|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ElanorTX
Dor-Lomin
Jun 2 2009, 12:12am
Post #1 of 31
(2111 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbit Ch. 11: On the Doorstep I: Riding a Rocking-horse
|
Can't Post
|
|
This chapter reminded me of Chapter 3, A Short Rest, in its structure and contribution to the story. Ch. 3 starts with a tedious (to the travellers) search for Rivendell, then covers several days there in vague terms, and ends with the excitement of Elrond's interpretation of the runes on the swords and map. Ch. 11 takes only two sentences for the three days between Lake-town to the stretch of River Running near the Lonely Mountain. It then describes their various camps and the discovery of the doorstep, and ends with a single page about the excitement of using the map's information to find and open the side-door. Both chapters are among the shortest in the book.
Do you think Tolkien intended the parallel structure? In general, do you think he wrote with certain literary effects in mind, or just wanted to tell a good story?
"...And there are many subtler reasons for [others'] disliking it [LotR]; for instance the peculiar rhythm of the book, its continual alternation of distress and relief, threat and reassurance, tension and relaxation: the rocking-horse gait (which is precisely what makes the huge book readable to a child of nine or ten) -- may well not suit a jet-age adult."
-- Ursula LeGuin, in her essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" in The Language of the Night.
LeGuin goes on to praise JRRT extensively.
Do you agree that adults may prefer the pace of a page-turner? Or a steady progression to a climax? Have you noticed the pattern of which LeGuin writes?
Bilbo's own mood goes up and down, not necessarily in tune with the dwarves' feelings. JRRT as narrator reports Bilbo's thoughts and actions and the observable words and actions of the dwarves to suggest their emotions, but even more often he simply offers a label: terrified, eager, miserable, gloomy, grim.
Throughout The Hobbit our accomplished author often ignores the basic convention of writing to "show, not tell." Is the age of his audience the reason? The age of his sources?
"I shall not wholly fail if anything can still grow fair in days to come."
|
|
|
Modtheow
Menegroth
Jun 2 2009, 4:22am
Post #2 of 31
(1906 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you think Tolkien intended the parallel structure? In general, do you think he wrote with certain literary effects in mind, or just wanted to tell a good story?
I hadn't thought of the parallel structure in these two chapters until you drew my attention to it, but now that I've looked more closely, I think that Tolkien did intend the parallels. In chapter 3, Bilbo thinks he's seeing The Mountain; in chapter 11, he is seeing the real thing. The lands around the mountains in both chapters are bleak, and the travellers are gloomy and tired. In chapter 3, they find rest, feasting, and song in Elrond's house; in chapter 11, Tolkien is thinking of that parallel when the narrator points out "Only in June they had been guests in the fair house of Elrond, and though autumn was now crawling towards winter that pleasant time now seemed years ago." If I'd been a more careful reader the first few times around, I would have noticed that "autumn ...crawling towards winter" harks back to the moon letters clue about Durin's Day ("the first day of the last moon of Autumn on the threshold of Winter") that Elrond discovered in chapter 3 -- the message that will "come true" in chapter 11. In chapter 3 Elrond identifies the old swords as coming from a dragon's or goblin's plunder, as if he's confirming the possibility of dragon treasure to be found and plundered; in chapter 11, the smoke and steam from the mountain promise even more surely the presence of a dragon. But of course, the parallel that ties both chapters together most strongly is the fact that chapter 3 ends with Elrond discovering the message of the moon letters, and chapter 11 ends with the action described in the moon letters.
I also took a quick look at John Rateliff's History of the Hobbit, and sure enough, Tolkien was fussing with moons and timelines in various versions of the manuscript, just as he did in LotR -- the plotting of the Hobbit story is careful and deliberate, as it was with LotR. I would say that Tolkien wrote with certain literary effects in mind because he wanted to tell a good story; I don't see it as an either-or proposition.
Do you agree that adults may prefer the pace of a page-turner? Or a steady progression to a climax? Have you noticed the pattern of which LeGuin writes?
