not actually expressed in a non-finite or verbless clause, it is assumed to be identical with the subject of the superordinate clause." Your reading makes it identical with theobject of the superordinate clause.

Ah. I'm sorry. I was misled because in both of the examples that they offer, the sentence suffers from a far more immediate problem: the subject of the subordinate clause is not even expressed in the superordinate clause.

But I still don't see why that rule must be true based solely on the logical structure of this kind of sentence. Indeed, it seems to me (though I confess I am not a linguist) that such a rule could not possibly be true based solely on the logic of the grammar, for there are languages that are quite free with their placement of such clauses. One could formulate a version of English in which the rule was modified to: if the subject of the subordinate clause is not expressed, it is assumed to be the direct object of the verb in the superordinate clause. This would be an odd system, but it is self-consistent logically. So (it seems to me) is the system wherein there is no rule about which noun becomes the subject of a noun-less clause.

Another way of seeing what I mean is this: if the sentence as presented is logically incorrect, why would "They heard the howling of wolves borne upon the wind" be correct? It seems to have exactly the same logical structure.

Is there something I'm missing perhaps in the difference between subordination and modification? That is, in the sentence as I presented it above, is the relation of "borne on the wind" with "the howling of wolves" modification rather than subordination? Does "They heard the howling of wolves borne upon the wind" have a different grammatical structure from "They heard the howling of wolves, borne upon the wind"?

I can see how it might, though (not being a linguist) I may of course be quite wrong. But if I'm not, then the problem would seem to be not one concerning the placement of the words in the sentence, but concerning only the relation between "borne upon the wind" and "the howling of wolves". Then the critical difference for the "inverted" sentence would seem to be whether or not there is a comma between "Borne upon the wind" and "they heard the howling of wolves".

Of course, I may be completely misunderstanding the difference between subordination and modification. But I'm eager to learn.

[Bêthberry]

I think, Aiwendil, that it is time we took this discussion, if you wish, to PM. I'm not conceding any point to you now, mind. smilies/wink.gif

I will be PMing you with my reasons for this suggestion.

[ November 12, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

EDIT: Aiwendil, your PM box is full and so I cannot send you my reasons.

[ November 12, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Mister Underhill]

This point of grammar seems to me to be much ado about nothing. Surely you don’t mean to argue that “Borne upon the wind they heard the howling of wolves.” is a grievously faulty sentence? The author’s meaning is clear; we don’t literally need to guess what was “borne”. As far as I know, the professor isn’t guilty of a habit of violating the rule you cite in a way that repeatedly leads to confusion in his prose. Good style is all about being effective, and as long as that end is achieved no rule of grammar is sacrosanct.

If, Bb, you’re trying to make the point that the professor is at least occasionally guilty of confusing constructions, I personally think you’d gain more ground arguing something like his queer idiosyncratic habit of using a simile construction to build suspense, a trait which has in my opinion led directly to the legendary confusion surrounding Balrog wings (cf. this post (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000383&p=3#000100) for some examples and analysis I made in a long-ago pro-wing argument). But then again, this technique works as often as not, and even the confusion over Balrog wings has led to many enjoyable hours of debate, so I reckon I can hardly classify even this quirk as a serious fault.

[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Eurytus]

But I simply can't find the stylistic discrepancy you refer to. In Elrond's speech can be found all the same sorts of devices and patterns of phrasing used by the Gondorians.
By the way, since people claimed the style of description in the latter books was also designed to give a sense of antiquity to the environment then the descriptions in Rivendell and Lorien should be likewise.
Sorry but I missed all the Lo’s and Behold’s in the speechs in Rivendell.

[Bêthberry]

Oh indeed, Mr. Underhill, originally my point about the sentence was simply mischievious. As I said earlier, it was merely in jesting challenge to Squatter's claim about the omnipotence of "an Oxford professor of English." I have less faith in professors than he does. smilies/wink.gif

Aiwendil's questions about the formal organization of grammar have, I think, made the discussion more serious than was my original intention and drawn it away from the main issue here and so I am happy to continue that particular discussion with him in PM.

I entered this thread for two reasons: the question about style was a point that Squatter and I had occasionally discussed in chat and I thought I could perhaps help to establish a moderate tone in the discussion. I don't think that is possible.

Last night, a post was made here which spoke bitterly and sarcasticly about the question of style. (It was not addressed to me.) That post was quickly deleted, but in many ways it spoke of the feelings of many other people here. There are too many fans here for whom Tolkien's works are akin to iconic texts and for whom any kind of questioning brings very defensive feelings. I happen to think that even Tolkien would not be pleased with such feelings for a secular text, but I have no wish to create hard feelings, nor, really, "to gain ground" as you suggest. Discussion here is about fun, not gaining converts, to my mind.

I agree with you, by the way, that style is about effectiveness, not correctness. smilies/smile.gif

[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[Legolas]

Sorry but I missed all the Lo’s and Behold’s in the speechs in Rivendell.

Yet an entirely different race dwells within the forest of Lothlorien and the refuge of Imlardris. Must it be the identical use of archaic language for said use to be acceptable?

[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[Mister Underhill]

Yes, Bb, but we all love it when we have a chance to argue an opponent to the ground and pin him there, don’t we? Or is that just me?

Since opinions about style almost inevitably boil down to just that – opinion – it’s easy to see why some people react emotionally to charges of weakness in the professor’s style. I’d say it’s a sign of something positive here at the Downs that the post you mention (I didn’t see it) was withdrawn. Most of us have given in to the temptation to compose in the heat of passion; not all of us have the good sense to withdraw such a post in the cool aftermath.

I still think that you’re perhaps being a bit too hard on the fans who find no serious flaws in LotR. Most are willing to admit that the book isn’t perfect. Indeed, Tolkien prefaces his work with an admission that it contains “many defects, minor and major”. But to my mind, perfection is overrated. Indeed, aspects of the work that are flaws to some eyes are “by others specially approved” (Tolkien, ibid).

