The Structure of The Lord of the Rings

[Bêthberry]

For now, the briefest and perhaps even too flippant a reply to a question which will receive further thought...

Despite its episodic nature, one way this marvellous yarn holds together so well is through the very careful and laborious effort of Tolkien at ceaselessly revising his drafts, coordinating dates, times, phases of the moon, distances. I think in particular the maps were not just a secondary inspiration, but became for him a way to help manage the tapestry. The temporal and geographical features are so precise that the looseness of the narrative structure is overcome--or compensated for, or held together, however one wishes to consider it.

I also think Tolkien had a very clear idea of audience as he was writing, in particular in the person of his son Christropher. But this is a harder thing to explain...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Despite its episodic nature, one way this marvellous yarn holds together so well is through the very careful and laborious effort of Tolkien at ceaselessly revising his drafts, coordinating dates, times, phases of the moon, distances. I think in particular the maps were not just a secondary inspiration, but became for him a way to help manage the tapestry. The temporal and geographical features are so precise that the looseness of the narrative structure is overcome--or compensated for, or held together, however one wishes to consider it.

I also think Tolkien had a very clear idea of audience as he was writing, in particular in the person of his son Christropher. But this is a harder thing to explain...

Excellent points, both. I do recall hearing Tolkien in his BBC radio interview say something to the effect of, "Of course when one is writing a really complicated tale you must have a map." In this sense, I think you are absolutely right Bb the geography and sense of place (and placedness) we have in LotR is crucial to the narrative cohesion. The story is 'about' Middle-earth rather than the people walking and warring across it?

And I very much like this idea of audience, for there are a number of points in the narrative at which Tolkien allows the story to become conscious of itself as story. In addition to the more obvious examples (such as Frodo and Sam's conversation upon the Stairs of Cirith Ungol) there are those odd moments in which the narrative steps outside itself (the narrative 'present') and acknowleges that there is an ending, and even hints at it. The two examples that come to mind here are the reference to the brown scar that Merry "bore to the end of his days" (giving away that he is going to survive and go on to live out his life) and the revelation that when Aragorn leaves the hill in Lorien where he and Arwen pledged troth (can't remember the name of the place) he "came there never again as living man". In each case, it looks as though the story is tilting its hand and giving something away, but of course it isn't as we know that Aragorn and Merry are going to survive and win -- we know that the good guys will triumph because that's just the kind of story this is. In this way, the story itself announces itself as story, which highlights to the audience that it is unified in and by and through our own reading act.

Hmmmm. . .and back to the maps: since it is a readerly act of turning to the maps and referencing them that makes the experience of the story both interactive and unified. How many times I looked at the map to find where Frodo and Sam were, then looked as well to figure out where Merry and Pippin were as well; and then even, in later readings, ploughed into the Appendices to seek out dates etc to co-ordinate things in my own mind.

Is all this just a much longer way of saying what you meant Bb?

[Lalwendë]

Maybe casting myself back into the mindset of my 12 year old self will help me to see what it was that gripped me so about the books.

Story - the plot can never be underestimated, it is what makes us want to go on, to persevere with reading, as it is essentially a complex and difficult activity, even to a compulsive reader. We have to believe the plot, it has to be surprising, even if it is based upon plots we may have seen many times before. I am always envious of writers who can master the true complexities of a magnificent plot; in LotR there are many plot twists, there is narrative which drives us on, there is death, there is urgency. I could not leave the books alone once I had started on them and still cannot leave them alone now, but on that first reading, the surprises of the plot were vital.

World Creation - Tolkien literally invented a completely immersive world. Languages, natural history, maps, cultures, all of these opened up this world as something real. Even now I often read with my mouth hanging open, startled at the sheer scale of this world, and as we all know, it is so complex that you can go there every day and see something new.

Description - this is a vivid world, it sometimes seems clearer to me than my own world - especially when I am reading. I have heard some say that they do not like too much description in novels but LotR proves them wrong. I think that the effectiveness of this description is due in no small measure to Tolkien's own knowledge of poetry, particularly the old epics, which were related orally; vivid description is vital to this art, and Tolkien has picked up on it well.

