|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 26 2009, 7:35am
Post #1 of 33
(3428 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Numenorean Kingdoms, pre-discussion - appendices in general
|
Can't Post
|
|
What are we doing here at all?
Sixty two chapters. Plenty of characters – I can count at least ninety-six who spoke, and are clearly identified by name or title (not including the fox). Multiple endings – catastrophes, eucatastrophes, some living happily ever after, some bittersweet growing up, some heartbreaking partings. The Dark Lord has been defeated, the King has returned, a New Age has began. Cool. We had great fun; now it is time to close the book, lovingly put it back on the shelf, and take another.
But no – we need to go through a hundred and twenty seven extra pages. What for? A chronology is nice, but then we get explanations of languages, letters, geneology of people who sixty-one chapters ago were mentioned in passing, and calendars. Calendars! What’s going on?
1. Do you think there is a need for appendices, let alone so many? Do they interest you? Did you actually read them all, ever?
2. Try to put yourself in a first-time reader’s shoes (or if you remember, answer for yourself) – would/did the sheer volume of the appendices appeal to you? Impress you? Frighten you?
3. If nothing else, Tolkien reaches Mount Doom with half of RotK still unread. Is he gambling on his audience’s attention?
One thing must be said for (against?) the appendices: they are the reason why I’m here at all.
Yes, that’s right. When I first read LotR, it was the old Hebrew translation I borrowed from a library, and then bought the three volumes in various bookshops. It was nice, but not enough for annual re-reading. I read them a couple of times, and knew that was a book I liked.
Some four years later (I think), I was in a bookshop in Tel Aviv, which specialised in English books. I had an extra hour to spend, so I popped in, saw LotR on the shelf – and was extremely puzzled; for some uninteiligeable reason, RotK was the thickest of the three! I took the book from the shelf, and found myself peering at appendices I never knew existed, with answers to questions I’ve asked myself previously, lots of background (which quite changed a few misconceptions I had before) – in short, the hour became much more, and I came out of that shop determined to buy the books again, but this time in the original language (I had to puzzle out appendix F) – which as I’ve learned since, is always the better option (in fact, if you ask my opinion, a translation to English is invariably better than one to Hebrew – except for translations from two languages: Arabic and Russian). The appendices opened up this world for me, explaining things I’ve puzzled about, adding a wealth of other information, and enhancing each subsequent re-reading for me.
In short, I was hooked. And here I am. And here you are – about to discuss with me the first four parts of appendix A, dealing with the Numenoran Kingdoms. And this discussion is going to be very different from the one Kelvarhin led last week (Get well soon, Kel!).
To such, however, as do not choose to go so far back into these things, I can give no better advice, than that they skip the remaining part of this chapter; for I declare beforehand, ‘tis written only for the curious and the inquisitive.
----------------------------------------------Shut the door-----------------------------------------------------------------
(Bonus silly question: were are the above four lines taken from?
Hint: a book Tolkien surely knew of, and if he did read it – he most surely disliked it)
Before we start our discussion (later today), I want to mention the conceit Tolkien loves so much (see the forewords he wrote for the first edition) – that LotR is based on the Red Book.
In the Note on the Shire Records (his appendix to the prologue), he mentions several copies of the Red Book were in several libraries in the Shire, and that the most important copy, was in the Great Smials, and was written in Gondor by Findegil the King’s Writer.
4. Persumably, that copy is the source of this book. Do you think this might reflect on the material brought and presented in the appendices?
5. Are there any traces of a Gondor-centric or an Aragorn-centric prejudice within LotR itself?
In the appendices, Tolkien purports to wearing at least five different hats; apart of the selections from the Red Book, he identifies four different types of material:
Actual extracts from longer annals and tales are placed within quotation marks. Insertions of later date are enclosed in brackets. Notes within quotation marks are found in the sources. Others are editorial.
6. Do you find this complex state of affairs helpful, or irritating? Do you bear it in mind, or do you try to ignore it?
7. In UT, Christopher Tolkien did quite the same thing – he separated clearly between notes coming from his father’s scattered writings, and his own editorial notes. Was this the most convinient way of presenting the material, or was he conciously following his father’s example?