Good books can become like cherished friends or loved ones. We overlook their flaws – or in some cases love them all the more because of their quirks and idiosyncrasies – because their virtues far outweigh their shortcomings. I suppose that in a work of such scope, ambition, and genuine achievement, it seems to many fans ungenerous to dwell on small flaws which don’t really detract from the work’s overall effectiveness.

I don’t think you should be surprised or even saddened to find that this particular audience is biased in favor of smoothing over any shortcomings Tolkien may have had as a writer. They come here because of their love for the experience Tolkien has given them, and in many cases keep coming back for years because they’ve found that his work can punch its weight even under intense scrutiny.

[lindil]

but we all love it when we have a chance to argue an opponent to the ground and pin him there, don’t we? Or is that just me? indeed Mr. Underhill, that is exactly what the point of my [hastily withdrawn] post was about. I felt that Eurytus, you had dodged and evaded most of the salient points raised in objection to your opinions.

That for me was the touchy part Bethberry, not the belief that the LotR is 'Iconic' at least in the sense that Orthodox Christians regard Icons of sacred images and events as being the visual representation of the Bible and Sacred Tradition. Quite often JRRT's writings would qualify, to my mind as iconic, in the sense that they often piont to or represent Truth, which of course was JRRT's express intent.

Personally, as I said in my hastily withdrawn post, the more I read the post-LotR writings [primarily found in HoM-E 10-12 and Unfinished Tales, and a few more in the Silm] the more I feel that it was in the 50's and 60's that JRRT reached the height of his craft, and that the LotR [and the earlier Silm] was a long and elaborate warm up, that came to be regarded as his magnum opus only by default, because he did not finish the greater Silmarillion, and it was later issued in truncated [unfinshed revisions notwithstanding, there was at least a whole other volume of incorporatable writings] form.

-btw, the primary reason I withdrew the post, embarrassingly enough, was because I replied only after having read page 1 of the thread, not realizing there were 2 more [and far denser at that] pages.

It did however spare me a remark or two [ I have lost the doc, so I cannot confess more fully smilies/tongue.gif ] that I probably would have moderated after a re-read or two.

-L

[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

But to my mind, perfection is overrated. Indeed, aspects of the work that are flaws to some eyes are “by others specially approved” (Tolkien, ibid). and We overlook their flaws – or in some cases love them all the more because of their quirks and idiosyncrasies – because their virtues far outweigh their shortcomings.
Thanks, Underhill! This is a point with which I agree heartily in all things (not just Tolkien's work)! The technically flawless can be boring, predictable, etc., and I personally relish little glimpses into the tears in the fabric of artifice that occur in works which are dense, well-considered, aesthetically appealing, etc., but not perfect. In a sense, this mirrors the second- and third-hand experience of history itself and is an element in Tolkien's work that delights me! It is one of the truths that I and others seek that life is a search for the ultimate perfection or the light unsullied, but we are ever fated to find fulfillment in the striving, and to touch true perfection would simply absorb us but not satisfy us. (Does that make sense?)

To that end, the subordination of clarity to aesthetic sensibility is forgivable and even desirable in my eyes and in many other eyes, I am sure! Carry on! smilies/smile.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

[Lush]

Dudes,

Am I mis-reading something here or is Bethberry suddenly being accused of being the discussion board equivalent of a deranged Sumo-wrestler?

I've read this thread with great interest, and I admire Beth for stepping up to the plate and posting some comments in regards to Tolkien that have made even me uncomfortable.

I mean, who likes it when someone comes in and starts debunking something that you really, really love?

It's like finding out that your one-and-only can't fold his own shirts, or something equally distressing.

But in the end, I have to say that the sort of discourse that has been happening on this thread is ultimately very healthy and helpful to us as readers and admirers of art.

By digesting a beloved works' flaws we are sometimes able to appreciate it and our attitude toward it on a deeper level.

The good stuff begins to stand out more that way.

And anyway, even if it ultimately doesn't, it's not like it would be Beth's fault.

I find that Beth has a lot of authority on the subject of language and grammar, and I am willing to read more; doesn't mean I have to agree with any of it, but that's the beauty of a balanced debate.

[Mister Underhill]

So far I think I’m the only one who has copped to being a deranged Sumo-wrestler – though Sumo isn’t quite right. In Sumo wrestling, the object is merely to shove your opponent out of the combat circle, whereas I prefer to crush opponents flat with a flying leap off the top rope. Someday I hope to actually accomplish the discussion-forum equivalent of this feat. Perhaps describing me as a deranged Luchador would be closer to the mark.

[Eurytus]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I missed all the Lo’s and Behold’s in the speechs in Rivendell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet an entirely different race dwells within the forest of Lothlorien and the refuge of Imlardris. Must it be the identical use of archaic language for said use to be acceptable?



It does not even need to the same language no. The question is, does the language appear as archaic as that used in Rohan/Gondor?

The answer is clearly not in my opinion.

[jallanite]

There was a writer who went by the name Mark Twain.

He had good ear for language which he used in a book called Huckleberry Finn that became extraorindarily popular and is generally considered a classic. It is also considered by many to be flawed, but not usually in its language, not any more. Yet even Mark Twain's normal language was often not what was considered good grammar in his own day.

The book purports to be written by an almost illerate boy who writes in very colloquial and low dialect. However we have speeches by others in different dialects. It seems unlikely that Huck could so well present other dialects so different from his own, especially presumably written many months after he heard these speeches. But I don't recall any critic picky enough to criticise that book on that account. The unlikelihood is accepted because the results are so excellent.

The Lord of the Rings in part purports to be Tolkien's very close retelling of an account written mostly by Frodo Baggins about what happened to him and his friends during the period before, during, and after the War of the Ring.