Characters - even though there seems to be no one central character, the story still works. Everything is centred around the mission to get Frodo and the Ring to Mount Doom, so even when we are not with him, we still know that if say, Theoden does not win out at Helm's Deep, then the risk to Frodo, and hence to the world we have invested our time in, and which we have grown to love, will be too much to bear.

Thinking with my adult mind, I see that there are more reasons to the success of this great rambling story.

Chapters - these are clearly delineated. Each has a central theme, and in particular after the Fellowship breaks up, are self contained adventures. This was necessary to carrying on the story with several disparate groups each carrying on their own tasks. Yet in other novels I have found this to have a disruptive effect on my reading enjoyment. Why not in LotR? I think because we constantly receive reminders of the central core of the tale, that story of two hobbits going to Mount Doom.

Narrative - as opposed to pure plot, Tolkien makes clever use of narrative. We have episodic chapters where an 'event' happens, but these are then interspersed with movement. We don't suffer from stasis at any point because the tale must go onwards, and we've got to go with it, and when we go with it, we too see the changing scenery through the eyes of the characters.

Suspense - Tolkien makes great use of this, one such example being the 'death' of Gandalf. Who remembers their first reading when Gandalf was taken by the Balrog? After this happened, there was nobody who could wrestle the book from my hands until I had found out more, and it was a huge relief when he returned. But Tolkien filled the book with suspense. Just some examples include Gollum pursuing the Fellowship, Frodo's capture by Shelob, the tension at Helm's Deep, whether Saruman will yield to Gandalf...

What a topic!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

What a compendium Lalwende!

Correct me, please, if I misrepresent your post, but it seems to me that there are two aspects of the story that you are paying particular attention to as structural devices: the Ring (properly, the quest to destroy the Ring) and the land.

You come back several times to these two devices, and if it be not too bold to interpret you, could I say that you 'see' (you have a highly visual imagination!) the story as a circle about a single point? The circle being the 'horizons' of Middle-earth as Tolkien creates it for us, and the single point being the Ring.

If this is not too far wrong from what you are suggesting, it would appear to me that the essential structure of the story (in this view, if it is your view) is a largely moral one, in which the 'blot' of evil at the heart of an essentially 'good' creation must be expunged.

[Boromir88]

Wonderful points everyone .

One more small detail to add about the plot, typically in a story after the climax the story will just fall and end with a resolution. It will rise with the conflict, at the height hit the climax, and then fall to the resolution.

In LOTR it rises to the climax (destruction of the ring), then falls with the french term (lal help me again deneument, but then with the scouring it has another rise, another conflict, then another resolution. So the line sort of goes, up (conflict), height (climax), down (deneument), up (another conflict), down (resolution). And this goes along with Lal's point about plot twists, some extra curveballs made by Tolkien.

[Lalwendë]

there are two aspects of the story that you are paying particular attention to as structural devices: the Ring (properly, the quest to destroy the Ring) and the land.

The central aspect to the whole tale is that of the need to destroy the Ring; even when we are not with the Ringbearer, he is still in our minds, and he is in the minds of the characters we meet, no matter how far away they may be. He is effectively 'lost' to them, and for us too, when we get to Book 3. Yes, the Ring is the focal point, yet we are not with it at many turns in the narrative, we don't know where it's gone to. The reason that moving the focus away from the Ringbearer's quest works is that we still have it in mind, through the other characters' minds.

And then we follow the characters as they move through this world, we see the changing scenery with them, even discover it as they discover it for the first time. When we see Lothlorien for the first time, we see it through Hobbit eyes, we are there with them and get that same sense of wonder. Is this kind of structure linear though?

could I say that you 'see' (you have a highly visual imagination!) the story as a circle about a single point?

When I say that I 'see' Middle Earth, I mean that is so vividly described, the entire landscape jumps straight off the page for me. The addition of maps makes it even more real, as journey and distance can also be traced. Every 'world creation' book ought to include a map!

it would appear to me that the essential structure of the story (in this view, if it is your view) is a largely moral one, in which the 'blot' of evil at the heart of an essentially 'good' creation must be expunged.