I have always enjoyed that pattern of rest - action - rest that LeGuin writes about, and it's what I missed in the LotR movies, with their relentless action. I don't know if a leisurely pace (especially in LotR) is that common or a favorite with adults today -- I've just been reading Is Google Making Us Stupid? published last year in The Atlantic, which seems to describe my current reading habits pretty well, and I'm wondering if we are losing the ability to get lost in a book.
I think it depends on my mood: sometimes I like a rapid pace, and sometimes a steady progression to a climax.
Throughout The Hobbit our accomplished author often ignores the basic convention of writing to "show, not tell." Is the age of his audience the reason? The age of his sources?
I had been noticing that some of the landscape descriptions weren't as detailed with described colours and qualities of light as they were in LotR, and of course I've noticed the narrator's asides, telling his audience various things, but I'll have to take another look at this quality of telling rather than showing the characters' thoughts and actions. I don't quite know what you mean by "the age of his sources"-- which sources would these be? -- but it's late, and it all might make sense to me tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jun 2 2009, 6:15am
Post #3 of 31
(1906 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you think Tolkien intended the parallel structure?
Nice observation! I know a big deal has been made of the parallel structures in LotR, but this is really neat!
It might add an argument in favour of splitting the movie around Bilbo's arrival at Esgaroth.
In general, do you think he wrote with certain literary effects in mind, or just wanted to tell a good story?
I wonder. His mind clearly worked in patterns, so I'm not sure he consciously tried for these effects.
Do you agree that adults may prefer the pace of a page-turner?
In Literature, yes. In RL - they would prefer some more relaxed periods in between.
Now who is the real Escapist?
Or a steady progression to a climax?
Same as before.
But note that in the 19th century, many books were written as mini-series, being published in monthly installments.
And also that books read to children need to have more peaceful moments.
Have you noticed the pattern of which LeGuin writes?
In LotR, and especially in FotR - of course!
In The Hobbit, I also did - but assumed this was because it was intended for children.
Throughout The Hobbit our accomplished author often ignores the basic convention of writing to "show, not tell." Is the age of his audience the reason? The age of his sources?
I don't know enough about the basic conventions of writing; but we must bear in mind that out f the fifteen major characters, with most screen-time - three are characterized in full, some four or five more are sketched, and the others simply are there (even though I personally try to see whether one can draw a clearer picture of each dwarf, based on the remarks attributed to them randomly).
"And winter comes after autumn." - Bifur
(This post was edited by sador on Jun 2 2009, 6:15am)
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Jun 2 2009, 6:28am
Post #4 of 31
(1917 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you think Tolkien intended the parallel structure? In general, do you think he wrote with certain literary effects in mind, or just wanted to tell a good story?
It's the layout of the entire book, I think, but more specifically, it's fulfilling the 'prophecy' set forth in chapter 3 - yep, all of the pieces are here. This is the door, all right.
Do you agree that adults may prefer the pace of a page-turner? Or a steady progression to a climax? Have you noticed the pattern of which LeGuin writes?
Some of both, I think.
If I (and not Peter Jackson) were going to adapt Tolkien to the silver screen, I would do it in the form of a number of episodes in a serial-like format similar to Star Trek or Lost. Each episode usually has the format of a short rest that builds up or foreshadows the coming adventure. Then, there is the adventure itself. The Hobbit follows this pattern perfectly, as does The Fellowship of the Ring. It breaks down slightly in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, but it's still there.
As such, each of these episodes has all of the elements of a story - setting, development, climax, and conclusion. At the same time, each episode builds the story of the book, developing a setting, a plot, a climax, and finally a conclusion as it goes.
Throughout The Hobbit our accomplished author often ignores the basic convention of writing to "show, not tell." Is the age of his audience the reason? The age of his sources?
Maybe, but there is a not insignificant amount of this in LotR as well.
The bottom line, I think, is this: a great author, like any great artist, can break the rules - and get away with it. Tolkien breaks rules all over the place - for example, Aragorn is a Mary Sue, and that does tick off some readers, but nonetheless many readers still like the story and even like the character. Obviously, he's a great author!