But Tolkien does not claim that he reproduces Frodo's style exactly in all cases. It is ingenuous to find a flaw in the way Frodo tells the tale when it is quite clear that the book claims to be a retelling of Frodo's account by Tolkien.

But let us pretend that Tolkien pretends to attempt to imitate Frodo's style in Tolkien's narration. Tolkien perhaps does pretend to do so, when Tolkien remembers that Tolkien is supposedly adapting a source.

In general the passages in which the style is most archaic are just those in which no Hobbit takes part, the very passages for which Frodo, the supposed orginator, would have had to rely on accounts by others who were not Hobbits.

Lyta_Underhill has already cited Tolkien's account of variations in style of speech and his indication that Frodo had at his command formal 'book-language' when he wished to use it.

The true facts may be that Tolkien tended to drift into more archaic prose when he had no Hobbits to act as a counterweight. But if you need to justify the differences in narrative style then it is simple enough to do so.

I will note also that Mark Twain who wrote Huckleberry Finn also wrote The Prince and the Pauper. A sample from chapter 21 (http://www.online-literature.com/twain/princepauper/21): The rest was lost in inarticulate mutterings. The old man sank upon his knees, his knife in his hand, and bent himself over the moaning boy.

Hark! There was a sound of voices near the cabin--the knife dropped from the hermit's hand; he cast a sheepskin over the boy and started up, trembling. The sounds increased, and presently the voices became rough and angry; then came blows, and cries for help; then a clatter of swift footsteps, retreating. Immediately came a succession of thundering knocks upon the cabin door, followed by--

"Hullo-o-o! Open! And despatch, in the name of all the devils!"

Oh, this was the blessedest sound that had ever made music in the King's ears; for it was Miles Hendon's voice!

The hermit, grinding his teeth in impotent rage, moved swiftly out of the bedchamber, closing the door behind him; and straightway
the King heard a talk, to this effect, proceeding from the 'chapel':--

"Homage and greeting, reverend sir! Where is the boy--MY boy?"

"What boy, friend?"

"What boy! Lie me no lies, sir priest, play me no deceptions!--I am not in the humour for it. Near to this place I caught the scoundrels who I judged did steal him from me, and I made them confess; they said he was at large again, and they had tracked him to your door. They showed me his very footprints. Now palter no more; for look you, holy sir, an' thou produce him not--Where is the boy?"

"O good sir, peradventure you mean the ragged regal vagrant that tarried here the night. If such as you take an interest in such as he, know, then, that I have sent him of an errand. He will be back anon."

"How soon? How soon? Come, waste not the time--cannot I overtake him? How soon will he be back?"

"Thou need'st not stir; he will return quickly."Perhaps Mark Twain did not know what he was doing?

From Rudyard Kipling's Kim, chapter 9 (http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.3/bookid.1369/sec.9): 'Long and long ago, when Devadatta was King of Benares -let all listen to the Tataka! - an elephant was captured for a time by the king's hunters and ere he broke free, beringed with a grievous legiron. This he strove to remove with hate and frenzy in his heart, and hurrying up and down the forests, besought his brother-elephants to wrench it asunder. One by one, with their strong trunks, they tried and failed. At the last they gave it as their opinion that the ring was not to be broken by any bestial power. And in a thicket, new-born, wet with moisture of birth, lay a day-old calf of the herd whose mother had died. The fettered elephant, forgetting his own agony, said: "If I do not help this suckling it will perish under our feet." So he stood above the young thing, making his legs buttresses against the uneasily moving herd; and he begged milk of a virtuous cow, and the calf throve, and the ringed elephant was the calf's guide and defence. Now the days of an elephant - let all listen to the Tataka! - are thirty-five years to his full strength, and through thirty-five Rains the ringed elephant befriended the younger, and all the while the fetter ate into the flesh.

'Then one day the young elephant saw the half-buried iron, and turning to the elder said: "What is this?" "It is even my sorrow," said he who had befriended him. Then that other put out his trunk and in the twinkling of an eyelash abolished the ring, saying: "The appointed time has come." So the virtuous elephant who had waited temperately and done kind acts was relieved, at the appointed time, by the very calf whom he had turned aside to cherish - let all listen to the Tataka! for the Elephant was Ananda, and the Calf that broke the ring was none other than The Lord Himself...'

Then he would shake his head benignly, and over the ever-clicking rosary point out how free that elephant-calf was from the sin of pride. He was as humble as a chela who, seeing his master sitting in the dust outside the Gates of Learning, over-leapt the gates (though they were locked) and took his master to his heart in the presence of the proud-stomached city. Rich would be the reward of such a master and such a chela when the time came for them to seek freedom together!Note that much of the the very formal and archaic (and artificial?) style continues past the end of the tale. Did Rudyard Kipling not know what he was doing?

Bêthberry twice attempted to show that Tolkien was grammatically incorrect in the sentence: Borne upon the wind they heard the howling of wolves.But A University Grammar of English after stating the rule that Tolkien was supposedly breaking continues: Commonly, however, this 'attachment rule' is violatedIf a rule is commonly violated, then by the principles of descriptive grammar the rule itself must be wrong or incomplete.

That is true descriptive grammar.

I looked into Shakespeare's Hamlet and immediately came upon: That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once: how the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were Cain's jaw-bone, that did the first murder! What did the first murder? The jaw-bone, perhaps, or the ground?

Fie upon such rules of grammar as say that Hamlet speaks wongly!

The task of descriptive grammar is to show us by what rules the utterance is understood properly, not to claim it wrong because it might be misunderstood when in fact it is not.

Grammatical ambiguity is tolerated here because semantics serves as an excellent crutch, and if such crutches occur in speech and occur often then it is the rules that say that the speech is wrong that need to be thrown out, not the speech.