In this week's discussion, we’ll try to bear these distinctions in mind, and see where they take us. Also, one must note that there are editorial notes within the text of LotR itself.
8. How many such instances are there? I can recall three (not counting the Prologue, in which there are four more) – one in each volume. Why so few?
9. Any other thought or comments about the editorial style of the Appendices?
Later today, we’ll start with the brief summary of the Silmarillion given at the start of section (i).
"That is a chapter of ancient history which it might be good to recall; for there was sorrow then too, and gathering dark, but great valour, and great deeds that were not wholly vain."
Thus Gandalf. But Elrond was deflating:
"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories".
We've reached The Grey Havens last week, but the discussion still goes on!
Join us for appendix A, i-iv - the Numenorean kingdoms.
(This post was edited by sador on Jan 26 2009, 7:37am)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jan 26 2009, 5:09pm
Post #2 of 33
(2895 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Do you think there is a need for appendices, let alone so many? Do they interest you? Did you actually read them all, ever? Why yes, I did read them all. I wanted more! It made the book so much more real for me, not neatly contained within the covers, but branching out into mistily-glimpsed avenues that I knew would lead to still more avenues, should I ever explore them, and still more beyond my capacity to explore--like a real world, in other words. I regret very much that all of the HoME stuff came out only much later, when I no longer had the generous book budget of my youth, nor the time for hours and hours of reading, and now that my eyes are too tired for much even if I had both time and money. If they'd have come into my reach in my youth, I'd have devoured them like a starving lion! Except that I do have this quibble. Christopher Tolkien rides roughshod over the willing suspension of disbelief. JRR Tolkien would never say, "In setting up the background for my book, I calculated the dates thus and so..." No! He says, "The Shire based their calendar on this, while men based theirs on something else, but the Elves were inspired to calculate dates altogether differently thus..." JRR played magic tricks on us, and we loved it, but Christopher showed us the trap doors in the stage floor and the secret pullies behind the curtain. I think he could have played with us more.
2. Try to put yourself in a first-time reader’s shoes (or if you remember, answer for yourself) – would/did the sheer volume of the appendices appeal to you? Impress you? Frighten you? They utterly enchanted me! The book ended, yet did not end. I could find out what happened to all of the characters, what went on elsewhere, what past built up to things--without the urgency and suspense necessary for a novel, just this luxurious, leisurely dessert.
3. If nothing else, Tolkien reaches Mount Doom with half of RotK still unread. Is he gambling on his audience’s attention?
Not really. He doesn't much care. If you like the story itself without desiring embellishments, fine! If you prefer the rest of the story, he provides that, too. He's a good host who provides for different tastes in different ways.
4. Persumably, that copy is the source of this book. Do you think this might reflect on the material brought and presented in the appendices? How could it not?
5. Are there any traces of a Gondor-centric or an Aragorn-centric prejudice within LotR itself?
Yes. We learn something of Aragorn's activities even without hobbits present. We don't follow Theoden or Eomer nearly so closely, though we have some glimpses of their viewpoints at the Battle of Pellenor Field (sp?) 6. Do you find this complex state of affairs helpful, or irritating? Do you bear it in mind, or do you try to ignore it? I find it entertaining. If I don't always bear it in mind, it's because I forget it sometimes, not because I'm trying to ignore it. Whenever I remember it, it adds nuances to my pleasure.
7. In UT, Christopher Tolkien did quite the same thing – he separated clearly between notes coming from his father’s scattered writings, and his own editorial notes. Was this the most convinient way of presenting the material, or was he conciously following his father’s example? Neither. It was the most ethical way to present someone else's material.
8. How many such instances are there? I can recall three (not counting the Prologue, in which there are four more) – one in each volume. Why so few? I'm robbing time from housework to answer this, so I'm not going to thumb through the book to count stuff.
9. Any other thought or comments about the editorial style of the Appendices?
Not yet.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
simplyaven
Hithlum
Jan 26 2009, 7:59pm
Post #3 of 33
(2946 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Do you think there is a need for appendices, let alone so many? Do they interest you? Did you actually read them all, ever?
Definitely there is need for them. LOTR is not simply series of three fantasy books but part of a legendarium which happened in a whole new world. All this deserves pre-history and explanations. They interest me a lot. In fact, I re-read them quite often. And yes, I've read them all a number of times.
