|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Sep 3 2008, 3:54am
Post #1 of 7
(1552 views)
Shortcut
|
|
RotK side-discussion: Tolkien’s plot synopses.
|
Can't Post
|
|
I had hoped to post this over the weekend, between Dreamdeer and drogo’s scheduled discussions, but ran out of time. As we move into The Return of the King, I’d like to take a quick look at the synopses that accompany three-volume versions of The Lord of the Rings. As you know, LotR was originally published in three parts in 1954-1955. The first and second volumes conclude with short previews of the upcoming story, while the second and third volumes begin with summaries of the action so far. I believe Tolkien wrote all these summaries. (Does anyone know otherwise?)
The preview at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring is so short that I give it in full:
Here ends the first part of the history of the War of the Ring.
The second part is called THE TWO TOWERS, since the events recounted in it are dominated by ORTHANC, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of MINAS MORGUL that guards the secret entrance to Mordor; it tells of the deeds and perils of all the members of the now sundered fellowship, until the coming of the Great Darkness.
The third part tells of the last defence against the Shadow, and the end of the mission of the Ring-bearer in THE RETURN OF THE KING.
This preview reappears in shorter form at the end of The Two Towers, omitting the long second sentence, and changing the word “first” to “second” in the first sentence.
1. Along with Tolkien’s artwork for the cover of The Two Towers, this note clearly identifies the towers in question. So why does the question of their identity come up so often?
2. Does Tolkien give away too much by mentioning the “secret entrance” and “Great Darkness”?
The synopsis that opens TT is about 550 words long. Of the summary of FotR, just one paragraph (18%) is devoted to Book I, that told the story of Frodo’s journey to Rivendell. The only names mentioned for that book are Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn, and Elrond (though Samwise, Meriadoc, and Peregrin are mentioned in the description of Book II). Not even the attack at Weathertop is mentioned.
3. If Book I can be written off so quickly in summary, why leave the actual text as long as it is? (Book I is longer than Book II, even if you don’t count the Prologue.)
The summary of Book II begins by noting the decision reached at the Council of Elrond, and listing the members of the Fellowhsip, and then describes chapters 3 through 9, the journey from Rivendell to Parth Galen, as follows:
The Companions journeyed in secret far from Rivendell in the North, until baffled in their attempt to cross the high pass of Caradhras in winter, they were led by Gandalf through the hidden gate and entered the vast Mines of Moria, seeking a way beneath the mountains. There Gandalf, in battle with a dreadful spirit of the underworld, fell into a dark abyss. But Aragorn, now revealed as the hidden heir of the ancient Kings of the West, led the company on from the East Gate of Moria, through the Elvish land of Lórien, and down the great River Anduin, until they came to the Falls of Rauros. Already they had become aware that their journey was watched by spies, and that the creature Gollum, who once had possessed the Ring and still lusted for it, was following their trail.
4. What (or who) is missing, that should be mentioned? What could be omitted from this description?
The summary concludes with a description of the last chapter of FotR, including Boromir’s fall from grace and the statement that “by a sudden attack of orc-soldiers, some in the service of the Dark Lord of Mordor, some of the traitor Saruman of Isengard.”
5. No orc attack is mentioned in FotR. Is this just a mistake? What other reason could Tolkien have for including it here?
As FotR concludes, the summary reports, “The Quest of the Ring-bearer seemed already overtaken by disaster.”
6. Is that how the end of FotR feels to you? Why or why not?
This summary of FotR is copied to the synopsis that opens RotK with only the slightest changes of punctuation and language, possibly unintentional. Then the summary continues with TT. The order of the opening chapters is reversed, with the escape of Merry and Pippin and their meeting with Treebeard mentioned before the pursuit of the Three Hunters.
7. Does the summary misrepresent the story for the new reader by flattening out the plot this way, and losing the tone of mystery?