Double negatives were thrown out of English for reasons of logic, though in many other languages (such as French) they occur still and people can reason just as logically (or not).

Speech has context. Save in strict legal jargon and philosophical definition and such matters grammatical ambiguity is correctly tolerated and even embraced where context makes clear.

Good speech and language are too complex to ever be completely captured by rules. But linguists now try to do make the rules fit the language, not the other way around.

Bêthberry wrote: No form or style of language is regarded as innately holding worth or being more worthy in itself than any other form. The criteria for effectivenss is always the entire range of linguistic interaction between sender and receiver, speaker and audience and context.Then how should Bêthberry say anything good or bad about Tolkien's language or anyone's language? In fact those who know and use any style of speech will esteem some usage of it better than another because that usage is clearer, or more complex, or more eloquent, or more poetical, or more vigorous, or more soothing. Some will disagree with others on the points of excellence. Some may prefer florid ornamentation and some may prefer statements that are brief and to the point. Some may like both on different occasions.

Bêthberry states: There are too many fans here for whom Tolkien's works are akin to iconic texts and for whom any kind of questioning brings very defensive feelings.That may be. But if for some of these it is partly Tolkien's excellent mastery of the English language which draws them and this includes what they feel and perceive as a mastery of archaising English, Bêthberry must deal with it. To us Tolkien's archaic language is effective and one of the things for which we read him. It is a strawman to claim that Tolkien is iconic and therefore his readers must needs accept his language rather than that his readers are enthralled by his language and that is one of the reasons that Tolkien is to some iconic.

I read Howard Pyle's Arthurian retellings as a child in part because of the strange old eloquent language in which they were written. As a child I read other tales which in part or throughout were written in an older English than that of my own day. I read translations written in pseudo-archaic English, some of which I still prefer to more modern translations.

On first reading The Lord of the Rings (at about the age of eighteen) I was much impressed by the feeling of authenticity in the work which partly came from Tolkien's use of language. His archaic language felt right. It still does, though I have since read much else in medieval English and French.

If the language doesn't work for Bêthberry then it doesn't work for Bêthberry. But Bêthberry has yet to explain why it shouldn't work for many others when it obviously does.

Bêthberry wrote: This, I think, is one reason why many find his use of the antique style for Aragorn and Gondor embarassing--it suggests a moral worth, and this kind of assumption is no longer tenable. (At least, it is not in the fields of linguistics or sociology, or, even, literature.)Does it suggest a moral worth? To whom?

Gondor is explicity described as being somewhat decayed and its Númenorean nobility too much concerned with past glories and ancestry rather than with the present.

Saruman also speaks in book-language and is a master of language. Sam speaks what would have been considered a low dialect.

But I don't see a hint that Tolkien thought Sam's style indicated moral defficiency or that Saruman's style indicates moral viture or that we are to esteem Denethor morally above Treebeard.

Tolkien obviously likes the rustic language Sam speaks just as Tolkien likes the high style in which Tolkien writes some of the battle scenes and just as Tolkien obviously likes the Orkish Rudyard Kipling Tommy English spoken by the Uruk-hai and just as Tolkien obviously loves Gollum's manner of speech.

This linguistic variation and delight in different kinds of English and the way they play off one another is one of the great pleasures provided by The Lord of the Rings.

That said, of course there is in Tolkien, (taken from medieval romance and general adventure fiction if nothing else) the idea that there is such a thing as gentle birth and breeding though some may fall from their birth and breeding and some may surpass it.

One can quite well reject the entire ideology that Aragorn ought to have any right to rule in Gondor just because two of his ancestors did so. Tolkien probably would also. At least I don't think Tolkien would have approved of a plot to restore the French monarchy or fallen for the Grail bloodline nonsense.

But Tolkien is writing an heroic romance, not a modern novel, and he is using the conventions of that kind of work. Archaic language fits, just as does a broken sword that is reforged and a long-lost heir and battles with lance and sword and bow. If you dislike archaic language then you won't enjoy Tolkien's use of it. If you have bad experiences with hereditary monarchs or start looking crticially at most historic European dynasties then you may not appreciate Aragorn.

But if Tolkien enjoyed archaic English and most of his readers enjoy what he has done with it then those who don't appreciate it have no just cause to blame Tolkien for using it because they are unable to see the attraction.

Similarly those who cannot appreciate James Joyce's Uysses have no cause to blame Joyce for using an artificial kind of English (often not grammatical by standard rules) that obviously does bring great delight to many readers.

[Eurytus]

Almost 2,400 words to argue yet again that Tolkien has no flaws.

I am obviously ashamed that I had the temerity to find flaws in a work so immaculate.

But tell me, exactly what effect was Tolkien looking for when he translated the words of Frodo who was himself translating the thoughts of a Fox?

Because the effect on me was a bit "Wind in the Willows".

[The X Phial]

I will wade briefly into this argument, since it can no longer be called a discussion with personal insults and insinuations flying about, to ask people to please calm down. The issues here are important and interesting, but what is really being discussed here is personal experiences with Tolkien's works.

Bethberry and Eurytus shared an experience of being jarred by certain phrases and style issues. Some people may have shared that experience and be afraid to say anything due to the vitriolic nature of this thread. Others have had different encounters with the books. Is it so difficult to acknowledge that other people's opinions, based on their own experiences and analysis are valid? Must our own opinions be deemed universally correct?

This post is not aimed at either side of this conflict in particular. I have seen people on both sides try to raise the level of this discourse to that of objective literary criticism, and I have seen both sides make comments about the loyalty or thoughfulness of the other. I ask that all participants please consider both the feelings of the other posters and the fact that, after all, we are basing our judgements on our own experiences, and those cannot be duplicated.

Thank you.

The X Phial

[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

[lindil]

Amazing.