The paleobotanist is back!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jun 2 2009, 11:23am
Post #5 of 31
(1895 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you think Tolkien intended the parallel structure?
Judging by his own descriptions of his methods, I think he wrote by instinct in the first draft, and with intention in the sometimes extensive revisions.
In general, do you think he wrote with certain literary effects in mind, or just wanted to tell a good story?
Yes. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Do you agree that adults may prefer the pace of a page-turner? Or a steady progression to a climax?
Yes, if we are talking about reading a book yourself versus reading a book to a child. Reading a book to a child on a nightly basis necessarily slows the pace of the reading. A long novel cannot be devoured in one night.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century novels also tend to have a slower pace, and many of them were read aloud by adults. In the days before television, radio, or other forms of electronic entertainment, literate adults would take turns reading aloud to each other.
Now many books are written at the pace of movies, which is a faster pace. The idea is to make sure you can never lay the book down, and want to swallow it in one reading. I think that is a more modern development. Of course there are exceptions to my sweeping generalizations, but I do think I notice a difference between older and newer novels, and I also think LotR was a throwback to an older, more leisurely pace.
Have you noticed the pattern of which LeGuin writes?
Yes.
Throughout The Hobbit our accomplished author often ignores the basic convention of writing to "show, not tell." Is the age of his audience the reason? The age of his sources?
I don't agree with your premise. The Hobbit is full of vivid imagery. I can picture most of the locations and much of the action quite vividly. I can see what the characters are doing and hear what they are saying in my head. Tolkien shows us a great deal.
In this chapter Tolkien shows us the escort so terrified that they headed back down the lake even though night was falling. He shows us the dwarves travelling towards the Mountain without laughter or song or sound of harps. He vividly describes the Desolation of the Dragon. He calls Balin sad and grim, but he also shows us Balin remembering Dale and what he sees when he says it -- the grey ruins of ancient houses, towers, and walls. I could continue throughout the chapter. Every time Tolkien tells us what someone is feeling, he also shows us what they are saying and seeing and doing. There's a great deal of "show," and only a little "tell."
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jun 2 2009, 11:30am
Post #6 of 31
(1960 views)
Shortcut
|
Aragorn is a hero in the ancient mode. We must read his vulnerability through his actions and speech, because we do not get inside his head. But I think it is a mistake to see him as a character who is too perfect. He has a temper, he gets depressed, he makes mistakes, he has fears and regrets and needs -- in short, he is a three-dimensional, human character, if we pick up on all the hints that Tolkien drops.
|
|
|
Tolkien Forever
Mithlond
Jun 2 2009, 1:41pm
Post #7 of 31
(1887 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you think Tolkien intended the parallel structure? In general, do you think he wrote with certain literary effects in mind, or just wanted to tell a good story?
I have no clue......
Tolkien certainly says in TLOR foreward from 1966 that his motive was to tell a great story that would hold the interest of the reader (but that doesn't stop folks from jumping to their own conclusions). As for what his intended techniques were, I don't know if he ever said.
Do you agree that adults may prefer the pace of a page-turner? Or a steady progression to a climax? Have you noticed the pattern of which LeGuin writes?
Personally, I simply loathe reading analysis of Tolkien's writings - bores me to death.
I agree with the good author himself - I am just out to enjoy a great story-telling without suffering from paralysis from analysis.
I somehow made it 32 years & about 30 reading without ever giving the question a thought by just enjoying the book at hand. But, I guess the truth is, in TLOR, I find the 'down' chapters a bit of a challange to get through, like waiting for the incessant 'Treebeard' to finally end so I can get to 'The White Rider'. However, The Hobbit is so short, I never really noticed such problems as there's no 25+ page 'boring' chapters to muddle through.
Throughout The Hobbit our accomplished author often ignores the basic convention of writing to "show, not tell." Is the age of his audience the reason? The age of his sources?
Sorry, you lost me on that one, You'll have to explain what you mean by 'show, not tell'.
