Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
Is it heresy to suggest that Tolkien simply wrote a bad paragraph that does not hold up to a clear first reading without tons of assumptions and elaborate explainations?
Probably a silly question here.
|
Actually, you may be surprised by this, but I agree that the passage is confusing, and probably more than it needs to be. I'm only saying that I suppose Tolkien had
some reason in mind when he wrote about the destruction of the bridges (and, I would argue, intended Smaug's original plan to be crossing the bridge and attacking from the ground, for whatever reason). It's obvious that this doesn't come across clearly - I was confused the first time I read it myself (true, that was over 20 years ago, but I would have been if I first read it now, too.)
If you're saying that something Tolkien wrote fails to clearly get his point across in hopes that this will destroy some kind of straw-man you've devised such as: "Tolkien is not an infallible god", I think you're probably wasting your time, since no one (as far as I can see) claims that. However, if you're interested in debating what the passage means, simply pointing out that it's unclear is kind of pointless.