Re-reading The Lord of the Rings: chapter by chapter

[Luiglin]

But ... you just said it was, right there.

I know what it is intended - the same notion comes up in the Bible in that characters in earlier stories are far more long-lived than in later ones - it was mentioned in another thread here that Aragorn is actually around 85 years old, but doesn't look it because of his ancestry. In one sense, it makes the events of Middle Earth more like an angelic war - a conflict between beings with various degrees of supernatural powers and attributes - and that words such as "Man" may be misleading.

Even still, I find it surprising that the concept of the racial purity among men appears in this book, especially when written during the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. I'm also uncomfortable with some of the terminology: a Nazgul is a "black chap" and the Orcs are "slant-eyed"; Dunlendings are native peoples driven out of their own lands by "superior" men; the swarthy - and evil - Haradrim and Easterlings imply North African and Asian peoples. Although perhaps familiar and accepted at the time of publishing, modern readers may interpret some of these as casually racist, even if that was never Tolkien's intention.

In the meantime, I've continued reading The Two Towers, but I'm not sure about whether I should do any further chapter-by-chapter comments, as the same observations come up again and again: the focus on the landscape, sometimes lack of pace, and archaic use of language.

Something I do wonder at: does Tolkien's prose accurately reflect the standards of his time, or did he inflect it to seem a little more old-fashioned, in order to make it stand nearer to his mythic sources rather than literature contemporary at the time?

The lesser men was a poor choice of words on my part. What I was trying to put forward was that while they may have had the same ancestral root I always took it that Tolkien envisaged them as two separate species. Now yes, that could explain racial purity but I'd don't see that in the mythology he created. For the elves he had a similar train of thought where the first root of the elves, the Quendi, split into Eldar and Avari, then the Eldar split into Vanyar, Noldor and Teleri and further more. The same to a lesser extent with the Dwarves. It was part of the rich mythology he wished to create.

The Silmarillion gives a truer flavour for the mythology than the Hobbit or LotR.

As to Nazgul being black? I just don't see the issue with that. It seems to be a modern spin to see something that wasn't intended. Black is a funeral colour and has been associated with death since Roman times and all manner of nasty mythological beasties since before then.

Likewise the orcs being slant eyed? If that is the case then so must be the elves for the Orcs were made by Morgoth from them or as evil reflections of them (I've always imagined elves to have slanted almond shaped eyes - maybe that's just me).

As to the rest of the peoples then yes, Middle Earth is based very much on Europe and in modern eyes that may look uncomfortable if you want to look that deep at a piece of work created between 1937 and 1949. If that's the case then there's more of an arguement for Sauron being Hitler and Mordor Germany. After all they both wanted to dominate the known world.

What I do agree with you is that as I get older the more I wince at some of his prose. Then again this could be evolution of the English language. I remember first reading Dracula and having to mentally twist my mind at right angles to understand it.

I used to read LotR every three or four years but have not done so for a good six or seven now. I suspect that is more due to over indulgence on the movies though than any great issue with the books. Which, in many ways, is rather sad.

 

[The Big Peat]

Something I do wonder at: does Tolkien's prose accurately reflect the standards of his time, or did he inflect it to seem a little more old-fashioned, in order to make it stand nearer to his mythic sources rather than literature contemporary at the time?

I'm slowly making my way through The Worm Ouroboros and that makes Tolkien look like Abercrombie on speed; but the Narnia books are a lot easier reading altogether. The King in Yellow feels fairly like for prose - likewise Dunsany. But both maybe a little lighter?

I guess I'd go a bit of both.

 

[HareBrain]

Tolkien's prose in the hobbit sections was probably pretty much standard for the time (the conservative end of standard rather than the modernist end), but it does get increasingly archaic in Rohan, Gondor etc.

Re the "lesser men", I'm not sure now whether all the Edain were supposed to have had Elvish blood, or just a few? I think Tolkien envisaged them as being halfway between ordinary men and Elves, and thus touched by Grace in the same way as the High Elves were compared with the Sindar. I think there is undoubtedly an element of superiority and "keeping the strain pure" about it, even though Tolkien abhorred the Nazis. I've been trying to think if there's anything similar in the Norse/Germanic myths he drew from, but I don't recall anything.