How do you 'show not tell' when everything is in writing? Isn't that both showing and telling?
Help me out here, I'm confused.....
As I said, I haven't read that book on The Hobbit for fear of paralysis from analysis.
BTW: There aren't any books written that critique the books that critique Tolkien's books are there? 
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jun 2 2009, 2:18pm
Post #8 of 31
(1885 views)
Shortcut
|
BTW: There aren't any books written that critique the books that critique Tolkien's books are there?
Critics love to critique other critics.
Show, not tell examples (from this website):
Telling: The girls were excited.
Showing: Giggles and screams filled the arena. The soft curls were now damp with perspiration and the anticipation of the event. They held tight to each other in a mock effort to contain themselves. Arms flailed upward, and voices echoed in varying tones. The moment was here.
Telling: The room was vacant.
Showing: The door opened with a resounding echo that seemed to fill the house. Cob webs once attached flowed freely in the air as the open door brought light to a well worn floor. The light gave notice to the peeling paint on the walls and to the silhouettes once covered by pictures. The new air gave life to a stuffiness that entrapped the room. Faded and torn white sheets covered once new furniture now drowning in dust.
Regarding the pace of LotR, can you discern a pattern about which chapters are readers' least favorite? Two people said Helm's Deep was their least favorite chapter in the book, even though it is full of action. But many other choices were less action packed. On the other hand, the chapters readers loved the most were not necessarily action packed. I think I would go with Tolkien's appraisal, which is that there is really very little consensus about what is wrong with the book. Even the least favorite set of chapters, the Bombadil chapters, are in the middle of the favorite book.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jun 2 2009, 4:03pm
Post #9 of 31
(1891 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Since you asked about parallel structure and the rhythm of the book, let's
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
take a brief look at the Table of Contents:
Chapter I: An Unexpected Party
Chapter II: Roast Mutton
Chapter III: A Short Rest
Chapter IV: Over Hill and Under Hill
Chapter V: Riddles in the Dark
Chapter VI: Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire
Chapter VII: Queer Lodgings
Chapter VIII: Flies and Spiders
Chapter IX: Barrels Out of Bond
Chapter X: A Warm Welcome
Chapter XI: On the Doorstep
Chapter XII: Inside Information
Chapter XIII: Not at Home
Chapter XIV: Fire and Water
Chapter XV: The Gathering of the Clouds
Chapter XVI: A Thief in the Night
Chapter XVII: The Clouds Burst
Chapter XVIII: The Return Journey
Chapter XIX: The Last Stage
During the first half of the book I see a rough pattern of rest/resupply and action sequences, with the rest/resupply taking place in Bag End, Rivendell, Beorn's hall, and Lake-town. The trolls are a sort of teaser adventure, self-contained, then we have two long sequences of adventure crossing the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood. Finally we have the climactic, extended action sequence, covering almost half the book, involving Smaug and the battle over Smaug's treasure. There's a pause in the action during Chapter XV: The Gathering of the Clouds, but there is no rest or resupply because of Thorin's stubborness. Furthermore, almost the entire second half of the book takes place in or around the Lonely Mountain. The second half of the book has a different rhythm from the first.
The present chapter is the beginning of the second half of the book, and as such is not quite like any of the chapters that come before it. For the first time the party moves towards danger without confronting it in this chapter. Tolkien expends an entire chapter just to build suspense.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jun 2 2009, 8:34pm
Post #10 of 31
(1885 views)
Shortcut
|
"I am you, the personification of your desire to know everything."
-La Ronde (1950)
This chapter reminded me of Chapter 3, A Short Rest, in its structure and contribution to the story. Ch. 3 starts with a tedious (to the travellers) search for Rivendell, then covers several days there in vague terms, and ends with the excitement of Elrond's interpretation of the runes on the swords and map. Ch. 11 takes only two sentences for the three days between Lake-town to the stretch of River Running near the Lonely Mountain. It then describes their various camps and the discovery of the doorstep, and ends with a single page about the excitement of using the map's information to find and open the side-door. Both chapters are among the shortest in the book.
