LotR - Foreword

[Estelyn Telcontar]

3 1/2 years later, I just reread the Foreword in my new copy; my old Ballantine's paperback has suffered more in the past few years since I've been on the Downs than it did in the decades before that! That could give me a fresh outlook, I thought, and underlined as I read - only to see that much of what is important to me now was the same when I wrote in my introductory post on this thread!

Famous first words - people who don't read forewords aren't always missing something in other books, but much of what Tolkien writes here has been quoted over and over again in discussions of his books. The second edition foreword is the one that has survived and has been kept in newer printings and editions of the LotR.

One thing that I noticed more this time around was the analogy of the story as a tree - having studied Tolkien's biography im comparison to his story Leaf by Niggle this past year, it was an obvious connection.

Another thing I particularly noticed was his theory about what would have happened with Saruman had LotR been patterned after the real war - he speculates that the wizard would then have learned enough Ring-lore to make a Great Ring for himself!

In the light of Jackson's explanations (understandable, I'm sure, regarding the length of the films!) for the absence of the Scouring in the movie, I took note of Tolkien's evaluation that it was planned from the beginning, essential and necessary for the story.

Oh, and I smiled over his statement that some questions could not be answered because "I have failed to keep my notes in order"! It took his son years to find his way through all those papers!


I will post my thoughts on the corresponding chapter in the Companion later - hoping that others will add to the discussion to keep me from double posting!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I read Hammond and Scull's Reader's Companion with great interest and found some remarks that gave me a fresh look at the Foreword. First of all, I read the original Foreword for the first time since the last discussion; it was interesting to see how the translator conceit was emphasized in it. I smiled over Tolkien's reference to the study of Hobbits as having "no practical use" - it reminded me of his lecture that referred to the development of his languages as a "secret vice".

It amuses me that the author is more tolerant than some of his fans; he allowed those who aren't interested in his appendices on languages etc. to "neglect these pages; and the strange names that they meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like."

The thought that I found most fascinating was the fact that both versions of Tolkien's Foreword contain spoilers for those who haven't yet read the story. Did you notice those when you first read it? Did you read the Foreword first, or not at all? Let's have a closer look and see what spoilers lurk there!

note: For those who do not have a book that includes the original Foreword, Squatter posted it here in the first discussion.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I'm here to break your monologue, Esty I only hope it does not get out of hand. (EDIT after looking at the completed post: already happened... and warning, seems this contains lot of personal ramblings and not much actual thoughts that should have any objective value)

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

One thing that I noticed more this time around was the analogy of the story as a tree - having studied Tolkien's biography im comparison to his story Leaf by Niggle this past year, it was an obvious connection.

Exactly, I definitely thought about it, and mainly, I don't know, I would have to check, but the words "as the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches" are (almost?) word-to-word (the "threw out unexpected branches" part) the same as in one place of the Leaf by Niggle, at least in Czech translation of both. It must be for the first time I read the Foreword properly since reading Niggle, which means about eight years anyway, but this sentence just hit me in the eye. I don't have the Leaf in English, so I cannot say it for sure about the original.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

The thought that I found most fascinating was the fact that both versions of Tolkien's Foreword contain spoilers for those who haven't yet read the story. Did you notice those when you first read it? Did you read the Foreword first, or not at all? Let's have a closer look and see what spoilers lurk there!