2. Try to put yourself in a first-time reader’s shoes (or if you remember, answer for yourself) – would/did the sheer volume of the appendices appeal to you? Impress you? Frighten you?
I don't remember the first time I read them as it was 20 years ago but the first time I can recall I enjoyed the Appendices a lot, and they provoked my interest towards other Tolkien works about ME.
3. If nothing else, Tolkien reaches Mount Doom with half of RotK still unread. Is he gambling on his audience’s attention?
No. He appeals tot hose who always want to look behind the curtain, to know more, to read more, to ask questions and search for answers. There are different types of readers and while some would be content with the story itself, others will require more attention. Tolkien provides it.
4. Persumably, that copy is the source of this book. Do you think this might reflect on the material brought and presented in the appendices?
As with every written pice, it depends on what/who the sources were. If it's based on many people's stories, then there would be no such influence or it would be very slight. if it's based on the writer's own perception - of course it will reflect the material strongly.
5. Are there any traces of a Gondor-centric or an Aragorn-centric prejudice within LotR itself?
Mmm, I'd say not exactly centrism. If Frodo is playing the leading role, then there are two equally important supporting figures - Gandalf and Aragorn. Gandalf because of his "appointment" by the Powers and his involvement with the hobbits and respectively with the Ring, but also with the restoration of the Men's King. Aragorn - because of his heritage and also his involvement with both Gandalf and the hobbits. Gondor is of course very important as it's the kingdom to have the King and one of the ancient kingdoms of Numenoreans. Having said that, I think all these are mentioned as often as needed (more often than Rohan for example) but it's justified by the backstory and is far from centrism, IMHO.
6. Do you find this complex state of affairs helpful, or irritating? Do you bear it in mind, or do you try to ignore it?
Helpful and I try to remember them.
7. In UT, Christopher Tolkien did quite the same thing – he separated clearly between notes coming from his father’s scattered writings, and his own editorial notes. Was this the most convinient way of presenting the material, or was he conciously following his father’s example?
I'll second Dreamdeer on this - it's ethical.
8. How many such instances are there? I can recall three (not counting the Prologue, in which there are four more) – one in each volume. Why so few?
Instances? If you mean the editorial notes - I don't know how many they are but since it hasn't spoiled my impression of the book (s), I assume they are enough and well placed 
9. Any other thought or comments about the editorial style of the Appendices?
Thank you for the thought-provoking questions! It's a discussion I will follow with great interest.
Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Bright new in the New Year - January 15 on the Main board
I believe
|
|
|
Elros
Ossiriand
Jan 27 2009, 1:01am
Post #4 of 33
(2874 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Do you think there is a need for appendices, let alone so many? I wouldn't say there is a need, so much, but it does help explain all the vague references only Tolkien knew about at the time of the publishing. Without ever understanding many of these references, LOTR is still a fantastic story, but the appendices only make it better. Do they interest you? See my subject heading.  Did you actually read them all, ever? I actually read the appendices many times before I actually read the story. I just never had time to start such a large volume, but the short segments that make up the appendices were perfect and fascinating. Although, I've never read them all. I just can't muster up any interest whatsoever in the languages and writing. I guess I'm the anti-Tolkien in that regards.
2. Try to put yourself in a first-time reader’s shoes (or if you remember, answer for yourself) – would/did the sheer volume of the appendices appeal to you? Impress you? Frighten you? Appeal with a capital A.
5. Are there any traces of a Gondor-centric or an Aragorn-centric prejudice within LotR itself? It's not prejudice towards Gondor or Aragorn. It's recognition of the achievements of the Edain and their descendants, of which Gondor was the chief realm of the age and Aragorn the rightful King.
7. In UT, Christopher Tolkien did quite the same thing – he separated clearly between notes coming from his father’s scattered writings, and his own editorial notes. Was this the most convinient way of presenting the material, or was he conciously following his father’s example? I found Christopher's method of varying the font size quite easy to follow, although I did get annoyed having to flip back and forth between the "chapters" and the notes at the end.