Do you think Tolkien intended the parallel structure?
I think it’s a common structure in many adventure tales that a young Tolkien would be familiar with, whether fictional/non-fictional accounts of traveling in the Arctic or Antarctic, or Asia or Africa.
In general, do you think he wrote with certain literary effects in mind, or just wanted to tell a good story?
Novels written solely for literary effects in mind, just like movies solely written for special effects in mind, don’t tend to wear well. The Hobbit wears well. It takes a good story for a novel or movie to last.
"...And there are many subtler reasons for [others'] disliking it [LotR]; for instance the peculiar rhythm of the book, its continual alternation of distress and relief, threat and reassurance, tension and relaxation: the rocking-horse gait (which is precisely what makes the huge book readable to a child of nine or ten) -- may well not suit a jet-age adult."
-- Ursula LeGuin, in her essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" in The Language of the Night.
LeGuin goes on to praise JRRT extensively.
Do you agree that adults may prefer the pace of a page-turner?
It depends. “Airport novels” (or as the French call them, “romans de gare”, or “train station novels”), are indeed deliberately written to be fast paced page turners. But who in the world ever reads them more than once? And even Peter Benchley and Gérard de Villiers are hardly recognized in the literary class of James Joyce and Albert Camus even by their most rabid fans. (And Joyce and Camus definitely didn’t write page turners!)
I think LeGuin’s term “jet-age adult” may be a deliberate pun.
Or a steady progression to a climax?
Like, say, Ionesco, Beckett, or Kafka?
Have you noticed the pattern of which LeGuin writes?
Yep. Most popular novels follow the rocking horse gait of “sex-murder-sex-investigation-sex-arrest-sex”, or “sex-depression-sex-contemplation-sex-enlightenment-sex”, or “sex-boymeetsgirl-sex-boylosesgirl-sex-boygetsgirl-sex”, etc.
Bilbo's own mood goes up and down, not necessarily in tune with the dwarves' feelings. JRRT as narrator reports Bilbo's thoughts and actions and the observable words and actions of the dwarves to suggest their emotions, but even more often he simply offers a label: terrified, eager, miserable, gloomy, grim.
Throughout The Hobbit our accomplished author often ignores the basic convention of writing to "show, not tell."
I think Tolkien is a bit more subtle.
Is the age of his audience the reason?
As famed novelist John Hershey put it, children need words that “widen rather than narrow the associative richness” of their vocabualry. Interestingly Tolkien earlier touched on the associative richness of simple words like “green” or “hill” in On Fairy Stories. Sometimes simple is better.
BTW, Hershey inspired Dr. Seuss to write The Cat in the Hat with a vocabulary of only 250 words to work from. (He only used 236.) The result was a revolution in children’s literature. (And it definitely has a rocking horse narrative. And it sort of lurches to an anticlimax!)
The age of his sources?
That’s very possible. For example Beowulf is basically in three parts, with many digressions. So maybe Tolkien felt it best to go with hwat hworks.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Jun 3 2009, 2:01am
Post #11 of 31
(1877 views)
Shortcut
|
There are quite a number of characters in fiction and mythology that qualify as Mary Sues if the usual criteria for identifying Mary Sue characters are applied. Jesus Christ is a Mary Sue. Aragorn is definitely more in the style of an ancient hero than an author-insertion (which Bombadil arguably is).
The paleobotanist is back!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jun 3 2009, 1:22pm
Post #12 of 31
(1867 views)
Shortcut
|
Jesus Christ is a Mary Sue.
That's an interesting theory. But I don't think Jesus Christ was an avatar of the early Christians who wrote the Gospels. On the other hand, if you believe that the Gospels were written by God through the early Christians, then yes, perhaps Jesus Christ is God's Mary Sue.
Then again, Jesus doesn't hijack the story, he is the story. And interestingly, the Gospels spend very little time telling us Jesus is wonderful. Much more time is spent just telling us what Jesus said or did, and letting us make our own judgment. Many people who don't agree with the Christian church still admire the story of Jesus, including Muslims, who consider Jesus a prophet, and Hindus like Ghandi.
