[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

"Lor' help me!"
. . .

The above are Sam's words when he is caught by Gandalf in Shadows of the Past (please forgive me if you've hashed this through in CbC without my knowledge).

What "Lor'" is Sam referring to? Having spent all the hours I have here at Barrowdowns has made me aware that this is a potential sore thumb sticking out. Is this a religious reference? Or is it a Shire reference? It could be argued that it derives from the days when there was a King in the North, but I feel that would be a stretch. I think that what we have here is Sam speaking like an English commoner caught redhanded: it's a reference to Christianity, place and simple. And thus it's an error in the text. It broke the enchantment for me. Now, you may argue that it's my theories and baggage that I failed to leave behind, but it is just as much (if my conclusion as to its reference is correct) Tolkien's error.

I think littlemanpoet has the right idea, to return to specific examples. Let me take a bit of a different tack from that Fordim used about the archaic style in the latter part of LotR.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

There are parts of the story in which I find the writing itself to be somewhat stilted (the Professor can get carried away with his high-style at time, particularly in RotK: all those "and lo!" and hyperbolic similes) and these moments tend to shake my immersion in the world, simply because I shift away from the story itself to the manner of its writing.

There are times when this style breaks the enchantment for me. Now, I like such features as the use of words such as "weapontake" and "swordthain" in "The Muster of Rohan". I am not adverse to an archaic style per se. Why it bothers me is that it appears at times that strike me as not appropriate for the story. One such time is Éomer's dirge at the death of Théodan.

Mourn not overmuch! Mighty was the fallen,
meet was his ending. When his mound is raised,
women shall weep. War now calls us.

It is not the alliterative verse itself, but the timing of it. And Éomer's earlier style of speaking did not break the enchantment for me. The method of characterisation has generally been to present the characters somewhat according to the expected manner in fiction. There is realism of psychology and of motivation and of behaviour. The battles are described in what I would call stirring but realistic detail. Now, here we have an extemporaneous poem. Can such be written in the heat of battle? It seems implausible. Is Éomer reciting old verse from long ago, such as Tolkien discussed in his essay on "The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth"? It doesn't seem quite plausible either, to find a song so suited to the exact situation. I can tell myself that such versification was part of the heroic lays of yesteryear, particularly with poets who write of battles in years long after the battle but nothing persuades me that such a manner of speaking at this moment in the story is in accord with the rest of the Éomer's characterisation. It intrudes, and makes me think of style rather than of the story, as Fordim has said. It makes me think "heroic epic here" rather than true feeling of Rohirric response. I guess you could say it is the timing that is off rather than the style!

One other example. In Books I and II, the characters are differentiated by different manners and habits of speech. It would be hard to confuse Sam's style of talking with Frodo's or with Gimli's or with Gangalf's or Elrond's. Yet by Book III, Gimli and Legolas are given the same style of speech. Somehow, their distinctive characteristics have been blurred and now they both talk in the same ornate, formal style. It doesn't sound like Gimli at all. The use of dialogue to differentiate characters has gone,to be replaced by the ornate style. I miss the previous Gimli's style.

[quote="The Last Debate"]
'Strange indeed,' said Legolas. "in that hour I looked upon Aragorn and thought how great and terrible a Lord he might have become in the strength of his will, had he taken the Ring to himself. Not for naught does Mordor fear him. But nobler is his spirit than the understanding of Sauron; for is he not of the children of Luthien? Never shall that line fail, though the years may lengthen beyond count.'

'Beyond the eyes of the Dwarves are such foretellings,' said Gimli. 'But mighty indeed was Aragorn that day. Lo! all the black fleet was in his hands' and he choose the greatest ship to be his own, and he went up into it. Then he let sound a great concours of trumpets taken from the enemy' and the Shadow Host withdrew to the short. There they stood silent, hardly to be seen, save for a red gleam in their eyes that caught the glare of the ships that were burning. And Aragorn spoke in a loud voice to the Dead Men, crying...'

This sounds like it ought to be said by the narrator. It sure does not sound like Gimli earlier, in the "The Ring Goes South" where he first speaks about the debacle on Caradhras, nor even in Moria. Surely his discoveries in Moria would have brought out such formal eloquence? No, they don't.

So, for me--and I stress that this is my response only and I don't seek to persuade others that this is the only response possible; nor do I criticise those who don't feel this way about my examples--the ornate style takes me out of the enchantment when it contradicts other kinds of style which the book had earlier led me to anticipate. And, yes, I have read Tolkien's Letter # 171 but his comments there are in response to a different point than the one I make here; Tolkien's points don't address what it is that breaks the enchantment here for me. If this be heresy, well, so be it. I still love the books.