9. Any other thought or comments about the editorial style of the Appendices? The appendices were what truly got me hooked on the 'literary' LOTR. If it wasn't for the concise way in which Tolkien told the backstory of Middle Earth, I most likely would have been inclined to read the books once after having seen the movies and moved on to something else. Instead, I read the Silmarillion regularly, and have read UT, The Hobbit, and LOTR multiple times. That was the best 127 extra pages Tolkien ever produced in his life!
|
|
|
batik
Dor-Lomin
Jan 27 2009, 2:25am
Post #5 of 33
(2959 views)
Shortcut
|
Those appendices...
I find them very helpful and interesting but don't know that they are *needed*. The story in itself could stand alone as a fantastic tale--the appendices allowed me to go further than the *end* of LotR. For some, this section could qualify as 'nice to know, but not relevent'. For others that want to really explore M-e and beyond, the Appendices are kind of the *jumping off* point. Have I read them staight through, every word...no. I tend to move around--researching whatever needs researching!
and the volume...
impressive!
the audience's attention...
Did Tolkien expect the reader to go directly from the *ending* and read straight through the Appendices? I didn't. I let the story sink in for a bit then visited the last section randomly.
silly bonus question answer...
Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman
Source of this book...
Whew! That's some question, sador! Well, "Notes.." tells us "this account ...is drawn mainly from the Red Book..." then goes on to inform us of how the "most important copy..." came to be. The use of *mainly* indicates other sources, yes? What/whoever these *other* sources are very likely to have made an impact of the story as we now read it.
As for it being "G" or "A"-centric...
Hmmm...the account becomes important in the Shire but is also valued outside of the Shire (at least in Gondor). Written by Hobbits but maybe with other sources--reported to be in the hands of Men for the copying. And the race of *Men* is the current audience. If there's any leaning towards a culture I'd say it's towards that of Men. Not so much a specific place or person.
(This post was edited by batik on Jan 27 2009, 2:26am)
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 27 2009, 6:18am
Post #6 of 33
(2954 views)
Shortcut
|
Book 1, chapter 4, actually.
Isn't this just the book Tolkien would have hated?
By the way, the "Here I am... Here you are" is also based on something, but that might be too obscure.
"That is a chapter of ancient history which it might be good to recall; for there was sorrow then too, and gathering dark, but great valour, and great deeds that were not wholly vain."
Thus Gandalf. But Elrond was deflating:
"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories".
We've reached The Grey Havens last week, but the discussion still goes on!
Join us for appendix A, i-iv - the Numenorean kingdoms.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jan 27 2009, 6:42am
Post #7 of 33
(3437 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ten footnotes in the main text; eighty-nine in the prologue and appendices.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That's my count after searching just now. There are four in the Prologue, fifty in Appendix A, nine in Appendix B, eight in Appendix D, twelve in Appendix E, and six in Appendix F.
These are the notes in the main text:
- - - - - - - - - -
At the Sign of the Prancing Pony
For Sunday* there’s a special pair
*See note 2, p. 1111
She* hardly believed her fiery eyes;
*Elves (and Hobbits) always refer to the Sun as She.
Strider
The Sickle* was swinging bright above the shoulders of Bree-hill.
*The Hobbits’ name of the Plough or Great Bear.
Flight to the Ford
journeying in your land beyond the Baranduin,*
*The Brandywine River.
Lothlórien
Legolas looked up and answered in the same language.*
*See note in Appendix F: Of the Elves.
Treebeard
Taurelilómëa-tumbalemorna Tumbaletaurëa Lómëanor*
*See Appendix F under Ents.
Flotsam and Jetsam
‘Only nine days ago!’ he said.*
*Every month in the Shire-calendar had 30 days.
The Tower of Cirith Ungol
or one of the filthy tarks,*
*See Appendix F, 1131.
The Field of Cormallen
the eighth day of April in the Shire-reckoning.*
*There were thirty days in March (or Rethe) in the Shire calendar.
The Scouring of the Shire
A sign of affection, possibly.*
*It was probably Orkish in origin: sharkû, ‘old man’.