I think it is an essentially moral story, and on the surface this morality is clear, as it must be, to make a take of good/evil work. And yet, underneath, there are so many grey areas that at its heart it is no simple tale of good versus evil. The only truly 'good' force is the earth itself, the stage on which all these events happen (and is it good, if you think of the innocents who may have died when Numenor was drowned?), I find it impossible to say that one race or another is essentially good, as they all have their failings.

(lal help me again deneument

Oh heck! I wish I'd paid more attention in my French lessons, I still can't get my head round these spellings.

denoument, denouement, denoumente....beauracrat, beurocrat, beaureaucrat....

[Bêthberry]

Well, Professor Fordim, Sir, I hardly need hazard a reply since you have so cleverly reinvented my points.

In this sense, I think you are absolutely right Bb the geography and sense of place (and placedness) we have in LotR is crucial to the narrative cohesion. The story is 'about' Middle-earth rather than the people walking and warring across it?

. . . .

Hmmmm. . .and back to the maps: since it is a readerly act of turning to the maps and referencing them that makes the experience of the story both interactive and unified. How many times I looked at the map to find where Frodo and Sam were, then looked as well to figure out where Merry and Pippin were as well; and then even, in later readings, ploughed into the Appendices to seek out dates etc to co-ordinate things in my own mind.

I don't think I would go so far as to say the book is about Middle-earth rather than the people in it. But I do think that, without the geographical lynchpins, it would be difficult to follow such an episodic plot, even given the rivetting suspense with which Tolkien builds chapters, particularly with the variety of battlescenes towards the end. But I also mean that Tolkien himself worked hard to provide that kind of consistency to the physical world. Here's a line from Letter 85:

I have been struggling with the dislocated chronology of the Ring, which has proved most vexatious, and has not only interferred with other and more urgent and duller duties, but has stopped me getting on. I think I have solved it all at last by small map alterations, and by inserting an extra day's Entmoot, and extra days into Trotter's chase and Frodo's journey (a small alteration in the first chapter I have just sent: 2 days from Morannon to Ithilien).

Isn't it interesting here that Tolkien refers to his story by its central image, the Ring. And he clearly identifies plot here with place. Other than having everything rely on the success of Frodo and Sam's quest, there is not much interconnectedness to the plot, but then tightly controlled plots are a feature of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century novels. LotR has always reminded me of the idea that what matters is not the planning ahead but the living at each moment. It does not 'move foreward' so much as circle around various ideas. The only progression is geographic--everyone moves south and then back again-- and so I think for this very reason is is valuable to have the Scouring of the Shire. It underscores that this is not, in fact, a 'modern' narrative, but a very old one. It is T.S. Eliot's line in "Little Gidding": to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. (Maybe I need to go find the quote and copy it here.)

And I very much like this idea of audience, for there are a number of points in the narrative at which Tolkien allows the story to become conscious of itself as story. In addition to the more obvious examples (such as Frodo and Sam's conversation upon the Stairs of Cirith Ungol) there are those odd moments in which the narrative steps outside itself (the narrative 'present') and acknowleges that there is an ending, and even hints at it. The two examples that come to mind here are the reference to the brown scar that Merry "bore to the end of his days" (giving away that he is going to survive and go on to live out his life) and the revelation that when Aragorn leaves the hill in Lorien where he and Arwen pledged troth (can't remember the name of the place) he "came there never again as living man". In each case, it looks as though the story is tilting its hand and giving something away, but of course it isn't as we know that Aragorn and Merry are going to survive and win -- we know that the good guys will triumph because that's just the kind of story this is. In this way, the story itself announces itself as story, which highlights to the audience that it is unified in and by and through our own reading act.

It was only upon rereading that I began to see how often, in fact, this story talks about itself as story. (Here I might go back and find a link to a post of mine on that Cerin Amroth scene.) But it is probably very instructive to recall a point here which Tolkien made to his son Christopher in one of their wartime letters. Christopher had, apparently (we don't have access to his letters to his father, only the father's replies) been very discouraged by his experiences in South Africa with his training there. I cannot now find the specific letter, but the gist of it was that Tolkien Sr. advised Christopher to take heart by recalling that he was in the midst of a story. Perhaps I just ought to post this now and try to find that letter!