 

[The Big Peat]

Tolkien's prose in the hobbit sections was probably pretty much standard for the time (the conservative end of standard rather than the modernist end), but it does get increasingly archaic in Rohan, Gondor etc.

Re the "lesser men", I'm not sure now whether all the Edain were supposed to have had Elvish blood, or just a few? I think Tolkien envisaged them as being halfway between ordinary men and Elves, and thus touched by Grace in the same way as the High Elves were compared with the Sindar. I think there is undoubtedly an element of superiority and "keeping the strain pure" about it, even though Tolkien abhorred the Nazis. I've been trying to think if there's anything similar in the Norse/Germanic myths he drew from, but I don't recall anything.

I don't think all of the Edain had elvish blood but close proximity had changed them in some way.

Thor gives off about Starkadr's tainted giant blood at one point, which is a bit of a cheek when you think about it. Wouldn't be surprised if giant ancestry is used as an insult at Loki/by Loki at some point. There's also vestiges of a possible caste system - the myth of Heimdall begetting the various classes of humanity. But that's relatively small fry.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Brian, it would be interesting for you and us for you to compare your reading of LOTR with listening to it being read.
I listened to an unabridged audio version of it last year or the year before, and was amazed at how much I'd missed.
I think Toby has got it about right - the experience is more than the text.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The extended cut of Peter Jackson's Fellowship didn't do a lot for me: it seemed to suffer from an excess of elves and Enya. That said, I do think that Jackson's version is very good, in making an exciting set of films out of the books without losing their charm.

I have to admit, I think the elves/Arwen bit in extended film 2 was one of the places where Jackson particularly excelled. Could just be me.

 

[The Big Peat]

There are "barrow downs" near where I grew up (and still live now), and a mix of farmland and open wild country very similar to the Shire.

When I first read it, I was living in sight of the Sussex Downs and the Long Man of Wilmington, so naturally, for me, the Shire is not unlike Sussex.

Just to add - my childhood imagination was dominated by long summers on the Isle of Wight, walking the down at Compton and to the Long Stone by the barrow above Mottistone. Plenty of walks up the Kent Downs too. I doubt a deep resonance with hilly rural England is needed to appreciate the early part of the Fellowship of the Ring, but it certainly seems to help.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Even still, I find it surprising that the concept of the racial purity among men appears in this book, especially when written during the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. I'm also uncomfortable with some of the terminology: a Nazgul is a "black chap" and the Orcs are "slant-eyed"; Dunlendings are native peoples driven out of their own lands by "superior" men; the swarthy - and evil - Haradrim and Easterlings imply North African and Asian peoples. Although perhaps familiar and accepted at the time of publishing, modern readers may interpret some of these as casually racist, even if that was never Tolkien's intention.

I think you are reading too much into it. Especially regarding "black chap" and "slant-eyed". @Luiglin gives a fair argument about the use of black in depiction of Nazgul. Black is the absence of light. Dark is commonly depicted as black and we are all scared of the dark to some degree. That is in a way short-hand in writing. Nazgul are black and black is dark and we fear the dark so it stands that we should fear the Nazgul. Black is also a colour of solemnity and authority. It is commonly associated with something secretive or magical. There are so many reasons why black fits the Nazgul. They just wouldn't seem as threatening if they were bubble-gum pink.

As for "slant-eyed", look up some common predators like wolves. Don't their eyes appear a bit slanted to you? And orcs are predatory creatures. They prey on humans. Again, short-hand. Other words to describe them are squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, bow-legged, with wide mouths, long arms, dark skin, and fangs.

In my experience, readers tend to put an overemphasis on casual remarks like that and read into them all sorts of connotations when they take them out of context. When I read those, it never crossed my mind at all to link them to any real race because it simply seems logical to use this short-hand to imply traits about those creatures, especially since that is the context in which those terms are used. It seems a bit disingenuous to take it outside of that context and then read something into it especially as there are other traits that would contradict assigning them as a mockery of some existing race.