- - - - - - - - - -
There is also a long endnote that concludes Appendix F. And beginning with the 2005 edition, one further footnote has been added to that appendix by Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull, concerning the appearance of the Eldar. Apart from that one, the notes are all Tolkien's, though any page numbers cited have been changed to keep up with varying editions, along with the language of the very first footnote to Appendix A, that specifies which edition of The Hobbit is being cited.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Jan. 26-Feb. 1 for Appendix A on Númenor, Arnor, and Gondor.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 27 2009, 6:49am
Post #8 of 33
(2925 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, my edition doesn't have the references to the appendices. Are they by Tolkien?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So I actually remembered three out of five! In FotR I only got the sun reference, and forgot the Sickle (just like me to forget that one!) and the Brandywine (which I might have been expected to remember).
The other footnotes I did remember were the Shire-months, and the word sharku. Wait a moment! Does my book have the footnotes of tarks as well? I can't remember.
But thinking of it, I first read a translation with no appendices, and they could have deleted the footnotes refering to these... so maybe I do have all of your list. Whatever.
Thanks a lot!
"That is a chapter of ancient history which it might be good to recall; for there was sorrow then too, and gathering dark, but great valour, and great deeds that were not wholly vain."
Thus Gandalf. But Elrond was deflating:
"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories".
We've reached The Grey Havens last week, but the discussion still goes on!
Join us for appendix A, i-iv - the Numenorean kingdoms.
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Elvenhome
Jan 27 2009, 4:07pm
Post #9 of 33
(2882 views)
Shortcut
|
First of all, I was very surprised when I read LotR in Spanish that most of the appendices were missing. Only the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen was there. I wonder if that's true of most foreign-language translations.
I think I must have read LotR ten times before I peeked into the appendices. I even read the Sil (the day it was published) before I read the appendices, so I had no idea what it was going to be about. I thought it was going to be about the end of Second Age, about Isildur and Gil-Galad and so on.
I still haven't plowed through all the geneology, though I've read most of the rest of it at least once. But I enjoy watching a tale unfold in real time much more than reading history books. I've only read the Sil one more time, decades after the first time. I have read some of HoME, mostly the rough drafts of LotR and BoLT, and I do find the style of separating the original writing from the commentary to be useful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories
leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Jan 28 2009, 6:22am
Post #10 of 33
(2874 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Flowery language (and I'm a bloody scientist!)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. Do you think there is a need for appendices, let alone so many? Do they interest you? Did you actually read them all, ever?
Well, I'm an academic. 'Nuff said. ;)
2. Try to put yourself in a first-time reader’s shoes (or if you remember, answer for yourself) – would/did the sheer volume of the appendices appeal to you? Impress you? Frighten you?
Parts of it appealed to me from the get-go, like the Tale of Years and the systems of writing. It was a long time after that I realized that the text was also nice.
3. If nothing else, Tolkien reaches Mount Doom with half of RotK still unread. Is he gambling on his audience’s attention?
Yes, and I skipped several chapters (e.g. the Steward and the King), and still usually skip them. I didn't expect the Scouring of the Shire, however!
4. Persumably, that copy is the source of this book. Do you think this might reflect on the material brought and presented in the appendices?
The flowery language and mythic style of some of the passages I think was added now. Seriously, Imrahil could not have been that surprised to find Éowyn, nor could he have so instantly and so certainly recognized Legolas as an elf.
5. Are there any traces of a Gondor-centric or an Aragorn-centric prejudice within LotR itself?
The battles in Gondor are described in more detail than those elsewhere in the book, yes, but generally speaking, the story follows the tales of four characters, and Aragorn only as a partial secondary. Still, Aragorn is described as glorious and majestic a little too often...
6. Do you find this complex state of affairs helpful, or irritating? Do you bear it in mind, or do you try to ignore it?
Both, because it muddies the picture. This is both good and bad - more freedom to imagine, more ambiguous interpretations to clash over.
7. In UT, Christopher Tolkien did quite the same thing – he separated clearly between notes coming from his father’s scattered writings, and his own editorial notes. Was this the most convinient way of presenting the material, or was he conciously following his father’s example?
It works, IMO.
The paleobotanist is back!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 28 2009, 9:29pm
Post #11 of 33
(3319 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Do you think there is a need for appendices, let alone so many? Do they interest you? Did you actually read them all, ever?