I think the key point you are missing about a Mary Sue character is that the readers must react negatively to the character because the author seems too in love with the character. I suppose some people have that reaction to Aragorn, but most people don't. Many more people have that reaction to Bombadil. And I think few people have that reaction to Jesus as he appears in the Gospels.
It's a subjective standard, I suppose, and you are free to react negatively and characterize Aragorn as a Mary Sue character if you like, from your subjective point of view. I don't agree from my subjective point of view, and I would guess that more people like Aragorn than dislike him. Hmm, I feel a poll coming on.
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Jun 3 2009, 8:17pm
Post #15 of 31
(1851 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And that, precisely, is my point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A less competent author would not be able to do this sort of thing and get away with it. But Tolkien, and the entity or entities who wrote the Bible (be they mortal or divine) can break the rules and have it still be good afterwards - even better than if they hadn't broken said rules.
You feed Aragorn to any Mary Sue detector system, he will turn up a Mary Sue. Yet, as you point out, the readers love him nonetheless. Ergo Tolkien is a great author.
The paleobotanist is back!
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jun 3 2009, 8:30pm
Post #16 of 31
(1848 views)
Shortcut
|
Good writers know the rules, great writers know how to break the rules.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jun 3 2009, 8:30pm
Post #17 of 31
(1849 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I suppose it is similar to Tolkien's Eagles,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
which in lesser hands could be considered a form of cheating on the part of the author, the worst kind of deus ex machina rather than part of a glorious eucatastrophe. Or it is similar to Tolkien's mock archaic dialogue, which in lesser hands could be considered tushery, but in the hands of a skilled philologist is a scholarly compromise between medieval and modern dialogue. There are other examples as well.
The critics who dislike Tolkien can easily list the ways that he fits into a stereotype of bad writing that began when Cervantes made fun of heroic romance in Don Quixote, if not much sooner, when the Greeks invented deus ex machina. But those of us who love Tolkien say yes, he takes a genre that for hundreds of years has been abused by bad writers and abandoned by good ones (who turned to the "novel" instead, and more recently to the "psychological novel") and turns in a masterpiece. In his hands, it works. He has made heroic romance respectable again.
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 4 2009, 1:16am
Post #18 of 31
(1838 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's fascinating about the parallel structure
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
between this chapter and Chapter 3; I think Modtheow's found all the moments!
There's only one more I can think of, but it actually belongs to Chapter 2: the use of a key to unlock a door in the rock-wall.
It may be of interest to note here, that originally Thorin received no key with the Map, but instead they found a key-ring with several keys on a nail in the Trolls' cave, which Gandalf kept and gave to Thorin before they entered Mirkwood. Then when the keyhole was revealed at the side door, they discovered that the smallest key on the key-ring fit - and thus unlocked the door.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jun 4 2009, 2:36pm
Post #19 of 31
(1833 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you think Tolkien intended the parallel structure? In general, do you think he wrote with certain literary effects in mind, or just wanted to tell a good story?
Well, I certainly don't think the parallel structure came before the story. But I do think that the rhythm Tolkien sets up is something that he chose on purpose - he seems to love that episodic style, and I've heard people say that it works perfectly if you're reading The Hobbit aloud to a child, a chapter a night, say.
He does often seem to repeat patterns and themes, and I wonder if he picked this up, consciously or unconsciously, from the ancient tales that he knew so well, and that were structured for oral storytelling.
Do you agree that adults may prefer the pace of a page-turner? Or a steady progression to a climax? Have you noticed the pattern of which LeGuin writes?
I think the novel form, designed for private reading, is much more familiar for most people. Novels aren't all page-turners, of course, and the novel is a very flexible form. But there's something about Tolkien's way of telling a story that makes me think of not of the novel but of the oral tale.
Throughout The Hobbit our accomplished author often ignores the basic convention of writing to "show, not tell." Is the age of his audience the reason? The age of his sources?
