Interesting topic, and interesting replies!
The structure of LotR, eh? I must confess that I'm a bit puzzled by criticisms of LotR as being overly episodic. In my view, the story has an uncommonly strong narrative spine, namely, the quest to destroy the Ring. Now, admittedly, several plot threads evolve into something more like "can we protect the things we're fighting to save until the Ring is destroyed?", but even these threads get back on task as the climax approaches and the characters not directly involved in the destruction of the Ring strive to keep Sauron's attention diverted from the real stroke.
Almost all situations in the plot -- both in terms of external action (we must take a long journey into the heart of the enemy's kingdom) and internal conflict (shall I claim this precious thing as my own?) -- are driven by the Ring.
One thing that I do find to be quite interesting and unusual about the structure of the piece is the complete division of the Frodo-Sam thread (Books 4 and most of 6) from the War of the Ring threads (Books 3 and 5). After the breaking of the Fellowship, one might expect the author to roughly alternate chapters, breaking the action at a suspensful moment in Frodo's quest to cut away to the action in the West, and vice versa. Instead, Tolkien follows each thread to a rough midpoint before alternating. In this sense, the narrative is most definitely
not linear: we follow the War of the Ring all the way up to Gandalf's journey with Pippin to Minas Tirith before going back in time to see what has become of Frodo and Sam.
What a surprising choice! I think the overall effect of it is to add to the book's feeling of history or memoir. The expected alternating construction would, I think, feel more "modern", more geared towards manipulating suspense in the reader. Although Tolkien is still able to achieve suspense, his unusual structure feels more like a recounting of events than like a tale designed to titillate the reader.
I'm getting a little long-winded here, so I'll just briefly hit a few other points:
I tend to disagree with the idea that the (allegedly) loose narrative structure is overcome by features of the setting -- details of geography or chronology. I think that for Tolkien, the world-building in Middle-earth was always subordinate to, and in service of, the story. So, rather than alter his story to fit the geography, he instead would solve problems with "map alterations" (letter 85). In letter 163, he proclaims:
Quote:
|
...I met a lot of things on the way that astonished me. Tom Bombadil I knew already; but I had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the corner at the inn was a shock, and I had no more idea who he was than had Frodo. The Mines of Moria had been a mere name; and of Lothlórien no word had reached my mortal ears till I came there. Far away I knew there were the Horse-lords on the confines of an ancient Kingdom of Men, but Fangorn Forest was an unforeseen adventure. I had never heard of the House of Eorl nor of the Stewards of Gondor.
|
So rather than a story inspired by history and geography, I daresay we have the opposite -- geography and history inspired by the needs of the story.
Lalwendë, your shotgun tactics paid off: it's denouement (or if you prefer, dénouement). Nice breakdown of the story's elements up above, btw.
Fordim, I'm a bit confused by the idea of a story with an essentially moral structure. What does that mean in terms of organizing the story and how it works? I certainly agree that there is a strong moral thematic component, but I'm not entirely clear on how you feel that plays into how the story is actually constructed or how it functions.