 

[Hugh]

Just to add - my childhood imagination was dominated by long summers on the Isle of Wight, walking the down at Compton and to the Long Stone by the barrow above Mottistone. Plenty of walks up the Kent Downs too. I doubt a deep resonance with hilly rural England is needed to appreciate the early part of the Fellowship of the Ring, but it certainly seems to help.

By coincidence we're staying at Freshwater Bay on the Isle of Wight for a few days in May, which I believe is close to Compton, so may well be able to get first hand experience of "walking the down at Compton". I haven't been there before (other than a brief visit in my teens).

Also by coincidence, I was in the local oxfam shop today looking for any new sf stock, and to my surprise found myself picking up mint paperback editions of the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales for a £1 each. I've never been interested in reading either despite LOTR being part of me, but this thread has made me curious to read further. As I take care not to accumulate unread books, I will probably read them or at least give them a good try.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The Silmarillion is good, though, erm... "heavy". Especially at the start.

 

[Hugh]

The Silmarillion is good, though, erm... "heavy". Especially at the start.

yes, I glanced at it many years ago, when it came out, and thought "not for me", but I've got curious...

 

[kythe]

I'm the other way around on that one. I've read LOTR only once, but The Silmarillion several times. I love the "mythology" feel, and the beginning is my favorite part.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I think you are reading too much into it.

The problem is that at least some of these terms would have been acceptable at the time of publishing, but no longer are in the contexts used. For example, "slant-eyed" was a term specifically applied to Asians and nowadays is considered disparaging and offensive.

I'm not arguing that Tolkien was racist, but some of his word choices now have unfortunate imperialist connotations, especially when relating to race, class, or peoples. So it's probably no wonder that LOTR has been dogged by accusations of racism, whether real or imagined.

Something else that has surprised me: from the films I'd always thought of Frodo-Samwise as a strong example of a close male friendship (bromance, if you will). However, I've just passed an opening paragraph in The Black Gate is Closed (top of P.664 in my Unwin paperback) where the relationship is clearly described as servile:

Sam said nothing ... . Now they were come to the bitter end. But he has stuck to his master all the way; that was what he had chiefly come for, and he would still stick to him. His master would not go to Mordor alone.

I'd already noticed Samwise was the main narrative character for the journey to Mordor, and thought I'd spoken in haste about how Tolkien represented class. But then I hit the paragraph above: Sam is a devoted servant, like a faithful hound, rather than a close friend.

Brian, it would be interesting for you and us for you to compare your reading of LOTR with listening to it being read.

I remember listening to the BBC Radio adaptation, though I can't remember much of my impressions, other than Michael Horden made for a good Gandalf - and that I bought the Stephen Oliver soundtrack! Although I skip all the songs in the book, Stephen Oliver did a great job of bringing some of them to life.

Tolkien's prose in the hobbit sections was probably pretty much standard for the time (the conservative end of standard rather than the modernist end)

George Orwell died before LOTR was published, but I don't recall 1984 being anywhere near as archaic-sounding. However, again, I wonder if there was a considered use of language according to the setting.

 

[The Big Peat]

By coincidence we're staying at Freshwater Bay on the Isle of Wight for a few days in May, which I believe is close to Compton, so may well be able to get first hand experience of "walking the down at Compton". I haven't been there before (other than a brief visit in my teens).

Very close, yes, although a lot less close if you walk it over the downs. Believe Compton Farm is still a source of very good milk if so inclined; Compton Beach is certainly the best in the vicinity.

Something else that has surprised me: from the films I'd always thought of Frodo-Samwise as a strong example of a close male friendship (bromance, if you will). However, I've just passed an opening paragraph in The Black Gate is Closed (top of P.664 in my Unwin paperback) where the relationship is clearly described as servile:



I'd already noticed Samwise was the main narrative character for the journey to Mordor, and thought I'd spoken in haste about how Tolkien represented class. But then I hit the paragraph above: Sam is a devoted servant, like a faithful hound, rather than a close friend.