Tolkien's essay On Fairy Stories may have the answer - he says that to invoke the 'secondary world' of Faerie, we need to get back to the deeper meaning of simple words, to unlock our own 'word-hoard', I think he says. So instead of giving us very individual or unique descriptions of either people or places, Tolkien often provides very general or universal ones that each reader can respond to in their own way.
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled, the sigh and murmur of the Sea
upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jun 5 2009, 1:43am
Post #20 of 31
(1840 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Let's continue this week's discussion as a free-for-all.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I messaged but haven't heard back from ElanorTX, so let's open up "On the Doorstep" for others to post threads and carry us through the chapter. ETX: please jump in with your further thoughts as you have the chance!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Hobbit in the Reading Room, Mar. 23 - Aug. 9. Everyone is welcome!
Join us June 1-7 for "On the Doorstep".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jun 6 2009, 8:27pm
Post #21 of 31
(1812 views)
Shortcut
|
Okay, I'm lost. Maybe I heard a different definition of a Mary Sue (or Marty Stu, as I've heard the male version called.) Here's what I've heard about it (yes, since I've discovered bullet points, I've fallen in love with them, because they seem to make it so much easier to clarify what I'm trying to say!) - The writer interjects herself into a fanfic story as a character. (The name "Mary Sue" originated, according to legend, when a Star Trek fan named Mary Sue wrote a fan fic about a gorgeous alien named Mari Su who romanced prominent Star Trek characters.)
- This character proceeds to romance one or more of the chief characters of the fanfic world, regardless of how plausible this might be to the original characterization (I remember junior high classmates collaborating on a fanfic where all three of them shared Spock's favors in his harem.)
- The story has little point beyond the romance.
- The Mary Sue character usually, though not always, has some marvelous super-ability that easily makes her valued and beloved by everyone in the story, without much effort.
You seem to be operating on a different definition. Please elaborate.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Jun 7 2009, 3:24am
Post #22 of 31
(1808 views)
Shortcut
|
A "Mary Sue" seems to me to be a catch-all term for chracters who are too powerful, too successful, too perfect, and too beloved by the author, either because they are direct insertions of the author or insertions of characters whom the author overly admires (often in the sense that the author would be romantically attracted to them).
One person I have known did not like LotR for the reason that Aragorn has too many Mary Sue-like tendencies: he has almost exactly Tolkien's moral system, is prodigiously good at almost everything he puts his mind to, and nothing really bad ever happens to him despite his almost constant exposure to danger. "Supergorn" is the name that this person gives Aragorn. I have to agree that Aragorn has some traits, particularly his never getting hurt despite being perpetually in harm's way, that strain credibility unless some form of magical explanation for his survival is found, which in turn lessens his heroism somewhat. That would of course make him even more Mary Sue-like, because it makes him more powerful (instead of just unreasonably lucky).
Still, Tolkien does it well, and there are some straightforward examples of how Aragorn can be a Mary Sue without causing too much problem for the story. The really revolting Mary Sue characters are the characters that go through the story without ever being significantly challenged. This isn't the case for any of Tolkien's heroes. Even if the Mary Sue is seriously challenged, she is challenged in such a way that she and she alone is still the one to defeat the villain. Again, none of Tolkien's heroes fit this bill - after all, it's Gollum that is ultimately responsible for the destruction of the Ring. As such Tolkien's protagonists in LotR, while they may look like Mary Sue characters, they don't function that way in the story.
Even when they do, though, Tolkien still manages to avoid running into problems. Lúthien, for example, is another Mary Sue of a different (more romantic) type: she is heavily modeled after Edith, even to the point where J.R.R. carved "Lúthien" on Edith's gravestone. And Lúthien really is more the sole star of the story, or her story anyway, but still, it's just done well (well, up until the judgement of Mandos, that is). That said, Lúthien is not as popular a character as Túrin, perhaps because of Lúthien's obvious Mary Sue qualities, and the fact that Túrin is really an antihero.
