Some really nice discussion of Tolkien's style

[dreamflower]

I was so impressed with these observations by r.a.b.t. regular Troels that I asked his permission to share it. I hope that you find the discussion as interesting as I did.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Troels Forchhammer" <troels@thisisfake.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: CoTW: Bk.3, Ch.9, "Flotsam and Jetsom"


> In message <gcqmd.17119$up1.15745@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
> >
> > Belba Grubb From Stock <barbb@dbtech.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:09:08 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
> >> <spamgard@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Shanahan <pogues@notbluefrog.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Belba Grubb From Stock <barbb@dbtech.net> typed sincerely:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Shanahan" <pogues@bluefrog.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
>
>

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<reinserting [...] higher'>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

I was so impressed with these observations by r.a.b.t. regular Troels that I asked his permission to share it. I hope that you find the discussion as interesting as I did.
<lj-cut>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Troels Forchhammer" <Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: CoTW: Bk.3, Ch.9, "Flotsam and Jetsom"


> In message <gcQmd.17119$up1.15745@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
> >
> > Belba Grubb From Stock <barbb@dbtech.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:09:08 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
> >> <spamgard@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Shanahan <pogues@NOTbluefrog.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Belba Grubb From Stock <barbb@dbtech.net> typed sincerely:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Shanahan" <pogues@bluefrog.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
>
> <reinserting bits from 'up higher' that I wish to comment upon>
>
> I'm getting more and more fascinated with the narrative style in
> Tolkien, and I've wanted to comment in this thread for a long time.
>
> Going a bit beyond the 'inside the head' stuff, though (I hope you'll
> forgive me <G>)
>
> >>>>>> Such moments are few and far between in LotR, and they *only*
> >>>>>> occur with the hobbits. (I think -- that's the theory I want to
> >>>>>> test!) The only exception I can find to this is, believe it or
> >>>>>> not, Shelob!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's a worthy study! It is rare. There is the Gandalf moment
> >>>>> or moments as Christopher mentioned. Towards the end of the
> >>>>> march toward Orodruin we get inside Sam's head, too, a bit, but
> >>>>> generally with Sam you know what he's thinking because he comes
> >>>>> right out and says it. Would Pippin's fear in Moria while on
> >>>>> guard that something was going to crawl out of the well and get
> >>>>> him count?
>
> And there's a few moment where we almost get into Gandalf's mind during
> that journey in the dark, but he comes right out and says things
> instead of just thinking it: "'I know what is the matter with me,' he
> muttered, as he sat down by the door. 'I need smoke!'"
>
> But are there other moments?
>
> Could "his cat, he calls her, but she owns him not" be counted as a
> half moment for Sauron ;-)
>
> >>>>> And Merry's thoughts as he's crawling around on the ground
> >>>>> behind the Witch-king on the Pelennor and later walking in to
> >>>>> Minas Tirith and up the streets and getting lost?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm quite sure I recall being "inside the head" of Merry and
> >>>> Pippin both, as they travel their own paths in the later books.
> >>>> Definitely Merry as he and Eowyn kill the Witch King.
> >>>
> >>> Yes. That is a good moment, and very relevant to the hobbit POV
> >>> stuff.
>
> Yes, and of course Shahanan is correct that it is more than this --
> essentially we see Minas Tirith through the eyes of Pippin and the
> Rohirrim through the eyes of Merry. The narration is mostly hobbito-
> centric in that we get to see the wider world through the eyes of
> Hobbits, but there are of course good reasons for that:
>
> "Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature,
> physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without
> guarantees. That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and
> Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is pan
> of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it
> could not be worked into the main narrative without
> destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-
> centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or
> sanctification) of the humble."
> [Letter #181, To Michael Straight [drafts] (probably January or
> February 1956)]
>
> This ennoblement is seen very clearly in Merry's comment in V,8 'The
> Houses of Healing', after he and Pippin have become alone:
>
> "But at least, Pippin, we can now see them, and honour them.
> It is best to love first what you are fitted to love, I
> suppose: you must start somewhere and have some roots, and
> the soil of the Shire is deep. Still there are things
> deeper and higher; and not a gaffer could tend his garden
> in what he calls peace but for them, whether he knows about
> them or not. I am glad that I know about them, a little.
> But I don't know why I am talking like this. Where is that
> leaf? And get my pipe out of my pack, if it isn't broken."
>
> Not only does the hobbito-centrism of LotR provide a good basis for
> this "ennoblement of the ignoble", which Tolkien found particularly
> moving (letter #165), but it also provides a basis for showcasing the
> change in world-view that accompanies such an ennoblement.
>
> >>> Much of the power of that scene comes from the fact that we
> >>> switch from the elevated prose describing the onset of Theoden and
> >>> the appearance of the Nazgul Lord, to the POV of the hobbit
> >>> (starting from the 'King's man! King's man!" bit).
>
> It is indeed powerful stuff. We switch back and forth between the
> 'high' style of narration and the individual viewpoints. We get a style
> that stirs the blood; and then we get the immediacy and intimacy of the
> personal account -- parts of this is very nearly written in first
> person: a style that is more perfectly suited for conveying the
> emotions of a single individual.
>
> These moments where we get an insight into the characters' thoughts,
> whether they speak them out loud or we have to 'hear' their thoughts in
> the narrative, help establish the emotional atmosphere of the
> situation, but also helps us understand the characters -- to identify
> with them.
>
> Doing this mostly through externalised narrative (from the characters'
> minds) as much as Tolkien does, is, IMO, brilliant -- we do get what is
> necessary without it become 'too much'.
>
> >>> I've just reread that scene, and it is amazing how the POV subtly
> >>> changes without the reader even noticing, switching back-and-forth
> >>> between individuals and narrative overviews.
> >>
> >> Christopher, I think you've put your finger on the genius of JRRT's
> >> writing, what makes it all work so well.
> >
> > Well, maybe not quite. Though it would be nice... :-)
> >
> > I agree that it is an important part of his style.
>
> As do I. Including the crucial 'part of', which tells that it does not
> stand alone. I don't think that we can isolate a single aspect of the
> style, pointing at that and say that 'this is it!' The various aspects
> of Tolkien's writing style: his mastery of the language, the themes
> . . . (I could go on forever) . . . and of course also the way the
> narrative focus and style subtly changes throughout; allowing for
> different moods to be conveyed in the style and by the character most
> eminently suited for that particular part of the tale.
>
> > I guess the same story could be told in different styles, but the
> > impact might be lessened. Imagine if the story was purely narrative
> > (like 'The Silmarillion' is mostly), or if it had a lot more
> > dialogue.
>
> Of course it could be told differently, and perhaps (at least I can't
> dismiss it entirely) it could be told just as well in another style,
> but it would severely affect the senseof the book: what we feel when we
> read it. I doubt that any other style would be as poignant as Tolkiens;
> that any other style would be as successful in this:
>
> " It is the mark of a good fairy-story, of the higher or
> more complete kind, that however wild its events, however
> fantastic or terrible the adventures, it can give to child
> or man that hears it, when the 'turn' comes, a catch of the
> breath, a beat and lifting of the heart, near to (or indeed
> accompanied by) tears, as keen as that given by any form of
> literary art, and having a peculiar quality."
> [OFS 'Recovery, Escape, Consolation']
>
> > I think the changing POV bit feeds into something I read about
> > rhythm in LotR, an essay by Ursula K. Le Guin.
>
> You don't happen to remember where you read it? It could be interesting
> to see what she had made of the narrative style in LotR.
>
> >> Where did he get the skill from, one wonders: was it native talent
> >> or a result of his expertise in philology, intense study of "Sir
> >> Gawain and the Green Knight" and other works; or ....?
> >
> > I suspect native talent, plus being widely-read (you have to read