Then the synopsis mentions Gandalf healing Théoden of Wormtongue’s spells, the fight at Helm’s Deep, the Ents’ sack of Isengard, and Saruman “desposed” by Gandalf. The most notable omission is Éowyn, who is never mentioned.
8. What difficulties will her absence here give the new reader of RotK?
Until 2004, a sentence here said that the stone cast from Orthanc by Wormtongue “proved to be one of the three surviving palantíri, the Seeing Stones of Númenor.” But there are actually four surviving stones, so with Christopher Tolkien’s consent the text has been changed.
9. Should it have been?
The summary of Book III concludes by referring to “the coming of a Nazgûl over the plains of Rohan, a Ringwraith mounted on a flying steed”. This is the first mention of either term for the Black Riders.
10. Which of Tolkien’s multiple names in LotR confused you on early readings? For instance, did you ever think that “Nazgûl” referred only to flying Ringwraiths?
After summarizing the journey of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum in fairly clear terms, the synopsis concludes:
This, the third and last part, will tell of the opposing strategies of Gandalf and Sauron, until the final catastrophe and the end of the great darkness. We return first to the fortunes of battle in the West.
11. What are the “strategies” of Gandalf and Sauron?
12. Is Tolkien giving away his ending?
13. Did you or someone you know read the books out of order? In that case, did these synopses help? Are they meant for readers who skipped the first book(s), or only as refreshers?
Tolkien wrote these summaries when there was no reason to believe LotR would appear as a one-volume text.
14. Are the synopses essential parts of LotR? Are readers who only encounter LotR in one-volume format missing anything important by not reading these summaries?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Aug. 25-31 for "The Choices of Master Samwise".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Gondolin
Sep 3 2008, 8:23am
Post #2 of 7
(1092 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Synopses? There were synopses?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
All this time I never noticed! I guess I was just too keen to move on to the next book! On reflection, I think if I had seen them I would probably have assumed they were publisher puffery and ignored them anyway.
Very interesting, thanks NEB!
Danielle and Tiger, 8/31/08
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Sep 3 2008, 8:27am)
|
|
|
a.s.
Doriath
Sep 3 2008, 11:00am
Post #3 of 7
(1083 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'd love to know who "a reader" was, who in 1987
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
pointed out to Christopher Tolkien (according to my Hammond and Scull LOTR Companion) that there were actually four palantiri, and not the three mentioned in the synopsis. Editions after 2005 (again, according to H&S) now read "four".
My second edition HMs say "three".
1. Along with Tolkien’s artwork for the cover of The Two Towers, this note clearly identifies the towers in question. So why does the question of their identity come up so often?
Again, H&S indicate that there was back and forth correspondence between Tolkien and Unwin regarding the identification of the two Towers (see "Letters" starting Aug 53). One of the letters from Tolkien says "There is, of course, actually no real connecting link between Books III and IV, when cut off and presented separately as a volume!"
"Unwin replied on 27 January: 'I should not worry over much about the title of this last book; it sounds pleasant and the reader can exercise his imagination (or perhaps his speculative powers) on deciding which two towers were intended' (Tolkien-George Allen & Unwin archive, HarperCollins)."
"Tolkien's first rough dust-jacket design for The Two Towers shows Baradur (probably) and Minas Tirith with Mount Doom between them; but a second sketch has Minas Morgul and Orthanc, and it was from this that Tolkien developed his final design. There Minas Morgul is clearly identified by a crescent moon above and nine rings below, and Orthanc as it appears elsewhere in Tolkien's art, but with a blood-spattered white hand below."
Because my dust jackets are ambiguous (just reddish/black marbled design overlaid with a title block),
(bad picture quality, sorry) the cloth cover only has a ring and an eye, and because I didn't read the synopses until after I'd read the books many times, I never really knew there was any kind of question about which two towers were intended. For some reason, in my mind I always just assumed Orthanc and Baradur. Not sure why I chose those two, it wasn't a conscious decision and never interefered in any way with my enjoyment of the reading.
