(Plot+Characters)*Voice^2=Literature?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Good for him. I hope that improper use of an apostrophe is on the list too. When I see my students getting "its" and "it's" confused I go ballistic.

This kind of makes me glad I left High School at 16 & have never set foot in an educational establishment since - I suspect I'd have left a trail of exploded tutors in my wake

[Lalwendë]

There are a number of things here that are decidely biblical, in terms of the passage's style: the brief sentences, some of which repeat each other; sentences that begin with "and" as the action accrues and grows; alliteration ("wizardry or war, welcoming"; "death. . .dawn"; "dark. . .dimly"); even biblical kinds of imagery (a crowing cock, blowing horns, "shadows of death"). The ultimate effect of this is to make this moment evocative of the Bible without maknig a direct one-to-one reference: there is no story from the Bible that I can think of which mirrors the coming of the Rohirrim; but the passage sure sounds biblical!

This has left me feeling somewhat perturbed. When I write a speech I use brief sentences, sentences beginning with 'and', alliteration, repetition. Have I been taught to write words which are intended to sound 'biblical'? And then there is the mysterious 'rule of three' - Horns, Horns, Horns. It's not so far from Education, Education, Education is it? (Which I hasten to add is nowt to do with me).

I too don't like misused apostrophes and mock loudly when I see one in a Greengrocer's window, but then I remember the errors I make daily due to my non-existent typing skills and I check myself.

[Bêthberry]

To my great regret, I have been able to follow this interesting thread only by reading for much of this week and even now must reply shortly. Please over look any curtness that arises from brevity.

A great deal of old rhetorical style in English derived from Greek theories of good speaking, or oratory: Vir bonus dicendi peritus est. "The good man is skilled in speech", Quintilian.

Many of our habits still reflect some of those values, even without the influence of school teachers. Churchill used the 'rule of three' in many of his stirring wartime speeches. John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address is a model of Greek rhetoric. The first chapter of one of Hemingway's novels can be thoroughly analysed for its structure using the old pattern for organising a speech.--Yes, Hemingway, father of allegedly of pity modern style in American novels.

The Renaissance come about in part with the rediscovery of Greek. And so the men who translated the King James Bible were also men highly schooled in the latest ideas about language. The melifluous style and tone of the King James derives from this common sense among the translators of what was beautiful lanaguage. (And is why some modern translations, which are techically correct as translations, seem to lack "poetry.")

Language, as Rimbaud has said, is all about pattern and structure. It is the very repetition of patterns--and then their variations and deviations--that makes meaning, as Fordim has argued here. I think it is very perceptive of Fordim to make this argument about the archaic language, for usually it is related to the heroic narratives Tolkien harkened to.

But, alas, I must fly. I hope no one calls me a fool for it!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

The Renaissance come about in part with the rediscovery of Greek. And so the men who translated the King James Bible were also men highly schooled in the latest ideas about language.

To fly completely off topic here, this interests me in that my favourite translation of the New Testament is Tyndale's, & two statements in David Daniell's introduction to my copy seem relevant:

(Tyndale's translation) was the first of that majestic sequence od eleven new translations of the Bible into English which ended in 1611 with the publication of King James's 'Authorised Version'. That famous 'translation' was in fact almost entirely, in the New Testament, made from Tyndale's words, which would have been recognised as such by readers.

&

Tyndale chose a register of slightly heightened common English speech, with a simple Saxon syntax of subject-verb-object, avoiding grammatical dependencies, & a Saxon vocabulary.

So, while the translators of the King James Bible were, as [b]Bb[/i] says ' highly schooled in the latest ideas about language', they were effectively lifting their 'translation' from Tyndale's, which deliberately used the 'common speech' of the ordinary folk who weren't 'highly schooled'.

So, what were these 'latest ideas' about language & how important were they?

[Lachwen]

Fëanor: while I can kind of understand where your teacher is coming from, docking points for a word misused outside of his class is a bit much. I would complain to the principal or the head of the department at that point.

I think what Tolkien did instead was to use a language that is highly reminiscent -- in its "heightened" moments -- of the language that we find in the King James Bible or (more appropriate for Tolk) the Latin Vulgate.

I disagree. Tolkien's writing is reminiscent more of the Norse sagas (or a good translation of Beowulf) than the much more formal language of the King James Bible. Tolkien was, after all, writing his own saga, and pulled much of his linguistic inspiration from cultures that passed on most of their history in sagas and epic poems (Anglo-saxon, Finnish, etc.). Latin does not have much of an influence in Lord of the Rings because it is more closely related to Quenya than any of the other languages in Middle-earth; and Quenya does not appear very often in Lord of the Rings. Only four times in real quantity, in fact: Frodo's greeting of Gildor, Galadriel's farewell song in Lórien, Treebeard's musings on the Golden Wood, and Aragorn's little coronation speech. As was stated earlier, The Lord of the Rings was supposed to be a transcription of the Red Book, which was written by Hobbits; they would not have used highly formal language because they were really quite unfamiliar with it (Tolkien addresses this in Appendix F, Section I, Of Hobbits).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lachwen

I disagree. Tolkien's writing is reminiscent more of the Norse sagas (or a good translation of Beowulf) than the much more formal language of the King James Bible. Tolkien was, after all, writing his own saga, and pulled much of his linguistic inspiration from cultures that passed on most of their history in sagas and epic poems (Anglo-saxon, Finnish, etc.). Latin does not have much of an influence in Lord of the Rings because it is more closely related to Quenya than any of the other languages in Middle-earth; and Quenya does not appear very often in Lord of the Rings. Only four times in real quantity, in fact: Frodo's greeting of Gildor, Galadriel's farewell song in Lórien, Treebeard's musings on the Golden Wood, and Aragorn's little coronation speech. As was stated earlier, The Lord of the Rings was supposed to be a transcription of the Red Book, which was written by Hobbits; they would not have used highly formal language because they were really quite unfamiliar with it (Tolkien addresses this in Appendix F, Section I, Of Hobbits).