Yup, I wanted to say that even when I reread it today, and even when I read your first post now where you mention the foreword. Fortunately, I have to say, fortunately I did not read it first, and I did not read even the Foreword, and I don't remember it exactly, but I believe I was quite upset even with the narrative rant before the Party itself started - I was about eight back then, so no wonder, I wanted some action (now looking at it, probably I started to read properly around the moment when old G talks to Bilbo for the first time inside Bag End, right after Gandalf's arrival with the fireworks - I remembered that part, nevertheless, because it features the rune G, as I was intrigued by the runes back then, and not knowing Tengwar yet but the runes from The Hobbit only - I fluently wrote and read in them - I kept thinking it is a Dwarven G-rune, which would be of course great, as I missed G in the Dwarven runes). Nevertheless, I read the foreword sometime during reading the rest. It must have been after Rivendell, most probably during Two Towers - that means around February that year, I don't know, 1995? Anyway, why I am sure it was after Rivendell and Two Towers - I already knew Saruman and when reading that Tolkien said in the Foreword the tale is not inspired by the WW2, I was quite, well, not surprised, I accepted it calmly, but I said to myself something like "and you know what, Tolkien? I always thought Mordor is like the Nazi Germany and Saruman is like the Soviet Union." I remind you once again, I was 8, and my view was rather flat, but the model of WW2, as I saw it, was the same model as the one I read about: evil Germans and good Western allies and good yet at the beginning treacherous Soviets (referring to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, yet in the end they took the "good" side and went against Hitler). The archetypal "the good, the bad and the one who is good, yet commited treachery at certain point" was there for me.
Anyway, what was I talking about? Yes, the Foreword. Obviously there are major spoilers, the Scouring (but obviously, after what I wrote above, I must have read this spoiler before reading the chapter itself - obviously, it did not bother me. After all, there is just something about Saruman and then Tolkien jumps to rambling about his childhood, which for a reader who does not care hardly has any value - especially when he has thousands of more important things to read at the moment, like Pippin finding the Palantír and so on).

Another thing I would like to mention is this:

It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.

I emphasised the second part, because from the moment I read the FotR for second time, I, for reasons unknown, have stuck in my mind that this is referring to the moment when Frodo looks from Amon Hen. I know Tolkien speaks in general, but back then I cared a little for that part when I first read it (maybe even skipped it... ahem) and when I read the book for the second time, chills went down my spine and I thought it was fascinating. And so I thought that probably many people could have skipped or not liked this part (like I did in the first place) but some others found it absolutely unearthly wonderful (like I did while reading it properly). And every time I read this part of the Foreword, I thought: oh my, good Tolkien that you did not heed the advices of the many (in my imagination there were many, and only a few chosen ones were able to discover the beauty of the part ) and did not revide your works by skipping it...

Another thing, and maybe (hopefully for you) this is going to be the last one. I did not fully realise, till the time I re-read this foreword now, that actually, the most brilliant or at least one of the best books (as some minimalists could say) in the world was written almost whole during the time of the Second World War. I mean, isn't it strange? Just think about it. I don't know what do you imagine when someone says "1939-45", probably depends on where you come from and other factors, but I think: battles, people dying, bombardements, innocent people dying, concentration camps, the most horrible deeds against humanity, gestapo, ending with an image of tanks passing through silent, half-destroyed city with houses with doors locked, blinds pulled... and now I should also add to this chain of images the image of the Professor sitting somewhere and writing LotR? This LotR? This fantastic, beautiful, kind book we all so love to read? It is in complete contrast? And now, I will say it otherwise to make it more apparent (I hope) - when you say "Shakespeare, Hamlet" and I should say when it was written, I imagine the 16th century England; when you say "Homer, Illias and Odyssey" I imagine some ancient Greek people in front of this beautiful temple with these funny outfits, and so on, but always, I imagine some peaceful, stylized picture. But when someone says "Tolkien, Lord of the Rings", I should actually imagine the things I named above about the World War. That's just horrible. You know what I mean?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Esty

It amuses me that the author is more tolerant than some of his fans; he allowed those who aren't interested in his appendices on languages etc. to "neglect these pages; and the strange names that they meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like."

That's good because I frequently do pronounce things just as I please, mostly out of habit and that once a thing enters my mind it tends to be memorised in a certain way and it's hard to change that. Plus when I first read the books I most certainly did NOT turn to the page giving correct pronunciations first!