Interesting topic!!
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Sep 3 2008, 2:31pm
Post #4 of 7
(1065 views)
Shortcut
|
The first and second volumes conclude with short previews of the upcoming story, while the second and third volumes begin with summaries of the action so far. I believe Tolkien wrote all these summaries. (Does anyone know otherwise?)
It must have been Tolkien, yes, though direct references are rather vague. In Descriptive Bibliography, Hammond records that on 16 July 1954, “Tolkien returns corrected proof of TT ‘title page, synopses, etc.’”. Hammond also records that “the note at the end of the volume [TT], ‘Here ends the second part ...’, was added with the second impression (1955).” In Chronology, Scull and Hammond have a few additional notes: on 4 March 1954, “two pages have been left at the beginning of the volume [TT] for a synopsis of The Fellowship of the Ring and a mention of The Return of the King.” Tolkien sent the synopsis on 7 May. For 8 May, Scull and Hammond tell us Tolkien “has not yet written a synopsis of the previous volumes of The Lord of the Rings [..].” See also subsequent references on 13 and 18 May. By 17 August, “W.N. Beard [..] needs a synopsis of the first two volumes of The Lord of the Rings.” 15 September, “Tolkien sends corrected galley proofs [of RK, ...] with a draft synopsis for the beginning of the volume.”
That’s about all I was able to find on short notice, but it seems pretty conclusive to me. :)
1. Along with Tolkien’s artwork for the cover of The Two Towers, this note clearly identifies the towers in question. So why does the question of their identity come up so often?
a.s. has mentioned Tolkien’s correspondence with Allen & Unwin, but I thought I would give two specific quotes in fuller form. In Letter #140 (17 August 1953), Tolkien says, “The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 and 4; and can be left ambiguous – it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dûr, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol.” Shortly after, in Letter #143 (22 January 1954), Tolkien has second thoughts: “I am not at all happy about the title ‘the Two Towers’. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading. There is, of course, actually no real connecting link between Books III and IV, when cut off and presented separately as a volume.”
The question seems to come up so often, then, because there was genuine ambiguity, or at least ambivalence, about it on Tolkien’s part. Still, you raise a good point, N.E.B., which leads into a follow-up question: to what degree are elements of the paratext to be regarded as canon (even when their source appears to be Tolkien)?
5. No orc attack is mentioned in FotR. Is this just a mistake? What other reason could Tolkien have for including it here?
Yes, I suppose it’s a mistake in timing, though really, we know from the opening of The Two Tower that the orc attack began more or less simultaneously with Sam and Frodo’s departure. I think it’s a slip of mere minutes. But it’s an interesting slip nonetheless.
6. Is that how the end of FotR feels to you [“already overtaken by disaster”]? Why or why not?
No, again, I think Tolkien is conflating the end of Fellowship with the opening of Towers. A minor slip, but a slip.
The summary of Book III concludes by referring to “the coming of a Nazgûl over the plains of Rohan, a Ringwraith mounted on a flying steed”. This is the first mention of either term for the Black Riders.
You mean the first mention of them in The Return of the King, I assume. Because the terms Ringwraiths and Nazgûl first occur in “The Shadow of the Past” and “The Council of Elrond”, respectively.
12. Is Tolkien giving away his ending?
Yes, more or less. He's hinting at it, anyway, though I guess the real suspense lies in what "the end of the great darkness" will cost the characters we have come to love. Tolkien had much earlier expressed concern that even the title of the third volume gave away the farm. I guess he had made his peace with it by this time.
13. Did you or someone you know read the books out of order? In that case, did these synopses help? Are they meant for readers who skipped the first book(s), or only as refreshers?
No, but I do remember picking up The Return of the King first from my junior high school library. But I was no more than a few paragraphs in before I realized my mistake, put it back, looked at the three volumes more closely, and picked up Fellowship. That must have been in 1981 or 1982. I don't remember now, but it's entirely possible that I actually used the synopses (in part) to determine which was the first book.