In his letters Tolkien wondered the same thing. I think he concluded that only Appendix A, and perhaps only the tale of Aragorn and Arwen, is truly necessary, because he just couldn't fit that story into the main text. That may account for the choice of some translators. The appendix on calendars is certainly not necessary. The information about languages is near and dear to Tolkien, but that's not the same as necessary.
On the other hand, the Appendices (and Prologue) gave Tolkien an outlet for explanations he couldn't fit into the text, and therefore made the text that much simpler and free of burdensome explanations. It's very hard for someone who creates a world from the ground up to refrain from overexplaining what he or she has created; the Appendices, and what is more the promise that someday The Silmarillion might be published, may have helped Tolkien exercise ruthless restraint.
2. Try to put yourself in a first-time reader’s shoes (or if you remember, answer for yourself) – would/did the sheer volume of the appendices appeal to you? Impress you? Frighten you?
I'm sure it appealed to me -- much more so than the poetry, which I remember skipping. The volume of the appendices appeal to me even if I don't read them. Just the fact that they are there I find appealing, because it adds to the depth of the fictional world.
3. If nothing else, Tolkien reaches Mount Doom with half of RotK still unread. Is he gambling on his audience’s attention?
He seems to hold it well. But most of that isn't about the appendices, but the last few chapters of the book.
In the Note on the Shire Records (his appendix to the prologue), he mentions several copies of the Red Book were in several libraries in the Shire, and that the most important copy, was in the Great Smials, and was written in Gondor by Findegil the King’s Writer.
4. P[re]sumably, that copy is the source of this book. Do you think this might reflect on the material brought and presented in the appendices?
Sure. I think the story of Aragorn and Arwen even notes that the author was a Gondorian scribe.
5. Are there any traces of a Gondor-centric or an Aragorn-centric prejudice within LotR itself?
Possibly the story of Faramir and Eowyn, not so much because of prejudice as because it has little to do with hobbits. On the other hand, Merry could have been the source, even though it's not written in his voice. Or Frodo could have interviewed Faramir and Eowyn. As I've said, I don't want to go too far with such speculation, because I think Tolkien writes LotR as a work of fiction with an omniscient narrator, and uses the Prelude, Appendices, and a few references within the story to give it the framework of a history.
Actual extracts from longer annals and tales are placed within quotation marks. Insertions of later date are enclosed in brackets. Notes within quotation marks are found in the sources. Others are editorial.
6. Do you find this complex state of affairs helpful, or irritating? Do you bear it in mind, or do you try to ignore it?
Those who don't like complexity don't need to read the Appendices, which, unlike the main text, are written as a fictional history. Tolkien knew how to write like a scholar -- he was a scholar! The contrast between the Appendices and the story is striking -- with the exception of the story of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A, which was a part of the story Tolkien couldn't fit into the main text.
7. In UT, Christopher Tolkien did quite the same thing – he separated clearly between notes coming from his father’s scattered writings, and his own editorial notes. Was this the most convinient way of presenting the material, or was he conciously following his father’s example?
No, Christopher Tolkien was writing a non-fictional history of his father's work. That's why it resembles his father's fictional history.
Also, one must note that there are editorial notes within the text of LotR itself.
8. How many such instances are there? I can recall three (not counting the Prologue, in which there are four more) – one in each volume. Why so few?
N.E.B. has given the definitive count. There are very few in the main text because it is not written as a history. We have exactly one point of comparison between the original and the "translation" -- namely, the title of the work. Tolkien's title, "The Lord of the Rings," is short and ambiguous, a kind of riddle. Frodo's title, "THE DOWNFALL OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS AND THE RETURN OF THE KING (as seen by the Little People; being the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo of the Shire, supplemented by the accounts of their friends and the learning of the Wise)" is long and full of spoilers -- except of course that they wouldn't be spoilers for their intended audience, who knew the general outlines of what happened already. In a real translation of an ancient history, many explanatory footnotes would be necessary for a modern audience. Because Tolkien's translation is a fiction, very few explanatory footnotes are necessary.
(This post was edited by Curious on Jan 28 2009, 9:31pm)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jan 29 2009, 12:33am
Post #12 of 33
(2822 views)
Shortcut
|
Those who don't like complexity don't need to read the Appendices, which, unlike the main text, are written as a fictional history. Tolkien knew how to write like a scholar -- he was a scholar! The contrast between the Appendices and the story is striking -- with the exception of the story of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A, which was a part of the story Tolkien couldn't fit into the main text.