I think we need to be very careful here about our terminology and our references. For instance, LotR incorporates a rather wide range of styles. There is common agreement that the hobbits' dialogue is a much more colloquial style than that used by, say, Gimli and Legolas, later in the book. (In fact, the style of their dialogue changes from Book I to Book III.) This can be demonstrated both by lexical means (the register and tone of the words used) and syntactical analysis.

The point which intrigued me about Fordim's observation of the archaic aspects of the style (and not all of it is archaic, and we probably ought to explain more precisely what we mean by archaic) has to do with the comments made above by several people about Tolkien's use of 'and' and coordinated sentences.

This is a style of syntax which is associated with the Old Testament. Gerald Hammond, who wrote The Making of the English Bible, says in an essay on English translations of the Bible the following:

Old Testament narrative is characterised by its almost exclusive use of the conjunction waw to link virtually every clause and sentence. Right from the beginnings English translators of the Bible were happy to rend these links with "and", so that their narratives sometimes consist entirely of coordinate clauses. It is probable that this practice was something natural to early sixteenth-century writers of English prose, inheritors of a tradition going back to Anglo-Saxon's repeated use of ond. But this is distinctive to English, in contrast to the more sophisticated syntax of the Vulgate, and even of Luther's German. And that the English translators appreciated this harmony between Hebrew and English is borne out by the successive versions' increasing use of it through the century--despite the growing felxibility of English prose during this period. ... The Authorised Version's translators, rather than reducing the percentage of coordination, actually intensified it

(He gives a compa5rison of a passage from Tyndale, the King James, the Jerusalem. and the New International, but that leads away from my point, except that the King James is more consistent with the sytax of the original, of the lot.)

One other stylistic example of the Renaissance translators was to use what Harmond calls "a formulaic rendering of common words." This is less deadly than it sounds! He means simply that these translators did not substitute synonums for words but instead reimployed the same words in passages. They relied on keywords economically to link, for example, three meanings of "know" in Genesis (the shame of the truit of the tree of knowledge, God's knowledge, and sexuality). Is this something Tolkien does? We would be well to examine his style to see if he does.

Here's another passage from Tolkien which uses coordination extensively (among other traits of 'old rhetorical styel':

The Captains bowed their heads; and when they looked up again, behold! their enemies were flying and the power of Mordor was scattering like dust in the wind. As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures ofSauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits or fled wailing back to hide in holds and dark lightless places far from hope.
The Field of Cormallen

This is not to deny traits consistent with the nordic epics Tolkien loved or with Anglo Saxon poetry. But simply to suggest that Tolkien incorporates a great many different styles in LotR, from many sources.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

When I write a speech I use brief sentences, sentences beginning with 'and', alliteration, repetition. Have I been taught to write words which are intended to sound 'biblical'?

Well, these are common techniques for effective speech-writing. Starting sentences with conjunctions and using short sentences mirror the way that we speak naturally, and so help make a speech sound more natural (rather than pre-prepared). Alliteration and repetition help emphasise the points that the speaker wishes to convey to the audience. I use these techniques a lot when I am writing talks for seminars.

I would not start sentences with conjunctions in my written work. Whether this is appropriate in a work of literature depends, I suppose, on the tone that the author wants to convey. Alliteration and repetition are useful in written work (including literature) for the same reasons that they are used in speeches, although they are perhaps more necessary in oral presentations as audiences generally only take in a proportion of what they are hearing and need to have the key points rammed home to them, whereas readers can always go back and re-read a passage that they didn't fully take in first time round (being an easily distracted reader, I do this all the time ).

[Lalwendë]

I'm glad to see that these are common techniques!

audiences generally only take in a proportion of what they are hearing and need to have the key points rammed home to them

This is a point that many forget when giving any kind of oral presentation. How many times have we had to sit through a dull presentation which may be intended to convey something of importance but is delivered badly? If only all those who write presentations would learn from speech-writing. The rule of three is very sensible and ensures effective delivery of important points, but it also ensures that the speech keeps to the point. I think the average attention span is only something like 20 minutes (and much less after a large lunch ) so building in emphasis points is also vital.

The other skill which is often dwongraded is the ability to create an effective visual presentation. I'm quite nifty with powerpoint and time and again I'm asked to create slides which are for want of a better word, useless. They ought to be pithy and brief (as my writing tutor used to say, sometimes you need to write as though there is tax to be paid on your words), but all too often I am ordered to cram as much text onto them as possible. I have tried pointing out that this extra information ought to be in a supplementary handout, but do they listen? Do they heck...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Ahem! Let's keep this excellent discussion reasonably close to Tolkien, please - a bit of sidetracking is in order, but we do want to remember the original topic.

[Boromir88]

This is way off the current topic but I think it's something that could fall under this thread. Because, I believe this is what gets me interested in LOTR (plus a handful of other books).

The fact that parts of the book (or maybe the whole book) is biased. Atleast, there are some characters, when they speak, it is definately opinionated. For example, Boromir, Haldir, Men in general, Frodo). Then there are those who can be more reliable then your biased people (Gandalf, Elrond, Glorfindel, Galadriel), but even they aren't 100% correct.

This to me makes it interesting because you wonder if what you are reading is actually right, or if it's just a crock of roastbeef. There are other stories like this, where the dialogue is also biased, most of the times we see them in plays, A Midsummer's night Dream, Cat on a Hot tin Roof...and so on. To me a story isn't fun if everyone is "right" all the time, you have to add in some unreliable people, just makes the story a lot more interesting.