EDIT:

Here's the letter # 66, 6 May 1944, written to CT:

We don't mind your grousing at all -- you have no one else, and I expect it relieves the strain. ... [my ellipsis]
Not that in real life things are as clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many orcs on our side .... [ellipsis here in the text] Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai. Keep up your hobbitry in heart, and thing that all stories feel like that when you are in them. Youare inside a very great story!

In terms of structure, though, there's another commend from Tolkien which I think pertains to his manner of plotting, which is to say, not much plotting per se. This is Letter #69, 14 May 1944, again to CT.

I suddenly got an idea for a new story (of about length of 'Niggle")--in church yesterday, I fear. A man sitting at a high widow and seeing not the fortunes of a man or of people all down the ages. He just sees it illumined, in borders of mist, and things, animals and men just walk on and off, and the plants and animals change from one fantastic shape to another but men (in spite of different dress) don't change at all. At intervals all down the ages from Palaeolithic to Today a couple of women (or men) would stroll across scene saying exactly the same thing (ie It oughtn't to be allowed. They ought to stop it. Or, I said to her, I'm not one to make a fuss, I said, but ... ) .... [ellipses in text].

Well, I've rambled on enough now. Back to you, Professor Fordim.

[Mister Underhill]

Interesting topic, and interesting replies!

The structure of LotR, eh? I must confess that I'm a bit puzzled by criticisms of LotR as being overly episodic. In my view, the story has an uncommonly strong narrative spine, namely, the quest to destroy the Ring. Now, admittedly, several plot threads evolve into something more like "can we protect the things we're fighting to save until the Ring is destroyed?", but even these threads get back on task as the climax approaches and the characters not directly involved in the destruction of the Ring strive to keep Sauron's attention diverted from the real stroke.

Almost all situations in the plot -- both in terms of external action (we must take a long journey into the heart of the enemy's kingdom) and internal conflict (shall I claim this precious thing as my own?) -- are driven by the Ring.

One thing that I do find to be quite interesting and unusual about the structure of the piece is the complete division of the Frodo-Sam thread (Books 4 and most of 6) from the War of the Ring threads (Books 3 and 5). After the breaking of the Fellowship, one might expect the author to roughly alternate chapters, breaking the action at a suspensful moment in Frodo's quest to cut away to the action in the West, and vice versa. Instead, Tolkien follows each thread to a rough midpoint before alternating. In this sense, the narrative is most definitely not linear: we follow the War of the Ring all the way up to Gandalf's journey with Pippin to Minas Tirith before going back in time to see what has become of Frodo and Sam.

What a surprising choice! I think the overall effect of it is to add to the book's feeling of history or memoir. The expected alternating construction would, I think, feel more "modern", more geared towards manipulating suspense in the reader. Although Tolkien is still able to achieve suspense, his unusual structure feels more like a recounting of events than like a tale designed to titillate the reader.

I'm getting a little long-winded here, so I'll just briefly hit a few other points:

I tend to disagree with the idea that the (allegedly) loose narrative structure is overcome by features of the setting -- details of geography or chronology. I think that for Tolkien, the world-building in Middle-earth was always subordinate to, and in service of, the story. So, rather than alter his story to fit the geography, he instead would solve problems with "map alterations" (letter 85). In letter 163, he proclaims:

...I met a lot of things on the way that astonished me. Tom Bombadil I knew already; but I had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the corner at the inn was a shock, and I had no more idea who he was than had Frodo. The Mines of Moria had been a mere name; and of Lothlórien no word had reached my mortal ears till I came there. Far away I knew there were the Horse-lords on the confines of an ancient Kingdom of Men, but Fangorn Forest was an unforeseen adventure. I had never heard of the House of Eorl nor of the Stewards of Gondor.

So rather than a story inspired by history and geography, I daresay we have the opposite -- geography and history inspired by the needs of the story.

Lalwendë, your shotgun tactics paid off: it's denouement (or if you prefer, dénouement). Nice breakdown of the story's elements up above, btw.

Fordim, I'm a bit confused by the idea of a story with an essentially moral structure. What does that mean in terms of organizing the story and how it works? I certainly agree that there is a strong moral thematic component, but I'm not entirely clear on how you feel that plays into how the story is actually constructed or how it functions.