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
The Lord of the Rings discussion 2007-2008 – The Two Towers – III.4 “Treebeard” – Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
(This post was edited by visualweasel on Sep 3 2008, 2:33pm)
|
|
|
acheron
Mithlond
Sep 3 2008, 2:35pm
Post #5 of 7
(1076 views)
Shortcut
|
I read originally as a one-volume set, so a) I never saw the synopses, and b) I never distinguished events between books very well. So I used to assume Minas Tirith/Minas Morgul, since a lot is made out of the opposites there. If I had thought about it, I would have realized that Minas Tirith has nothing to do with book 3 or 4, so it wouldn't have made a lot of sense, but I never did (think about it).
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons. -- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Sep 3 2008, 3:04pm
Post #6 of 7
(1051 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A gap which needed to be filled
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thanks for filling it!
Unlike the regular chapters, the synopsis is really something which I felt couldn't be discussed without re-reading it; so I did.
1. Along with Tolkien’s artwork for the cover of The Two Towers, this note clearly identifies the towers in question. So why does the question of their identity come up so often?
Because it's not really convincing. My first reads were from the first Hebrew translation, which had no preview, synopsis or appendices in it. I used to think (based on Frodo's vision on Amon Hen) it should mean Barad-dur and Minas Tirith - but neither appeared in this volume, so I gave up guessing. The two towers Tolkien mentions here are not obviously connected, so it quite puzzled me.
The letter a.s. quoted shows Tolkien himself realised the name is ambiguous, and decided to leave it at that. Also, I seem to recall a previous discussion in which more sources were brought to question the identification Tolkien gave.
2. Does Tolkien give away too much by mentioning the “secret entrance” and “Great Darkness”?
No. The most you could say is that it gives away too much to the first-time reader of book four. But if he remembers that, he will read the table of contents and see that the Black Gate is reached on chapter three and is closed; and later you have herbs and a pool (both unlikely in Mordor) and a Cross-roads which might be the one at the Southren end of Udun (such a dilligent reader will have consulted the map), but is unlkikely to be so.
3. If Book I can be written off so quickly in summary, why leave the actual text as long as it is? (Book I is longer than Book II, even if you don’t count the Prologue.)
In book one Tolkien was trying to find a story. The hobbits amble along, with nothing save Aragorn and the Riders being really important. We do get a lot of character developement, but that's not a part of a plot summary.
Note that Tolkien himself was the first to consider Tom Bombadil as inessential for the plot!
4. What (or who) is missing, that should be mentioned? What could be omitted from this description?
Glorfindel, as usual. The attacks on the Company - wolves, orcs in Moria, on the Anduin. The phial of Galadriel and Galadriel herself, although when her name is mentioned by Legolas in 'The Passing of the Grey Company', Gimli immediately identifies her as the Lady of the Wood. (in TTT the identifying is a bit more complex, but still could be easily made)
The most interesting part here is that Aragorn was revealed as the hidden heir of the ancient Kings of the West - which he wasn't really before the Gates of Argonath.
What could be left out? Caradhras; but perhaps it was important to show that Gandalf was reluctant to lead them to Moria. Also, for TTT readers - without this, Frodo's telling Faramir of Boromir's valiance on Caradhras is inexplicable (you know, it's quite interesting to speculate about a reader perceptive enough to remembver the synopsis, but who has never read FotR, isn't it?).
5. No orc attack is mentioned in FotR. Is this just a mistake? What other reason could Tolkien have for including it here?
Bugged me each time I read it. There are the harsh cries Frodo hears, but nothing more.
6. Is that how the end of FotR feels to you? Why or why not?
No, not really. But had this part of the story been a part of FotR, I might have thought of it.
Thanks, NEB! I'll try and answer the other questions later.