Aha! So it's the stylistic difference between novel and appendices that you've meant all along? I've been seeing the books as intended to portray an historical novel based on the Red Book--did you think that I thought of the books as intended as a textbook?
Maybe we aren't so far apart after all!
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 12:56am
Post #13 of 33
(2832 views)
Shortcut
|
If Tolkien is the imagined author of the historical novel based on the Bilbo and Frodo's Red Book, I'm with you. If, on the other hand, you imagine that Bilbo and Frodo wrote LotR and Tolkien merely translated it, I'm not. To me it reads like a historical novel, not a translation of an ancient memoir or history.
Of course, even the conceit that it is a historical novel breaks down from time to time, since Tolkien's fantasy is not anything like Primary World history. But I've often said that LotR reads more like a historical novel than like other fantasies, because Tolkien did such a remarkable job of creating his fictional history.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 5:24am
Post #14 of 33
(2822 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"I think [Christopher Tolkien] could have played with us more."
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Christopher Tolkien rides roughshod over the willing suspension of disbelief... J.R.R. played magic tricks on us, and we loved it, but Christopher showed us the trap doors in the stage floor and the secret pullies behind the curtain. I think he could have played with us more.
Isn't that what Christopher T. did in creating The Silmarillion of 1977 from a disparate set of texts?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Jan. 26-Feb. 1 for Appendix A on Númenor, Arnor, and Gondor.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 5:34am
Post #15 of 33
(2810 views)
Shortcut
|
|
C.S. Lewis liked “Tristram Shandy”
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
“To such, however, as do not choose…”
Where are the above four lines taken from? Hint: a book Tolkien surely knew of; and if he did read it, he most surely disliked it.
I remember encountering Lewis’s opinion as quoted by another author: “This bad book is amorphous, but so is Tristram Shandy.” A google search indicates that the remark comes from Studies in Words; the exact quote isn’t available online, but it follows on this caution to critics: “For when we try to define the badness of a work, we usually end by calling it bad on the strength of characteristics which we can find also in good work.”
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Jan. 26-Feb. 1 for Appendix A on Númenor, Arnor, and Gondor.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 5:36am
Post #16 of 33
(2824 views)
Shortcut
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Jan. 26-Feb. 1 for Appendix A on Númenor, Arnor, and Gondor.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 5:43am
Post #17 of 33
(2831 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the story of Aragorn and Arwen even notes that the author was a Gondorian scribe.
According to the Prologue, the author was Faramir's grandson, Barahir.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Jan. 26-Feb. 1 for Appendix A on Númenor, Arnor, and Gondor.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 6:34am
Post #18 of 33
(2886 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No plot, and blatanat anti-Catholicism
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm quite sure neither of these qualities apealed to Tolkien, however other qualities might have.
Lewis wouldn't mind these, especially not the second one; and I suspect he would also react more favourably to Sterne's sentimentalism.
"That is a chapter of ancient history which it might be good to recall; for there was sorrow then too, and gathering dark, but great valour, and great deeds that were not wholly vain."
Thus Gandalf. But Elrond was deflating:
"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories".
We've reached The Grey Havens last week, but the discussion still goes on!
Join us for appendix A, i-iv - the Numenorean kingdoms.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 2:55pm
Post #19 of 33
(2825 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Should Tolkien have left some gaps in LOTR?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To maintain the illusion of The Lord of the Rings as his translation and edition of a genuine ancient manuscript, ought Tolkien to have included some obvious gaps in the story? Should there be one or more points at which the text breaks off, and Tolkien the translator steps in to explain that several pages are missing from the MS., and so he can only speculate what really happened on a given day? Is there any manuscript even from the Middle Ages that is not in much worse shape than what we see of LotR, which is supposed to many thousands of years older?
I … found myself peering at appendices I never knew existed … which quite changed a few misconceptions I had before
Any examples you’d care to share?