And anyway, I always say Tol-kin, not Tol-keen. And I don't care

Originally Posted by Legate

I did not fully realise, till the time I re-read this foreword now, that actually, the most brilliant or at least one of the best books (as some minimalists could say) in the world was written almost whole during the time of the Second World War. I mean, isn't it strange? Just think about it. I don't know what do you imagine when someone says "1939-45", probably depends on where you come from and other factors, but I think: battles, people dying, bombardements, innocent people dying, concentration camps, the most horrible deeds against humanity, gestapo, ending with an image of tanks passing through silent, half-destroyed city with houses with doors locked, blinds pulled... and now I should also add to this chain of images the image of the Professor sitting somewhere and writing LotR? This LotR? This fantastic, beautiful, kind book we all so love to read? It is in complete contrast?

Good stuff, and I can just picture Tolkien locked away in his little room writing away. Writing under the strict conditions of the blackout and limited fuel supplies, he was no doubt writing with his nose a couple of inches off the paper, hoping no chinks of light would show. If he was writing during the blitz itself, then he will also have been disturbed by air raids; I wonder if his precious drafts of Rings stayed up in his study while he joined the family in the shelter? No doubt they did.

I'm tempted now to go and look in the Companion & Guide to see what his life involved during wartime - as it must have been like mine now, not enough hours in the day!

[Guinevere]

Well, it is with this foreword as with most forewords: they contain hints that I can only fully understand after having read the book.

Perhaps forewords should begin like the introduction Tolkien started to write for "The Golden Key" : "DON'T READ THIS! Not yet."
(And he even continued to say: "I never read what are called "introductions" to tales, "fairy" or not."!)

The sentence "As for any inner meaning or "message", it has in the intention of the author none." is often quoted, but may be misunderstood , if one doesn’t add Tolkien’s words about applicability and the freedom of the reader.
Perhaps Philip Pullman's harsh judgement of LotR ("just fancy spun candy") is influenced by this? (I don't believe he's ever reread the book itself as an adult!)

I do like the foreword to the first edition better, I'm so grateful that Squatter posted it here. Where else but in the Downs would one be able to find such gems?!

Originally posted by Legate of Amon Lanc:
Exactly, I definitely thought about it, and mainly, I don't know, I would have to check, but the words "as the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches" are (almost?) word-to-word (the "threw out unexpected branches" part) the same as in one place of the Leaf by Niggle, at least in Czech translation of both.

for the exact words see my post #93 in this thread.


As for how Tolkien's life was in wartime, some of his letters to Christopher (and others) are quite informative.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

If he was writing during the blitz itself, then he will also have been disturbed by air raids; I wonder if his precious drafts of Rings stayed up in his study while he joined the family in the shelter? No doubt they did.

Oxford was never bombed- a personal order from Hitler. Of course the British didn't know that, hence JRRT's time as an air raid warden- but no huddling in a shelter listening to the explosions. The closest JRRT came was seeing the reflected light from the bombing of Coventry, over the horizon.

[Rumil]

Hi all,

I am resolved to sit in on readthrough v2.0, though any that followed the 'Battles' thread will know that this is not to be relied upon!

Anyway, before the foreword is the Ring poem. I noticed the phrase 'dark throne' this time. What would the throne of Sauron look like? Dark naturally, very tall, very spikey in all probability too. I guess the poem must date back to the Second Age?? Therefore throne destroyed by Isildur et al or survives buried until the Third Age re-occupation of Mordor? On a frankly silly note I'm tempted by the idea of the throne having various buttons, levers, trigger for the trapdoor to the spider-pit etc, in a rather disturbing 'evil Jim'll Fix It' sort of way. Think Mr Burns or Dr Evil!

Forthrightly ignoring canonicity, allegory and applicability, the timeframe of the writing does intrigue me. The start of the writers' block at Balin's tomb was late 1940. At this time of the war things looked very bleak for Britain, France had been lost, the RAF were just holding their own in the Battle of Britain and the Blitz was
starting. No surprise maybe that Tolkien lost inspiration during this time, or perhaps thought that his writing was irrelevant? Of course by late 1941 things were rather different, the USSR (and USA in December) had joined the Allies and the war looked winnable. Maybe the story germ needed a little optimism to bear the great tree that was to become Lord of the Rings?