Close friendship and a master-servant relationship are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Overread]

I think Sam and Frodo's relationship began and was based on a master-servant system and then gradually bridges the gap through their adventure. However both parties fall back on the "master servant" to give them a rough set of rules to help define how they should behave toward one another.

I'd also say its a more casual than formal master-servant relationship, though Sam likely takes it more formally than Frodo; although I'll admit I'd have to re-read the story myself to really confirm that.

 

[Luiglin]

yes, I glanced at it many years ago, when it came out, and thought "not for me", but I've got curious...

It's worth a read just to get a feel of the epic mythology and numerous tradegies that is hinted at in his other works.

 

[Pyan]

Close friendship and a master-servant relationship are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed - Lord Peter Wimsey and Bunter springs to mind.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

The problem is that at least some of these terms would have been acceptable at the time of publishing, but no longer are in the contexts used. For example, "slant-eyed" was a term specifically applied to Asians and nowadays is considered disparaging and offensive.

I'm not arguing that Tolkien was racist, but some of his word choices now have unfortunate imperialist connotations, especially when relating to race, class, or peoples. So it's probably no wonder that LOTR has been dogged by accusations of racism, whether real or imagined.

Nowadays, we made many perfectly innocent words into disparaging remarks and then casually forgot the actual meanings and made them instantly derogatory in every possible context. Even your linked definition first lists other meanings of the word slant-eyed. Why are we instantly skipping to the third listed definition? And mind you, everything can be derogatory if you are creative enough and give it the right context.

It is disparaging to apply such a term to Asians in derogatory manner, e.g.

Spoiler: Example of derogatory words used for the purpose of illustration

"those damned slant-eyed Japs who stole our jobs".

It is not disparaging when I say that my cat is a damn slant-eyed monster nor does it imply anything about Asians. He is simply very slant-eyed, even for a cat, and likes to ruin perfectly good pants when he is not given attention. Or if I write a book with a species that I want to denote as predators and thus give them slanted eyes because that is a trait that many predators can be described with. Someone might call me a racist or whatever there ignoring that members of that specie are tall and have orange skin. Any similarity to my cat is also purely coincidental.

I am arguing that many of those unfortunate imperialist connotations are people overreacting to words taken out of context where the multiple meanings of the words are casually ignored for sake of making an argument or where the use of words evolved. It reminds me of a very annoying Harry Potter review where the forest is missed because of a tree.

Something else that has surprised me: from the films I'd always thought of Frodo-Samwise as a strong example of a close male friendship (bromance, if you will). However, I've just passed an opening paragraph in The Black Gate is Closed (top of P.664 in my Unwin paperback) where the relationship is clearly described as servile:

I'd already noticed Samwise was the main narrative character for the journey to Mordor, and thought I'd spoken in haste about how Tolkien represented class. But then I hit the paragraph above: Sam is a devoted servant, like a faithful hound, rather than a close friend.

The movies skewed our perception of the events, characters, and relationships in the books. It is an adaptation after all and things were bound to be changed to make it more palatable to movie-goers and because the medium is different.

Also, the connotations of words change over time. The use of the word master has narrowed out in the meantime. Frodo was Sam's master, or rather, in today's terms, we would say he was his employer. You can compare the use of word master there with Pride and Prejudice Chapter 43 where Mrs Reynolds dotes on Mr Darcy much as a mother would yet uses the term master. A word does not change all that they've been together and the way they regard each other. It is simply that it is what Frodo is to Sam. Sam is not his dog. He is Frodo's employee.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I remember listening to the BBC Radio adaptation, though I can't remember much of my impressions, other than Michael Horden made for a good Gandalf - and that I bought the Stephen Oliver soundtrack! Although I skip all the songs in the book, Stephen Oliver did a great job of bringing some of them to life.

That adaption is one of the best things the BBC have ever done - and the music is sublime & wonderful - but I meant the audio book really. I have the Rob Inglis one. I'm still surprised how much I'd missed from reading it the usual way.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

yes, I glanced at it many years ago, when it came out, and thought "not for me", but I've got curious...

I would highly recommend you read it. It puts everything into context. But, like most people, I was amazed at how "archaic" it sounds. The language is very odd for the modern reader...