E.,you bothered to count [or approximate] the words but seemed to have completely missed the point.
[sorry X, your sensible plea for restraint was being composed along side this one].

Welcome Back Jallanite, I hope that wonderful essay is not suppposed to hold us over for another year or so!

[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Mister Underhill]

The Downs has always supported thoughtful and civil debate of almost any topic or opinion. Emphasis on thoughtful and civil. Posts that deliberately bait others and that drip with sarcasm and needlessly inflammatory language will not be tolerated further, as per our policies.

Unless this discussion can move forward with more courtesy, respectfulness, and a greater effort to put forward thoughtful arguments, I’m gonna close it down.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mr. Underhill,

I concur.

The sad thing is that there are reasoned if impassioned arguments on this thread representing both side of the question, which are quite amazing to read.

At the same time there are other posts which come perilously close to "baiting", whose primary purpose seems to be to elicit an emotional reaction.

Hopefully, future posts will steer closer to the former path to keep this thread from being shut down.

Child

[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[ArathorofBarahir]

I am going to say two things, I highly disagree with whoever said that books were "dumded down" so that the movie could be easier to follow. PJ is just as big of a fan as you and I are, and I don't think he did would do that. Tolkiens books are rich in plot and character detail and development. When the movie was being adapted the plot was changed slightly but not the character development and detail. Just look at how Aragorn develops in the movies.

[ November 15, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Mister Underhill]

Arathor, I've edited your post to remove just the sort of personal attack I'm trying to avoid. Please, let's use our heads before we post.

[Lush]

The Sumo analogy was used primarily for the imagery, Underhillo, smilies/wink.gif .

Still, I think that Beth has a lot of insight into literary style in general, and while you don't have to agree with her, I think it's kinda intersting just to take in what she has to say.

And Huckleberry Finn always struck me as a very structured literary exercise, wherein the believability of the text itself, as impacted by the language, was not central to my understandig and (profound) appreciation of the book itself. But that's just me.

Regardless, jal, I don't think it was Beth's intent to say that Tolkien didn't know what he was doing. Rather perhaps she is saying that some of his linguistic overtures do not sit well with her, and using her background in explaining why.

Anyway, if the whole point of this thread is just to prove to someone that Tolkien wasn't above reproach, well ha, no writer is above reproach.

Nothing and nobody under the sun (or under the clouds of Britannia, as the case may be) is perfect.

Perhaps some think that harping on about flaws is a fruitless and thankless exercise in general, but it has to be done from time to time, if only for us to better understand the craft of writing and to learn from the mistakes of others (so that we can go on to commit our own errors, woo hoo).

[Mister Underhill]

Lush, I appreciate Sumo imagery as much as the next guy. I think the membership in general may better appreciate imagery of yours truly in a colorful Luchador mask rather than a thong-style Sumo wrap, but you never can tell.

I, for one, have certainly taken in what Bethberry has to say. She’s an intelligent and articulate woman with plenty of things to say that are worth listening to. But in a discussion, people will sometimes disagree (duh!). And when they disagree, they’ll say why. Have there been missed opportunities for moderation here? Certainly. I think some aspects of the discussion have been allowed to get out of hand precisely out of an intent to show that the Downs is open to debate on almost any Tolkien-related subject, including criticisms of the professor’s style (ah, the old theme, a desire to do good turned to evil... but I digress).

Just because people disagree with the criticisms doesn’t mean that one side is right or wrong. People have as much right to voice disagreements with criticisms as they do to voice the criticisms in the first place. And this discussion isn’t threatened with closing because of criticisms of Tolkien but because of posting styles. There’s enough blame for personalizing the discussion and overheated replies to go around, I reckon, and I’ll take the heat for any missed opportunities to moderate and rein things in at an earlier point. This is how we do things at the Downs. Sometimes we have a breakdown. Then we fix it up and move on.

But enough discussion about the discussion! I don’t know if there’s anywhere left to go in this topic, but reasoned and articulate replies are welcome.

[ November 16, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Bêthberry]

In chat, PM, and on the Moderator's forum (Mod Gorthad), I have stated that jallanite misrepresents my position extensively. I have been asked to identify where I think this happens and so, on reflection, I think it is best that I do so. I will attempt to explain as plainly and directly as possible in order not to inflame the topic. This will likely, then, be a boring post.

But if Tolkien enjoyed archaic English and most of his readers enjoy what he has done with it then those who don't appreciate it have no just cause to blame Tolkien for using it because they are unable to see the attraction.

The "just cause" I would suggest is the wish to engage in civil and honest debate about an author we all enjoy. To deny anyone the right to express their legitimate and authentic response represents, I would argue, an inflexibility which discredits the Barrow Downs? traditional respect for discussion. Why should anyone's experience reading Tolkien count for less or not be allowed because it is different from other people's, even the majority's, reading experience?

I looked into Shakespeare's Hamlet and immediately came upon:
quote: That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once: how the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were Cain's jaw-bone, that did the first murder! What did the first murder? The jaw-bone, perhaps, or the ground?

Fie upon such rules of grammar as say that Hamlet speaks wongly!

I am sorry but I don't see where the rule which I offerred from A University Grammar of English says that Hamlet speaks wrongly. In fact, I don't see how the rule applies at all. The sentence I referred to from Tolkien has a completely different grammatical structure; Tolkien's sentence has all the adverbials before the Subject-verb; it is what is called a left-branching sentence and the rule I quoted refers to this kind of sentence only. Hamlet's sentence begins with the subject and verb and then deploys the adverbials; it is called a right-branching sentence and as such would be diagrammed for its structure quite differently. In fact, the grammar in Hamlet's sentence shows a very common device in prose from about 1600 to 1750, something that is referred to as 'end-linked discourse.' There is nothing grammatically wrong with it and it has nothing to do with my point about Tolkien's sentence.