> > before you write), plus an appreciation of words.
>
> An appreciation of words and of 'language' in general -- he does not,
> as Sayers' Lord Peter Whimsey, merely find it easy to get drunk on
> words. Tolkien, to use that analogy, got drunk on language more than
> individual words.
>
> > LotR is not perfect though. There are (probably) bits of writing
> > that could have been improved. Not many though.
>
> I'd accept that as the basis for a first order hypothesis, but I don't
> think it would work for a zeroeth order ;-)
>
> >>> As for Pippin, it is hardly suprising that we get inside his head
> >>> at the corresponding moment of battle and immense stress for him;
> >>> namely at the end of the chapter 'The Black Gate Opens'.
>
> Yes. The moments when we get completely 'inside the head' of the
> characters are mostly in these climactic situations -- situations where
> actions alone don't convey the full significance of the scene.
>
> We even get 'inside the head' of Shelob in order that we better can
> appreciate the full significance of what Sam is doing -- so that we can
> understand that we are dealing with an ancient evil who has killed
> First Age elves without fear or wound, and now this /Hobbit/ comes
> along and wounds her.
>
> It adds to the heroism of Sam's actions -- his achievement just in
> driving Shelob off becomes truly outstanding; only comparable, IMO,
> with Merry's achievement on the Pelennor Fields (among the hobbit
> achievements, that is).
>
> >>>> Definitely Sam when he's fighting Shelob and rescuing Frodo. As
> >>>> for the rest, I'm going to have to re-read.
> >>>
> >>> Part of this seeing of Sam's thoughts is because he is the only
> >>> character that is present! You could almost call it part of the
> >>> plot, as the whole chapter is about the choices Sam makes, so we
> >>> have to hear his thoughts.
>
> "It is our choices that show what we truly are" (to use another
> Rowling quotation).
>
> Tolkien goes, in this chapter as with Frodo in II,10 'The Breaking of
> the Fellowship', furhter than that -- he shows us not only the choices
> the characters make, but also how and why they make the choices they
> do. I do think that there's a certain amount of truth in Rowling's
> assertion (if applied with thought, restraint and consideration), but
> Tolkien's way gives, IMO, an even clearer pictuer of what these
> characters truly are.
>
> >>> There are many moments though where, for whatever reason, Tolkien
> >>> chooses _not_ to tell us what his characters are thinking (where a
> >>> modern author might have done so).
>
> Yes, we certainly can't blame Tolkien of 'over-psychologizing'
>
> >>> I've always been disappointed that we don't get inside Frodo's
> >>> thoughts when he claims the Ring on Mount Doom.
>
> I don't know -- I think it would have been malplaced. The point is that
> Frodo's will, at that moment, had become completely subdued, and that
> he didn't himself choose to put on the Ring. Looking, in that moment,
> inside the head of Frodo wouldn't really have told us anything about
> Frodo -- there would have been, as in IV,8 'The Stairs of Cirith Ungol'
> "was no longer any answer to that command in his own will" and Frodo
> would have felt "only the beating upon him of a great power from
> outside." This time, however, Frodo's will did not stir.
>
> ". . . positions in which the 'good' of the world depends on
> the behaviour of an individual in circumstances which
> demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal
> - even, it may happen (or seem, humanly speaking), demand a
> strength of body and mind which he does not possess: he is
> in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation
> or be broken by pressure against his 'will': that is
> against any choice he could make or would make unfettered,
> not under the duress."
> [Letter #181]
>
> To dwell on the agony and torment of that situation, to dwell on the
> thought in Frodo's mind, which were not his own, would be, IMO, very
> nearly perverted.
>
> >>>> I'm interested in this, because it's one of the things that marks
> >>>> Tolkien apart from most 20th-century fiction. It became almost
> >>>> obligatory, after Hemingway and DH Lawrence and Virginia Woolf,
> >>>> not to mention Freud, that "modern" fiction get inside the heads
> >>>> of the characters.
>
> There's a good point there, I think.
>
> The kind of stories, however, that can be successfully told in that
> style are, IMO, fundamentally different from LotR. /The Old Man and the
> Sea/ is eminently suited to that narrative style, but it would fail
> abysmally at conveying the grandeur of LotR (though it would be great
> for a number of the very personally poignant moments -- where Tolkien
> also adopts the style). It would, in other words, not be able to convey
> the full span of what is in LotR.
>
