Defects in LotR ? (Gasp)
 

From the Prologue to Lord of the Rings:
I wonder what defects, major or minor, Tolkien found in his great novel? Major defects, I can't imagine (maybe that gay subtext. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] ) Minor defects would, I guess, be little glitches or inconsistencies that he found on re-reading. I always thought it was odd when, on Weathertop, Strider stops Frodo from telling the tale of Gil-galad:
And Strider seems especially concerned that Frodo not say the name "Mordor". So Strider instead tells part of the tale of Luthien and Beren, and within 5 minutes mentions Mordor and Sauron, and refers to Morgoth himself! Maybe this is exlainable, but I always found it strange.

Any guesses on what defects, major or minor, JRRT saw in his own work?

As for Aragorn interrupting the Fall of Gil-Galad, JRRT explains in one of his letters (incidentally the very interesting letter where he comments on a LOTR movie script he had been proposed in his life time): The tale of Beren and Lúthien in turn was one with a glorious ending for both, definitely also more appropriate for Aragorn's personal situation, using Beren as a role model.

I suspect that Tolkien's "defects" were things such as timelines, names, small deviations in stories, etc. There are several notes in the HoME series where you can see that the stories of the first age as sketched out and presented are somewhat different from what was finally published in the LotR. There are also minor variations in dating the Numenorean kings, for example. There may be other inconsistencies, but I would warrant they would not be caught by the casual reader.

Sharku, can you please tell me where you got your copy of the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Here you go, Fenrir: Amazon

I can think of two defects to LotR.
1:The prologue should have been placed in the appendix. I suspect thousands (millions?) of people have given up after reading a page or two.
2:The names Sauron and Saruman are too similar. I believe many people have read through much of the book thinking they were the same person.

Welcome to Barrowdowns, Scapegoat.

"The names Sauron and Saruman are too similar. I believe many people have read through much of the book thinking they were the same person."

Possibly, but it would have to be a very cursory reading, with many breaks to do other things. They are very similar names, though. Perhaps this was even intentional and the characters are parallels: Saruman does appear to me as a sort of petty Sauron, perhaps even acting as a hint at the manner of the Dark Lord's own fall from grace. Certainly he appears to be a putative Dark Lord, best removed while he's still building his power-base.

JRRT was, as he said, the most critical reader of all. No perfectionist is ever entirely happy with their own work.

One "defect" Tolkien saw in the LoTR is that of names and the languages of the elves...he couldn't get the names to fit in with the phonology of Quenyan or Sindarin.....his two most beloved languages of Middle Earth...

...in "The History of Middle Earth 12 : The peoples of Middle Earth" there is a whole section which is devoted to it...

....this "defect" as he saw it is in most of his writings because he wrote them before fully developing the languages....but when he had developed them...he found that many of the names did not fit....and so he had to try and work them into the language structure....

Is that why he changed the derivation of many names, like Elrond ?

One thing that I am not sure about is the names of some of the men of gondor. Some are the same as elven names in the silmarillion. For example, Mablung, Ecthelion, and others. They are used twice, being the same, but in a different language. If Gondor in fact did use elven names, it would have been long ago when they were closer to the elves. I bet tolkien just ran out of good names.

The suggestions here relate to the legendarium. Perhaps Tolkien himself was referring to the prose style, which can at times [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] be turgid.

I read somewhere that J.R.R. Tolkien was like, a perfectionist of sorts, and that The Lord Of the Rings series might not have even come out if Tolkien had been allowed to fix all the "Mistakes". I also think it said that's why The Silmarillion came out after he died and his son had to compile it. He just saw so many problems and such.

Aylwen

This reminds me of something I read last night. I came across a book at my library. I cannot remember the exact title, but it went something like, "Modern Literary Inrerpretations Series". This particular volume of the series was "Lord of the Rings." Each book in the series has an introduction by Harold Bloom.

I can only say that the intro was less than complementary. That part that stood out in my mind was the line (paraphrase) "I cannot understand how any mature or sophisticated reader could put up with thousands of pages of such quaint stuff."

I put the book back on the shelf and decided I didn't want to read it, if it was going to be filled with such insults as that.

But...perhaps this would interesting to discuss, being along the lines of defects in LotR. How would you answer the question put forth by Harold Bloom? (You just read my response!)

First of all, I've read these books in another language than english, so sorry for any names of places I have gotten wrong etc. I've noticed a few things which I found abit odd with the books; When Sam, Frodo and Gollum are on their way to Cirith Ungol, they see an army leaving Minas Morgul with a Nazgul, the Witch King, riding infront of them. But wasn't he at that point some sort of bird? And later on, in Gondor, he is again some sort of bird. Have I just read the text wrong? Or is it a mistake?

Another thing is, when Théoden and rohirrim leaves Dunhov (I'm not sure if that name is correct), the books tell about a song that would be sung through several generations. But there has been said many times that if Sauron wins the battle and gets the Ring, there will be no more songs. And that does kind of give away the fact that Sauron does not win.

This is probably not something people notice if they only read the books once or twice, but I thought I had to mention it.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Laivine ]

Harold Bloom has anxieties about influence.

Well, the Witch King did ride on a "Fell-Beast" which was birdlike in that it could fly. But the Witch King himself was not a bird. So he could switch mounts at will, I'm sure.

Ahh ok! Thanks for clearing that up!

Some of the descriptions could have stood with some trimming, though the quality of the writing is so wonderful that you could hardly call it a defect; it just means you've got to have a LOT of time to read it. And I may get slapped for this, but some of the minor episodes went far too long; example 1 is Tom Bombadil - as enjoyable as he is, he feels like (and was) someone who stumbled into the story from another dimension, and they spend a LOT of time in his house considering its insignificance to the plot. Yes, he rescues them from the willow, and from Barrow-Wight where they get their swords, and that second part was definitely important to leave in, but he could have done it with a lot less singing.

Ghan-buri-Ghan is similar; he spends about four pages treating with the main characters, when the main point of the episode can be summed up in the sentence "He's on our side for the duration." Not that he should have cut it down that much, of course, but it could have been cut somewhat.

That being said, though, the books are an absolutely miraculous piece of writing; all that the minor flaws do is prove that the professor was, in fact, human and ran into deadlines and disliked cutting his own work as much as the rest of us do. I only wish I could write books that had such flaws [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

BTW, the Harold Bloom-edited literary critics would be better employed in rereading the book than writing unreadable essays about it. I'm biased though - I suffered through a lot of those Modern Critical Interpretions books in college and to a book, they were so clotted with pretension and bad writing that the paper would have been more usefully employed as confetti. Don't worry about 'em - people will be reading LOTR long after the Modern Critical Interpretations have become Out-of-Print Critical Interpretations.

Amen to that