Given this confusion over grammar, I would suggest that jallanite's definition of what a descriptive grammar ought to do?"The task of descriptive grammar is to show us by what rules the utterance is understood properly, not to claim it wrong because it might be misunderstood when in fact it is not"--is less reliable than Quirk and Greenbaum's. Grammarians make exceptions quite regularly but what they endeavour to do is provide an explanation for the most consistent habits of understanding.

I don't quite understand the point of the comparison to Twain's Huck Finn either (or Kipling for that matter) unless it is simply to point to other authors who have used similar devices. I have never said that colloquialisms, grammatical errors, and archaisms cannot be used meaningfully. My point is how they are used, how they are foregrounded in the text, and how they are naturalized in order to represent the author's own style. Very clearly with Twain's writing, those various elements of style are used just as I have characterised literary language, with an intensity of repetition and patterning which creates meaning. Furthermore, Huck's colloquialisms are meaningful and valid not because a legitimate dialect is imported into the novel, but because Twain's writing convinces readers that it is authentic.

(I was able to use Tolkien's sentence in jest to Squatter precisely because it does not represent a consistent pattern in Tolkien's writing. Had Tolkien consistently employed that kind of sentence structure, we could argue that he was, most likely, drawing upon his great knowledge as a philologist to say something about the grammarians. But that kind of sentence is an isolated feature of his writing. To take the jest so seriously as to want desperately to prove the grammarians wrong and Tolkien right is, I would argue, a tempest in a teacup.)

Bêthberry wrote:
quote: No form or style of language is regarded as innately holding worth or being more worthy in itself than any other form. The criteria for effectivenss is always the entire range of linguistic interaction between sender and receiver, speaker and audience and context.

Then how should Bêthberry say anything good or bad about Tolkien's language or anyone's language?

I really do not see how jallanite's question follows logically from my point, of how my point means that we cannot discuss the value of writing. Why can't I say anything about someone's use of language if I analyze the context? Certainly enough people here have used the word greatness to describe Tolkien's language and I can point easily to Squatter's argument about Tom Bombadil in his post of Nov 10/03 at 10 am. My point really is to suggest that writers cannot import meaning into their writing by taking a device or feature or style from outside his or her writing and automatically assume that the imported language will have the same valuation or meaning in its new context. Writers cannot assume that, if the words have a particular value elsewhere, they will automatically have the same value if used in the writer's own work. There is no prior value or meaning, no origin that will carry over into the new text. The value of the imported words will always depend upon the way they are used in the new text.

But if for some of these it is partly Tolkien's excellent mastery of the English language which draws them and this includes what they feel and perceive as a mastery of archaising English, Bêthberry must deal with it. To us Tolkien's archaic language is effective and one of the things for which we read him. It is a strawman to claim that Tolkien is iconic and therefore his readers must needs accept his language rather than that his readers are enthralled by his language and that is one of the reasons that Tolkien is to some iconic.

There are two things here I don't understand. What is meant by the phrase 'Bêthberry must deal with it'? I have not denied other people's reading of Tolkien. Does jallanite mean I must accept their reading as my reading? Nor do I understand how my point is a strawman (yes, I understand what that word means in forming an argument in debate.) I did not claim that Tolkien is iconic and therefore his readers must needs accept his language; nor does the converse really have anything to do with my point either. This is one place in particular that I think jallanite's post twists my meaning and intent. Perhaps it is because what I see him suggesting is that I must accept other people's refusal to listen to other points of view. That to me defeats the purpose of a message board like Barrow Downs, which is for discussion.

Perhaps I can, in conclusion, once more try to explain for me why the archaic language does not work It is because it says to me, "archaic language used here. Old style English". It does not say, to me, "Tolkien's creation of language to characterise heroic romance and the antiquity of characters." It is not naturalised into his style as his wonderful work on the hobbits is. Thus, it reads to me like an affectation, an old style imported into his work and expected to suggest his purpose. This has nothing to do with my appreciation of archaic language in old sources or in other writers. I would have preferred to read his version of a style that approximated or simulated an old style. To me, a writer cannot import a feature of language as used elsewhere and expect it to have the same meaning in his writing. He needs to create his own version of archaic language. Tolkien did not do this for me and I am more interested in trying to understand this than in, as Mr.Underhill suggests other fans may do, smoothing over problem areas. It does not mean I am right and they are wrong. It simply is a topic for discussion about how we understand creative writing.

[Mister Underhill]

So just to clarify, are you saying that you think Tolkien's archaic language is not well-executed, or that it's bothersome to you because you feel he should have invented an original style to represent the speech of the Gondorians et al, or both?

Or are you saying something more like that his use of archaism is a stilted (and thus presumably failed) attempt to achieve a certain effect?

[ November 16, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Guinevere]

I have just read this whole thread and my head is spinning!!
I hardly dare write my opinion among so many learned and eloquent people...*ducks*

I'm not saying that for me Tolkien is sacrosanct and entirely flawless, but some things which were written about his style really sting me. For example Bethberry writing:
"He wrote embarrassingly overwrought passages which detract from the story and the characters. It is bad archaic language." and "Tolkien's desire to represent a noble spirit fails." and that this style "ruins the magic" for her in some places.

Well, as some said: To the question of "Is Tolkien's use of archaic style to the advantage or detriment of the LotR?" the answer is obviously a matter of opinion.
Herewith I just want to state mine.

I agree totally with the brilliant posts of the Squatter and Aiwendil. Kudos!

