[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would have two things to mention regarding your request.

Thanks for the response.

First, there is the problem of burden of proof. If I understand you correctly, you argue that Zimmerman made, concerning that specific subject, errors of 'theatrical' presentation, of how he related the story, shifting emphasis where it shouldn't, while still being true to the original meaning - as opposed to The 1,000 Reader's interpretation of the text as reffering to errors of what was being reported (therefore, a problem of accuracy primarily, not one of literary impact on the reader).

The 1,000 Reader is claiming that Tolkien says Sauron gave the Witch-King extra power, period. I am saying that that is not exactly what Tolkien says. At most, he allows the reader to draw that conclusion. I am arguing that his letter was referring to the kind of force or power that the author should provide to the Witch-King in Vol. III, vs. how he is presented earlier on.

it should be noted that the bulk of Z's errors mentioned in the letter are of accuracy:

You're right, but why are these issues of accuracy important to Tolkien? This is a film treatment, so he knows things will have to be adjusted. Many of the items are extremely minor, and don't compromise anything fundamental to the narrative. But they're important because of the impression they make: the Balrog laughing or sneering, for example, or Gandalf "spluttering." It does not affect the tale being told for these two characters to behave in these ways, but it does affect their air of dignity, i.e. the impression of their dignity on the reader.

Most, if not all, of Tolkien's criticism regards problems of accuracy, not merely of 'how' things are related. Tolkien doesn't explicitly say if a specific criticism regards the problem of "how" or the problem of "what" is being told; so both sides share the burden of proof, of presenting evidence outside of the letter that could verify their interpretation.

I allow the possibility that Tolkien meant the note to be interpreted how The 1,000 Reader chooses to interpret it, even though I think he could have worded it more clearly if that was his intention. The 1,000 Reader is the one claiming there is no question.

However, if the sheer number of accuracy errors in an indicator, then this was foremost a problem of accuracy, of what was being told, not a problem of literary effect, that is, of how the story was told.

I disagree, and reiterate that many of the errors in accuracy are only important because they compromise Tolkien's intended effect, mood, air, etc. There will be modifications to a story that is to be made into a film: errors in accuracy, in other words. Many of these that Tolkien has chosen to pick on are particularly egregious because they make his characters (whether Gandalf or Hobbits or Rivendell) seem different than he intended.

Tolkien says "[The Witch-King] must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III." Raised by whom? Is Tolkien saying "he must not" because he is drawing conclusions based on evidence (e.g. "he must not be as powerful as he is later since he seems to be unable to defeat Gandalf."), or is he urging that Zimmerman must not yet raise the Witch-King to that level? Similarly, in the next sentence, Tolkien says "There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force." He is obviously put in command by Sauron, but who has given him "an added demonic force" is not as clear. Tolkien could have said "There, given added demonic force by Sauron, he is put in command." The impression would even be more clear if Tolkien had written "There, put in command by Sauron, he is then given added demonic force." Instead, Tolkien does not make it clear that Sauron is giving anything to W-K but command. He even includes the indefinite article "an" which changes the impression of that "demonic force" from something specific that Sauron might have to give, to something amorphous that is, more likely, simply an aspect of the Witch-King's appearance at that time. Which brings me again to the point that "demonic force" is not Middle-earth vocabulary, and gives the impression that Tolkien is speaking of literary intent rather than a Middle-earth fact.

The second aspect is that of false dilemma: even if Tolkien was reffering first and foremost to a literary effect on the reader in that paragraph, that still doesn't exclude the witch-king actually receiving the greater power mentioned in the text. In fact, if he indeed became more powerful, the literary impact on the reader would be more natural and more easy to come by - actual increase would be a means to literary impact (an end).

Or he becomes more powerful in the reader's eyes simply by receiving supreme command of the siege on Minas Tirith. That's my impression. The real false dilemma is that even if the sentence were proven to be intended the way The 1,000 Reader claims, it does not prove that the Witch-King had been elevated to a level commensurate with his master.

Edit: I think I've made my point as well as I can. In fact, I'm repeating myself in my efforts to clarify my argument. Still, one last P.S. before I rest my case: the note's (putative) claim that the Witch-King was literally enhanced is otherwise uncorroborated. It exists only in an obscure note to a script writer and clearly (as I hope I have shown above) could have been meant as an expression of narrative choices rather than further (and very important!) info on the nature of the Witch-King. Whereas other individuals who received genuine enhancement of power (Gandalf and Glorfindel, for example) have narrative accounts or essays--with (and this is crucial) the history of Middle-earth as the topic rather than narrative decisions--that express the fact explicitly. And that's all that I think I can say about the letter.

As for the Witch-King being an equal match for Gandalf (which really is an issue independent of the debated note), I'll argue that until I'm blue in the face, or until I get banned again.