What breaks the enchantment?

[davem]

'Oh, like, no, man! The King's like dead, dudes! What a bummerrrr!'

or

This is an epic romance not a modern novel..

Originally Posted by Bb

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'm not sure this was 'written in the heat of battle', because it does strike me as 'old verse from long ago'. First of all it does not specifically mention Theoden, secondly, I would expect someone from an oral culture to have a head full of poems & snatches of verse. To my mind its the furthest thing from 'surprising' that Eomer would have a verse like that in mind. He's in battle & probably at that moment has his head full of the old lays - probably during their rest periods on the way to Minas Tirith they would have had bards singing those very lays.

Besides, the all Rohirrim speak in an archaic manner. I actually find it a little more likely that Eomer would find a snatch of that kind of verse in his head at that moment than that Eowyn, on confronting the WK would come out with 'Begone foul Dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!' But I have to say that is analysing after the fact. When I read that chapter I'm so caught up in the events that none of that occurs. I must say that if you're reading The Battle of Pelennor Fields & find the spell is broken by something as 'trivial' as Eomer reciting a few lines of verse that's something I really don't get at all.

This is the problem with an 'analytical' reading, when you refuse to just let the story grab you and sweep you along - you're always at a 'distance' from what's happening, always weighing it up & asking yourself whether 'this' or 'that' is convincing. Its like watching a movie on dvd & stopping it every few moments to do a critique of it. Its this approach to reading & re-reading that inevitably lessens the magic of the experience.

As far as I'm concerned Eomer recited those lines over Theoden's fallen body in the heat of that battle - & do you know why? Not for the reasons I gave earlier, but because when I read that episode it feels right.

[Bêthberry]

I have no quarrel with anyone who is happy reading the archaic/ornate style and, as I said earlier, my intention is not to persuade people to my point, simply to respond to the thread topic. However, I would like to make a few comments about some of the points raised.

Lalwendë, you raise several interesting points, but my problem with these passages is not the general need for a more formal style to suit the earth-shattering events. I would be quite happy reading a story with great heterogeneity of style. It is how the style is handled in the particular contexts. Also, I find that we tend to bring in this conceit of the Redbook to explain away many difficulties of the text--do we really at the time of reading say, 'Oh, this is the Redbook's writer writing here and not the story's usual narrator'--do we remember that all in the breathless excitement of reading--but I don't think we've ever really had a thread to examine this conceit closely. Frankly, I don't think it works here as a justification for radical changes to character's style of dialogue.

Interesting that you bring in the verses recited over Boromir. That leave-taking scene has always given me a strong sense of the importance in Middle-earth of the rituals of death and remembrance and lamentation. I think some sort of recitation by Éomer would be absolutely fitting and in keeping with the nature of the Rohirrim. All I am saying is that to my ear this passage was abruptly handled and I would, to keep the enchantment up, like more writing devoted to this scene, to establish its tone and tenor.

Nothing, I think, can address the issue of why the style of dialogue--one of the fundamental aspects of characterisation in this work--changes so fundamentally.

Heren, right you are to point out that you learnt your letters at Tolkien's knee! It is possible that someday we could have a long discussion on what is "natural"--for that feeling is a function of various qualities and not an absolute standard--but that is probably for another time.

I don't wish to belabour my readings. I simply gave in response to littlemanpoet's example some examples of my own and I will now shut up.

Interesting that no one here has replied to littlemanpoet's observation that Sam's "lor' help me" is inappropriate to Middle-earth. Any thoughts?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Also, I find that we tend to bring in this conceit of the Redbook to explain away many difficulties of the text--do we really at the time of reading say, 'Oh, this is the Redbook's writer writing here and not the story's usual narrator'--do we remember that all in the breathless excitement of reading--but I don't think we've ever really had a thread to examine this conceit closely. Frankly, I don't think it works here as a justification for radical changes to character's style of dialogue.

This is the only time I've used the conceit of the Red Book as an explanation, as it doesn't seem to be relevant all the time, or else another explanation can be found within the text; I prefer to use these where possible. For the same reason I don't like to use the argument of Deus Ex Machina to explain plot twists; I always feel there has to be a reason within the text for everything. Yet here the conceit does seem appropriate as we are talking not about a part of the plot or the history of Middle Earth, but the writing style, particularly the authorial voice, and the conceit of the Red Book is a part of that.