The paleobotanist is back!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jun 7 2009, 9:04am
Post #23 of 31
(1806 views)
Shortcut
|
Lúthien is not as popular a character as Túrin
Where did you get that idea? I strongly disagree.
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Jun 7 2009, 3:02pm
Post #24 of 31
(1812 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Is Túrin more popular than Lúthien?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't know about "popular" - I'm not sure anyone from The Silmarillion is really popular. But at least Túrin, although tiresome, is never boring.
Lúthien is both. Conflict equals interest. Lúthien, although externally conflicted between mortal love and immortal self, has no internal conflicts - we never see how she herself feels about her situation or her choices. Everything she does is both right and perfect. Neither Aragorn nor Túrin (nor Arwen) are guilty of such a literary crime.
One of the problems may be that Tolkien never really attacked the Beren and Lúthien story the way he did The Children of Húrin. He left us B&L as a prose gloss on an early poetic version that emphasized romantic heroism over realism. After writing LotR, he was much more in tune with crafting an exquisite balance of these two approaches. Unfortunately, he ran out of time and energy before he could rewrite his old tales (with the exception of Húrin/Túrin, and the "unfinished" beginning of Tuor/Gondolin) for the modern fantasy audience that he himself had just created.
I think Luthien gets away with a lot because she is a heroine. Like the dog that waltzes poorly, we admire her for sheer existence within Tolkien's all-male universe of active heroes. But one has only to follow the typical and endless debates we have about Eowyn's conflicted nature, or Túrin's fatuous unselfconsciousness, or Aragorn's "ambition", or Frodo's saintliness, to realize that we almost never debate Luthien - because there's nothing really to say about her as a person. Boring. And only "popular" as a symbol.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jun 7 2009, 10:05pm
Post #25 of 31
(1820 views)
Shortcut
|
Interesting. I saw Luthien very differently. She's a rebel. She goes to extraordinarly lengths to disobey her parents. Even imprisonment can't stop her. She runs off into the wild to be with her lover unchaperoned. Now, this might not seem like such a big deal in the modern world, but in the old days that was huge! Along the way she manages to disguise herself as a vampire bat, which sounds like something that a lily-pure maiden might faint rather than attempt.
Luthien also tricks Morgoth by beguiling him with her dance--the only folkloric parallels that come to mind are Salome's wicked little number danced for her incestuous stepfather, and the sensual Dance of the Seven Veils in the tales of Scheherezade. There is no precedent that I can think of in mythic literature for beguiling anybody by dancing like a nun. I am sure that she was utterly innocent, Tolkien heroine that she was--but that doesn't mean she didn't know enough about the dark side to look anything but innocent!
Add to that that, unavoidably, there are years and years that she spends with Beren before he becomes too ashamed to continue without the blessings of marriage and her father's approval. We can well believe that they led those years in perfect chastity, showing heroic ability to suppress libidos so passionate that they went into intense danger and defied authority to win to each other's sides. But you know darn well that that's not what the gossips are saying over in Doriath. So even if Luthien is as pure as the Fountains of Lorien, she doesn't care two hoots about her reputation, and that sort of endears her to me as the wildly dancing rebel that she is.
Finally, singing Beren back from the dead--wouldn't you call that cheeky in the extreme? The powers that be tell her, no, this is absolute, dead is dead, and she comes back with "No, I don't think so!" ??? She just doesn't give up. She is as flippant about the authority of the Valar as she is with her father. And when the final ruling comes down that sooner or later Beren will have to die anyway, she says, "Fine! Then I'm going with him!" Talk about chutzpah!
Arwen, in contrast, strikes me as a vapid drink of water ill-compared to Luthien Tinuviel. Can you imagine her thumbing her nose at Elrond and running off to camp out with her Ranger honey in the wild? No, she quietly waits at home for Daddy's nigh-impossible conditions to be fulfilled, and sews a flag. Maybe Tolkien felt a little guilty about Luthien, and so he penned a docile alter ego for her. But Luthien herself, now there's a lady with some fire and spice to her!
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
1