> >>>> Tolkien almost never does that -- we learn the characters through
> >>>> their outward words and deeds. This older technique is, I am
> >>>> sure, one of the things that makes Tolkien critics squick.
>
> That could very well be true ;-)
>
> Another narrative mode that Tolkien uses only very rarely is the fully
> omniscient narrator.
>
> Nearly all of the story is told in ways that are consistent with the
> story-interal tradition of its delivery -- that it is composed by
> Bilbo, Frodo and Sam with the help from their friends and later
> commented and annotated by sages in Fourth Age Gondor. The instances
> where the narrator seems more knowledgeable than that are very rare
> indeed -- rarer, I think (though I haven't formally looked into it),
> than the 'inside the heads' of the characters.
>
> The moments where we get inside the head of Shelob and hear of her
> story would qualify, I think, as would the brief glimpse of Frodo's
> arrival in the Blessed Realm. Characteristically these moments could be
> seen both as truly omniscient and as 'literary embellishments' by the
> translator.
>
> Most of the story is told from what I believe is called a 'limited
> omniscient' viewpoint -- essentially we have a third person narrator
> with a focus character: a character from whose point of view the story
> is being told. Tolkien, however, changes focus character --
> occasionally several times in a single chapter -- allowing us different
> viewpoints and the ability to follow several threads of the story
> without resorting to flashback (if we were following Frodo exclusively,
> the entirety of books III and V would have to be told as flashbacks
> after their victory). These changing narrative viewpoints also allows
> Tolkien a way to play with the language of the narrative -- depending
> on the situation he can adapt the linguistic style by changing the
> narrative focus; IMO a brilliant technique which is uniqely suited for
> a large, complex and epic story such as LotR.
>
> I don't know if there is an established word or phrase to describe this
> kind of narrative voice, but I find it interesting.
>
> The narrative style is also, I believe, linked to the story-internal
> tradition -- the narrative deceit of the story, so to speak.
>
> The viewpoint and knowledge of the original story is quite limited,
> even if Gandalf did explain a lot of things to Frodo and his friends in
> Minas Tirith. What we get at this level is the knowledge that was
> available to the characters after the Return of the King.
>
> We get a bit more knowledge from later comments -- scholars of Gondor
> who inserted the tale of Aragorn and Arwen etc.
>
> Then there's the special comments inserted by Tolkien the translator --
> the express train and possibly the thinking fox in the early chapters.
>
> Finally Tolkien the author does represent full omniscience (as
> evidenced in the letters and other writings), but he very rarely
> intercedes in the actual story (and in many cases this could,
> story-internally, be interpreted as literary embellishments by the
> translator or earlier authors/commentators).
>
> I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this -- I'm amazed at how the
> various aspects of the narrative style fit together. Even the
> reluctance to use an 'in the head' style can be seen in connection
> with the layered authorship -- it's not surprise, really, that the
> Hobbits were unwilling to go into too many details about what they
> thought or how they felt in this or that situation ;-)
>
> As for the effect of Tolkien's writing style, I think this integration
> of the various aspects is an important thing. If these different
> aspects didn't fit so well together, I don't think that it would have
> worked.
>
--
> Troels Forchhammer
>
> You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it
> turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
> - Anne Lamott</lj-cut>

This is from the still ongoing discussion of "Flotsam and Jetsom" in Chapter of the Week although we have already moved on as far as "The Muster of Rohan"
>

Comments

[rhapsody11.livejournal.com]

Oh wow! The last time I peaked into those newsgroup there was a flamewar going on. I think I am gonna load the headers quickly!

[dreamflower]

There are still occasional flamefests, but it's died down a bit. r.a.b.t. is less OT than a.f.t. I usually just ignore OT posts, and when I'm pressed for time, all I follow are the Chapter of the Week discussions, which have been absolutely wonderful. I'm feeling rather sad that we are beginning to come to the end.

[rhapsody11.livejournal.com]

True so true, I guess I peaked inside a.f.t. at the moment things were amiss. r.a.b.t. is a very high volume list, but both groups always had great posters with insightfull posts. Thank you for sharing!