The other interesting thing is that on my early readings I never noticed the change in style as something strange or abrupt, and I only notice it now because it has been brought to my attention by other readers. For me, the change in style works without feeling in any way strange.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Also, I find that we tend to bring in this conceit of the Redbook to explain away many difficulties of the text--do we really at the time of reading say, 'Oh, this is the Redbook's writer writing here and not the story's usual narrator'

One could make a stab at an explanation along these lines...

Tolkien has set up in the foreword the conceit of LotR being a translatioon of the Red Book. It is a work with two main narrators - Frodo & Sam, but we are also told that the accounts have been 'supplimented by the learning of the wise'. We are also informed that the book from which Tolkien 'translated' the story was not the original book but a copy. He even includes an aside by Findegil the King's copyist.

What we seem to have then, is a version of the original work, which has been 'supplimented' through various copies & finally translated[ by an Oxford Don in the 1940's.

I think these multiple narrators/translators can easily account for variations in style. We are dealing with something akin to the way oral tales change over the years & 'grow in the telling' - albeit to a lesser degree. If the language in the Hobbit focussed part of the story is less 'archaic' & that in the Rohan/Gondor focussed part more so that is perhaps simply because the version Tolkien translated was not the original Red Book but one that came from the scriptorium of Minas Tirith. For Findegil, Gondor & Rohan were known commodities, & also as a Gondorian he would have taken a certain approach to the way his people & their nearest allies were presented in the historical record. Being less familiar with Hobbits (one assumes) he would have been less likely to tamper with those sections of the story, for fear of making a fool of himself.

Finally, we have to take into account the character of the ultimate translator, Professor Tolkien himself. He will necessarily bring a certain personal style to his translation.

All this, btw, remains within the approach of attempting to experience the story directly, because the figure of 'Tolkien the translator' is just as much a character within the legendarium as any inhabitant of Middle earth.

[Bêthberry]

I don't wish to turn this into an "I said/you said" argument which does not move the discussion forward, but I do want to clarify a point. I didn't say, Lalwendë that you personally used the Redbook as a handy recourse. The pronoun I used was we and I choose it deliberately (is there a BD 'we' as well as a royal we? ), for this point has been used in the past by many others (myself included I bet), at least as I recall some of the many discussions in my time here, so I wasn't so much stating something about your argument, as the general tendency "we" have here.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I only notice it now because it has been brought to my attention by other readers.

Does that mean that we can't learn new things from our discussion here but must always return to our own first readings? Is something invalidated if we didn't notice it in our first flush of love reading? And what if someone noticed it on first reading/reading in the context of abandonment to story? Does that make it irrelevant if one person sees it and others don't?

Originally Posted by davem

One could make a stab at an explanation along these lines...

Tolkien has set up in the foreword the conceit of LotR being a translatioon of the Red Book. It is a work with two main narrators - Frodo & Sam, but we are also told that the accounts have been 'supplimented by the learning of the wise'. We are also informed that the book from which Tolkien 'translated' the story was not the original book but a copy. He even includes an aside by Findegil the King's copyist.

What we seem to have then, is a version of the original work, which has been 'supplimented' through various copies & finally translated[ by an Oxford Don in the 1940's.

This kind of point is why I suggested a thread might be interesting, to see how far this conceit can be taken in the text itself.

As a general theory or a good stab, I think you have stated how it could possibly work, davem. However, I think for it truely to exist in the text to justify the stylistic differences, we would have to see far more evidence of its workings.

We would, I think, have to have the kind of text similar to the Bible, which is very much a heterogeneous text. We could see things like the incomplete collation of the two creation stories in Genesis. We would have the story 'interrupted' by ritual prescriptions and laws, as Leviticus interrupts the story of Exodus. (I am not stating this literally, but as an example of the kind of variation.) We could be swept away by various kinds of story elements, symbolic as well as prophetic, and by various types of narrators. We could have psalms and the Song of Solomon beside narrative. We could see how various chapters are dependent on previous ones for their story elements, as occurs in the New Testament. This is just an example for elucidating what I would think might appear in such a 'handed down' text. And I'm sure other old narratives would offer their unique elements of textual tradition. I'm not saying this is the only one. Nor am I discounting the possibility that Tolkien could use the conceit in his own unique way.