And I apologise to drogo; I do plan to answer his questions, too.
"Don't believe what strangers say of themselves!" - Pippin
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Sep 3 2008, 9:43pm
Post #7 of 7
(1042 views)
Shortcut
|
7. Does the summary misrepresent the story for the new reader by flattening out the plot this way, and losing the tone of mystery?
No. What good would the knowledge that the reader was baffled with Aragorn nineteen chapters ago, do to someone who hasn't read TTT?
The temptation of Galadriel (and the meaning of her passing it to Elves in general) is important for the story, as is that of Faramir (which was mentioned in the synopsis of book IV). The riddles the Three Hunters had to puzzle, are not.
8. What difficulties will her absence here give the new reader of RotK?
None, I think. In TTT, Eowyn seems less important than Hama.
Of course, she is tremendously important; but (unless the reader is obsessively concerned with cherchez le femme), most of her importance is revealed on a second reading (or reading after seeing the movies), with the benefit of hindsight. Her short dialogue with Aragorn is very poignant, but it is only a foreshadowing.
All the information about Eowyn the reader needs, will be in chapters 2 and 3.
It's interesting that Arwen wasn't mentioned, either. But most first-time readers only register that she is the daughter of Elrond, and therefore that Aragorn's marrying her was reinvigorating the blood of Numenor. And attentive ones would guess there is a deeper vein by the message and standard Halbarad brings (although they might think the Lady of Rivendell is Elrond's wife).
9. Should it have been?
I wonder. It could mean the three surviving stones in the South, or the three stones which interact with each other, or the three which survey Middle-Earth. It looks like a mistake by Tolkien - but is it can be quite easily explained away, why rewrite him?
10. Which of Tolkien’s multiple names in LotR confused you on early readings? For instance, did you ever think that “Nazgûl” referred only to flying Ringwraiths?
visualweasel assumed you've slipped with those names, while I assumed on my first reading you meant 'the first time in the synopsis'. And yes, it is rather confusing.
No, I don't remember what I thought in my first readings.
11. What are the “strategies” of Gandalf and Sauron?
Gandalf and whom?
In the synopsis we have 'the Enemy' twice (and we learn it is a 'him'), and then 'the Dark Lord of Mordor' (which we knew was 'the Land of the Enemy himself'). Then we learn that Pippin was revealed to sauron, and are left to jump to our own conclusions.
It seems that Tolkien wants to introduce the reader of the synopsis to his technique of name-dropping!
12. Is Tolkien giving away his ending?
Not any more than by the title of the book. And the names of chapters 3-7 of book VI also reveal quite a bit - although the the last teo chapters come as a surprise!
13. Did you or someone you know read the books out of order? In that case, did these synopses help? Are they meant for readers who skipped the first book(s), or only as refreshers?
I did; I am a Bakshi-firster, and then I found TTT in a library, and went on to RotK.
But the first translation to Hebrew didn't have the synopsis in it, so it didn't help me that much....
14. Are the synopses essential parts of LotR? Are readers who only encounter LotR in one-volume format missing anything important by not reading these summaries?
The Two Towers which Tolkien meant. The way he saw the last day of Boromir's life. These are the things I've learned.
Four additional notes: - Saruman is said to have been deposed by Gandalf - of what exactly?
- Tolkien assumes we know what elves, dwarves and orcs are. Fair enough. He does explain the Balrog, though, and calls Ents 'the Tree-folk', actually naming only Treebeard as the Ent (which he did himself, butwith a capital T).
- Has anyone noticed that Boromir succumbs to the lure of the Ring (the 'succumbing' word came from the description of Faramir), while Pippin succumbs to the lure of the Stone?
- It's interesting that Tolkien finishes with the clang of the gates.
On might argue that points 2 and 3 also teach us some new things about Tolkien's work.
"Don't believe what strangers say of themselves!" - Pippin
|
|
|
|
|