I,(as many others, I think), find the style of LotR to be one of its great attractions. It is exactly the different styles of speech and the use of "archaic " language that work the magic for me, that make it ring so true make the characters come so alive, and create this very special atmosphere ("The heartracking sense of the vanished past" as Tolkien said somewhere in one of his letters)
Of course I am no scholar and English isn't even my mothertongue (though I have read more English books than German ones in the last 30 years..)but when I discovered Tolkien nearly 3 years ago I just fell in love with his language. It is so beautiful I relish in it. And since I read the books also in the (German) translation with my children, I became aware of how much gets lost when the different styles and the archaic language aren't there. It isn't half as good as the original! In addition I read Prof.Shippey's "Tolkien, author of the century" which helped me appreciate Tolkien's language even more.
For me, Tolkien's use of "archaic" language is very successful to convey the heroic characters.
Well, that's just my two cents.

Oh, and about the films: I agree totally with Child of the 7th age's post on the first page.

[Bêthberry]

Thanks for the interest in clarification, Mr. Underhill. I am saying that, for a variety of reasons, I cannot always enjoy some aspects of Tolkien's style even though I have tremendous admiration for the vast range of his imagination, his creativity, his recognition of the value of fantasy, his great knowledge of language, his great concern with the use and abuse of power, and, finally, the necessity for pity (much as we would likely not use that word pity today).

However, as you yourself have suggested, this thread is foundering on shoals of personal opinion and feeling. I consider it beached.

Edit: And just as an observation aside from the above, I think you have likely misconstrued the point of Lush's post. I really don't think she was suggesting that people do not have the right to voice disagreements over other people's comments and criticisms.(Nor, in fact, have I.) Lush is one of the most open-minded people here on the Downs.

[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: Bêthberry ]

[jallanite]

Eurytus posted: Almost 2,400 words to argue yet again that Tolkien has no flaws.Gee! That wasn't my argument as all, not for Tolkien or Mark Twain or Kipling.

I don't believe any of these writers have "no flaws". Never meant it. Never said it.

What I intended to show was that archaic language has been used by others who are usually considered great writers and who had an ear for language. Presumably they enjoyed archaic style. And presumably their readers did and do (largely) consider its use not to be a flaw in their writing. But tell me, exactly what effect was Tolkien looking for when he translated the words of Frodo who was himself translating the thoughts of a Fox?

Because the effect on me was a bit "Wind in the Willows".I agree that it was a bit "Wind in the Willows" or beast fable and I think it delightful because of that.

You take the pretence that Tolkien is adapting Frodo's own words very seriously. There are at least two other well-known passages that also present matters hard to justify as what either Frodo or Sam perceived or could have learned from others.

If flaws of this kind bother you, don't ever try reading Melville's Moby **** .

I previously posted: But if Tolkien enjoyed archaic English and most of his readers enjoy what he has done with it then those who don't appreciate it have no just cause to blame Tolkien for using it because they are unable to see the attraction.Bêthberry posted: The "just cause" I would suggest is the wish to engage in civil and honest debate about an author we all enjoy. To deny anyone the right to express their legitimate and authentic response represents, I would argue, an inflexibility which discredits the Barrow Downs? traditional respect for discussion.I did here or anywhere speak against your right to post your opinion or against anyone's right to post any opinion.

I asked a question which I think worth asking.

E. R. Eddison wrote his Ouroboros books in very florid Elizabethan language which puts off many, including myself. I find those books unreadable. I suppose I could force myself to read them and on getting through them I might find that I was then able to appreciate that style. Tolkien liked Eddison's writing.

There are people whose taste I generally think good who very much like Eddison's writing and who especially like his wild, high-flown language. Accordingly I don't think my individual response is just cause to call Eddison's style a flaw in his writing because it is currently outside my own range of sympathy when that is obviously the kind of writing Eddison wanted to do and his readers read him especially because of it. Why should anyone's experience reading Tolkien count for less or not be allowed because it is different from other people's, even the majority's, reading experience?Strawman argument. It is quite legitimate for you or anyone to speak of their dislike for any author or parts of any author, say, Shakespeare. Tolkien had no great use for Shakespeare.

But from another of your posts: I think it is an acceptable and legitimate endeavour to try to explain why this happens. And it saddens me when I am told I should not do this because it attacks the professor unfairly. This, I think, it where the cultish aspects of Tolkien fandom come into play.There is an implication here that someone who attempts to argue that some of what you say is unfair must from "the cultish aspects of Tolkien fandom".

That's rather ad hominem.

It might be that some of your arguments are invalid and some unfair.

You obviously do recognize the relativity of asethetic judgements, that they depend in part on standards that change. You state this explicitly. But you forget this. sometimes. I am sorry but I don't see where the rule which I offerred from A University Grammar of English says that Hamlet speaks wrongly. In fact, I don't see how the rule applies at all. The sentence I referred to from Tolkien has a completely different grammatical structure; Tolkien's sentence has all the adverbials before the Subject-verb; it is what is called a left-branching sentence and the rule I quoted refers to this kind of sentence only.I did not claim it was the same error. You read things into my post that are not there. But since you implicately disregard all of Shakespeare as following out-of-date grammar, I turn to Charles Dicken's Oliver Twist Chapter 1 (http://www.online-literature.com/dickens/olivertwist/2). This is the third sentence: For a long time after it was ushered into this world of sorrow and trouble, by the parish surgeon, it remained a matter of considerable doubt whether the child would survive to bear any name at all; in which case it is somewhat more than probable that these memoirs would never have appeared; or, if they had, that being comprised within a couple of pages, they would have possessed the inestimable merit of being the most concise and faithful specimen of biography, extant in the literature of any age or country.This seems to me to be close enough to the same construction you consider an error.

From "Night and Day" by Virginia Woolf (http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext98/niday10.txt), beginning of second paragraph: Considering that the little party had been seated round the tea-table for less than twenty minutes, the animation observable on their
faces, and the amount of sound they were producing collectively, were very creditable to the hostess.A little later: With the omnibuses and cabs still running in his head, and his body still tingling with his quick walk along the streets and in and out of traffic and foot-passengers, this drawing-room seemed very remote and still; and the faces of the elderly people were mellowed, at some distance from each other, and had a bloom on them owing to the fact that the air in the drawing-room was thickened by blue grains of
mist.I found these immediately just searching for Oliver Twist because one might reasonably take it as a standard of good literature and then I searched for anything by Virginia Woolf. I just started at the beginning of each work.