However, I think we would see far more variation in the style, in the story elements, in the narrators' voices than we have at the moment. Right now, I think the conceit of the Redbook and the translations of various authors is just a conceit, nothing more. I don't think Tolkien 'built it into' the story. It is a bookend piece, part of the delightful story elements, but I don't think it plays a part in the story proper. Thus, I don't think it can really account for the variations of style.

I think a thread about this might be interesting, so this thread can remain devoted to littlemanpoet's topic. And his example, which is sitll unremarked upon.

[davem]

'Lor' bless you...

Well, we have two alternatives - we can look within the secondary world for an explanation or outside it. Looking outside it, we have alternatives again. One, there is the possibility that it slipped past Tolkien - as Shippey points out it is the kind of exclamation a working class person of Tolkien's period make come out with, so Tolkien used it without thinking. Second, it is a kind of 'half hidden' Christian reference, which again could be conscious or unconscious on Tolkien's part. Third, we can consider the origin of the word 'Lord'. It is anglo-saxon & derives from the word 'hlaford' or 'loaf keeper', referring to the head of the household. So, not necessarily a Christian reference, but its possible.

Approached from within the secondary world it is both more difficult to account for but it is also more evocative - it leads us to ask 'who is this 'Lord' who Sam is invoking? Is this one of only two direct references in the whole of LotR to Hobbit religion (the other one being Merry's exclamation of 'Lawks!' in Three is Company).

What I'm saying here is that 'Lor'/Lawks' only become a problem if we read with primary world baggage in our minds. If we do, then these exclamations may break the spell for us, if we can leave that baggage at the door then far frombreaking the spell they actually add depth by providing a mystery to be solved. They actually make Middle earth a bit odder & more mysterious than it at first seemed. Did the Hobbits have any 'religious' beliefs at all?

Of course, whether Tolkien slipped up or not, what his actual reason was in using these phrases is another question. Its only their primary world connotations that risk doing any damage to our experience. In the other current thread, on 'What ain't there...' we're discussing exactly this kind of thing - the question is, didn't hobbits ought to have some form of belief? If so, what form would it take? Go with the 'conceit' for a moment. Tolkien has a text to translate, he comes across two references to some kind of 'Higher power' in this text, but without any context. What does he do - excise them, or substiute some modern colloquial equivalent? Probably the latter.

Hope this makes sense.....

[HerenIstarion]

Hlaford, supplied with 'lawks' and given the agricultural society of the Shire, may give rise to certain suspicions - Corn King type of religion? Which, viewed from the 'Primary World' persepctive, may be seen as just another 'consciouly so' hint at Christianity?

Mind that neither remark is that obvious. It would certainly be hard to suspend disbelief if Sam exlaimed 'Jesus bless you'. How many people consciously connect 'lawks' with Christianity these days?

We sing duet, sir davem But you are good at your own sig, and reptiles of the mind don't stand a chance, it seems.

I refer to the manifold authorship issues:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Yes, much is altered in Tolkien's later writings. The difficulties arisen from such a situtation are usually solved by yours truly on the following ground - the whole of the legendarium is presented as collection of legends and stories by different authors. There is no need for different authors to agree on every point they recount

I suppose it works for LoTR too.

Imagine it is not reading, but listening in rounds by the fire-side, when each story-teller continues the threadline passed on by the previous one. They all speak the same story, but in different words and styles, and adding of their own slightly. Some extra beards not accounted for in previous telling, some extra feet to the height of the enemy, but that is minor, and the flow is what counts. Keep an eye on the fire for the enchantment, and don't let the knowledge of the fact it's being electrically heated distract you

General tendency, yes. We, Augustus Bonifacius Rex, Basileus etc tend to use it in such a way . Why not, if it is presented as such? Even if it is a trick, not 'real magic' on Tolkien's part, it works wonders.

Concluding thought: It was 'willing suspension of disbelief' was it not? The accent falls on 'willing' here.