In the “Note on the Shire Records” he mentions several copies of the Red Book were in several libraries in the Shire, and that the most important copy, was in the Great Smials, and was written in Gondor by Findegil the King’s Writer. Presumably, that copy is the source of this book. Do you think this might reflect on the material brought and presented in the appendices?
I think we’re meant to understand that Tolkien’s translation derives ultimately from Findegil’s version. But is there any real text which has survived five thousand years? Or was Tolkien working from later copies of Findegil’s version, the importance of which was that it included historical material? And what about those other copies that Tolkien mentions: presumably he has seen descendants of those works? Otherwise how would he know that they had survived?
Are there any traces of a Gondor-centric or an Aragorn-centric prejudice within LotR itself?
How would we know, without the original texts to compare? Maybe Findegil was a revisionist who downplayed the role of Aragorn in the story. Maybe later hobbit annotators did the same thing. For all we can tell, it’s Frodo’s role that is exaggerated.
Do you find this complex state of [annotation] affairs helpful, or irritating? Do you bear it in mind, or do you try to ignore it?
I only began to notice it on the previous TORN read-through of LotR, and haven’t given it much attention yet.
Was [CT’s method in UT] the most convenient way of presenting the material, or was he conciously following his father’s example?
The former, though both father and son were working from earlier models. Both had great familarity with many editions of ancient texts. Unfinished Tales was Christopher’s first stab at applying the method to his father’s work, and he would expand on it with The History of Middle-earth volumes.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Jan. 26-Feb. 1 for Appendix A on Númenor, Arnor, and Gondor.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 29 2009, 3:33pm
Post #20 of 33
(2823 views)
Shortcut
|
And in a recent reply to you, no less!
Here it is again.
But apart of that, I got the whole history wrong. The most embarrassing was to find out that the North-kingdom was around for nearly two thousand years - I probably read the prologue only once, so I missed the significance of Argeleb II; and I assumed Arvedui was the last king of Gondor (apparantly the name of Earnur which Faramir mentions at Aragorn's crowning went clean over my head).
I note that PJ and crew also ignore the double royal lineage, and the political tension it caused - but that was probably an attempt to simplify, rather than carelessness.
Another silly mistake was my assuming that The Hobbit took place at 2942, because the Prologue says Bilbo was then in his fifty-second year; I know I should have noticed the Party was the 60th anniversary of his riding a barrel to Lake-town, but I didn't get that either.
There were quite a few others, but I only remember the most embarrassing ones.
And the pronounciation thing (see the above link), which made me mad.
Any examples you’d care to share?
I'm also surprised you haven't given much thought to the textual compexity yet. I hope after this week you will!
"That is a chapter of ancient history which it might be good to recall; for there was sorrow then too, and gathering dark, but great valour, and great deeds that were not wholly vain."
Thus Gandalf. But Elrond was deflating:
"I have seen three ages in the West of the world, and many defeats, and many fruitless victories".
We've reached The Grey Havens last week, but the discussion still goes on!
Join us for appendix A, i-iv - the Numenorean kingdoms.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jan 29 2009, 3:59pm
Post #21 of 33
(2799 views)
Shortcut
|
Absolutely right! I should give Christopher more credit for the Silmarillion.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 30 2009, 2:23pm
Post #23 of 33
(2896 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If we are imagining a historical novel,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
then we have to imagine an author, even if that author happens to be Tolkien. If we stick with reality, there is no history, and no historical novel, but just Tolkien, inventing both the history and the story.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jan 30 2009, 4:44pm
Post #24 of 33
(2790 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If we're imagining a historical novel
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
then how can the author be Tolkien? Tolkien is a 20th century writer of fantasy, not a historical novelist. After all, he didn't really find the Red Book and write a historical novel based on it, did he? Or at least, if you're willing to imagine that he did, then we agree after all! And if he didn't, then we really do have "just Tolkien, inventing both the history and the story."
I don't see how you can "imagine" a historical-novelist Tolkien, as opposed to the real, philologist and fantasy-writer Tolkien, without also imagining that his source is as he describes it - i.e. originally written by the participants in that history.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 30 2009, 4:50pm
Post #25 of 33
(2779 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Stretch your imagination a bit.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's not hard, really. Tolkien imagined himself as a translator of Elvish. Why can't we do the same?
|
|
|
|
|
1