I'm not going to bother to look further.

I discovered in high school that grammar as taught was bogus as a guide to actual usage of many (perhaps all?) of the best authors and that errors according to the traditional prescriptive rules of English grammar could be found almost everywhere.

You might be able to find a literary work that is entirely grammatical according to some set of traditional rules. I'm sure there are authors who did care and do care very much about such things, even anal retentive enough to vary will and shall according to invented distinctions between them. But that kind of sentence is an isolated feature of his writing. To take the jest so seriously as to want desperately to prove the grammarians wrong and Tolkien right is, I would argue, a tempest in a teacup.)Prescriptive grammarians or descriptive grammarians? Your own citation indicates the rule is often broken, and accordingly can be a rule only in the sense that it is a norm, not that it defines acceptable utterances.

What I take seriously is what I perceive to be misuse of descriptive grammar as though it were prescriptive grammar and your claim that the sentence was incorrect according to descriptive grammatical rules. It is not a matter of showing that desscriptive grammarians who insist this are wrong (though you don't actually cite any) and that Tolkien is right. It a fact that such constructions are are acceptable in the English language as it exists and as it has long existed, regardless of whether Tolkien does or does not use such constructions regularly. My point really is to suggest that writers cannot import meaning into their writing by taking a device or feature or style from outside his or her writing and automatically assume that the imported language will have the same valuation or meaning in its new context. Writers cannot assume that, if the words have a particular value elsewhere, they will automatically have the same value if used in the writer's own work. There is no prior value or meaning, no origin that will carry over into the new text. The value of the imported words will always depend upon the way they are used in the new text.I don't understand this at all.

All understanding is in the reader who must have encountered most of the words used by an author in some context in order to read the text at all intelligently.

It happens often enough that a reader does misunderstand an author, missing subtleties or even the intended meaning of the text altogether.


Do you lay the blame on the reader or the author? I don't think you can necessarily lay it on either. An author cannot know the exact literary and personal experience of every reader that might read his or her work. And the author may not be writing at all for certain kinds of readers. Tolkien, for example, didn't care much about what people who can't stomach fantasy cared about his writing. Perhaps it is because what I see him suggesting is that I must accept other people's refusal to listen to other points of view. That to me defeats the purpose of a message board like Barrow Downs, which is for discussion.Can you cite me making such a suggestion? Refute arguments I have made, not ones I did not make.

It is important to distinguish between not listening to other points of view, possibly misunderstanding other points of view, and rejecting with argument other points of view.

But yes, you must accept that some people will sometimes not listen to you. That happens to all of us. There, I've said it. Thus, it reads to me like an affectation, an old style imported into his work and expected to suggest his purpose.It reads somewhat like that to me also. But it reads to me like exactly the right kind of affectation.

People bring different experience and different associations to any work. To me, a writer cannot import a feature of language as used elsewhere and expect it to have the same meaning in his writing. He needs to create his own version of archaic language.Where exactly is Tolkien importing his language from? It is somewhat like that of William Morris, somewhat like that of Malory, but not quite like either. It is less archaic for one thing. I find it rather distinctive in some ways. At least parts of it are distinctive. Tolkien doesn't use exactly the same archaic language everywhere. It is distinct enough that people often agree that something in another writer sounds like Tolkien.

That seems to me to indicate that Tolkien did create his own variety of archaic English. Tolkien did not do this for me and I am more interested in trying to understand this than in, as Mr.Underhill suggests other fans may do, smoothing over problem areas.Problem areas most likely come from differences in aethetics, such as my inability to appreciate Eddison's prose.

Eddison might have reached me and also a wider audience had he used a less florid and bombastic style. On the other hand the enthusiasts who love his work do so partly for that same unique prose.

I don't see that creating a unique archaic style or not creating a unique archaic style is an issue at all. Twain could handle general Walter Scott Wardour Street excellently. He didn't create his own style in The Prince and the Pauper. However, as you yourself have suggested, this thread is foundering on shoals of personal opinion and feeling. I consider it beached.So far your linguistic arguments seem to me to be only attempts to justify your own personal opinion and feeling.

They seem to me, so far as I can understand them, to be rationalization. They aren't objective statements about what Tolkien has done.

I do not mean that your taste is intrinsically wrong. But your attempts to use modern linguistics and general principles of taste to explain the problem with Tolkien's archaism fail because a large readership don't respond the way you do and, I think, because you are trying to use them in areas where they are irrelevant.

What you do want from Tolkien in the way of archaism is not clear. And if Tolkien had given you exactly what you wanted, it is quite possible that there would now be some other person on this site claming that the style which worked for you did not work for him or her and attempting to justify it by linguistics.

It is even possible that if the archaic style used had been exactly suited to your particular sensibility that the books would not have been as popular because their style would not have been so obstinately (and for you infuriatingly) Tolkien.

(And it is possible they would have been more pouplar. We cannot know.)

Compare Mark Twain's heart-felt deprecation of almost every aspect of Fennimore Cooper's writing in Fenimoore Cooper's Literary Offenses (http://www.bondwine.com/resources/fenimorecooper.html). Yet Fennimore Cooper still sells, even though many of Twain's remarks are dead on. And the artificial melodrama of Cooper's language which Twain so greatly disliked is one of the things that many readers love in Cooper.

[The Barrow-Wight]

This point-counterpointing is only barely addresing the topic, so this topic is closed. When posts start to contain almost as many quotes as actual text, it's time to give it a rest.