LotR - Prologue

[HerenIstarion]

Nice rounded up summary, SpM, thank you. And though it seems very much a post with which the discussion can be closed, I can not stand the temptation to pick up a little portion of your thread (so that is the way of collective discussion, one participant's thoughts being effect of another poster's argument)

So

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I love the reference to “wild folk and wicked things” having “not heard of the King”

So do I. And, is with many things else in Tolkien, the great skill applied to this phrase here too. It is perfectly fitting in its proper sense, that is, indeed, around Shire there is a wilderness, and scoundrels out there haven't heard of the King (since there is no King present whatsoeverl). Indeed, this is confirmed by ruffians later on in the "Scouring of the Shire", when they daunt Pippin with mockery about King's messanger.

But does not King with capital K and wild folk who know Him not ring any other bells on other levels?

[HerenIstarion]

Maybe the following is of slight interest with regards to the Shire:

some thoughts, or nation in ME

[the phantom]

I was reading Tolkien's letters today and stumbled across a little passage about hobbits that I thought belonged on this thread. I'm rather surprised that no one posted it before I got around to it.

letter 246-

Sam is meant to be lovable and laughable. Some readers he irritates and even infuriates. I can well understand it. All hobbits at times affect me in the same way, though I remain very fond of them. But Sam can be very 'trying'. He is more representative hobbit than any others that we have to see much of; and he has consequently a stronger ingredient of that quality which even some hobbits found at times hard to bear: a vulgarity - by which I do not mean a mere 'down-to-earthiness' - a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness (in varying degrees) and cocksureness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional 'wisdom'. We only meet exceptional hobbits in close companionship - those who had a grace or gift: a vision of beauty, and a reverence for things nobler than themselves, at war with their rustic self-satisfaction. Imagine Sam without his education by Bilbo and his fascination with things Elvish! Not difficult. The Cotton family and the Gaffer, when the 'Travellers' return are a sufficient glimpse.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

But does not King with capital K and wild folk who know Him not ring any other bells on other levels?

Quite!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Looking back at the beginning of this thread reminds me that it was Fordim who initiated the discussion project! His introduction is well worth rereading.

I began thinking about the Prologue even before I actually reread it - I looked up information on war and weapons as concerning hobbits for another thread just a few days ago. This introduction to the book is an absolute essential for anyone writing a Hobbit RPG or fanfiction! There is so much invaluable information contained in it. I know that I read it very closely when beginning to write a story, and rereading it just might inspire me to finish it in the near future...

The second part, 'Concerning Pipe-weed', contains spoilers about Merry's future - is it really necessary to have that at the beginning of the book, or would it have been better placed in the Appendices? The same thought applies to the 'Note on the Shire Records' - it is chockfull of spoilers! Now, I'm definitely a person who reads all introductions, forewords, even acknowledgements, when I read a book, so I assume I must have read this part before delving into the story, but I don't remember whether I realized the spoilers back then. It's been awhile!

The future of Merry, Pippin and Sam and their offspring is mentioned, and the fact that Frodo writes the Red Book gives away the fact that he survived the War of the Ring. Does anyone remember realizing that when you first read the book? I would definitely have placed this section in the Appendices, to be read afterwards.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

The same thought applies to the 'Note on the Shire Records' - it is chockfull of spoilers!

'Note on the Shire Records' does not appear in the First Edition text, & neither does the Index in RotK if it comes to that - interestingly enough all through the FE reprints, & that's up to 1966, all you get is an apology at the end of RotK for its absence!:

PUBLISHER'S NOTE
We regret that it has not been possible to include as an appendix to this edition the index of names announced in the Preface of The Fellowship of the Ring

is all you get - which appeared in every edition of RotK from 1955 till 1966. A brand new was compiled by Hammond & Scull for the 50th anniversary edition.

[Bêthberry]

This is an intriguing issue, Esty.

The concern over spoilers isn't part of traditional literary culture. It's part of pop culture--did it arise on the internet with the discussion of weekly TV series and movies? (Not to self, check out OED on "spoilers" and see if the word postdates Tolkien.) I could be wrong, but I doubt Tolkien himself would have been bothered by spoilers. After all, look how many times he rewrote some of his own stories, how many versions we have. He was interested in definitive versions.

Books, for old time readers, were meant to be savoured for more than simply the plot. It was probably considered quite vulgar to be interested only in whodunnit or whahappened. It was the 'quality' of writing, the interest in how the writer choose to present the story and characters, that was supposed to provide the entertainment. Generations of clever young fellows spent (misspent?) their youth translating Greek and Latin not simply as an aid to demonstrating their knowledge of that language but to show their skill as writers in English, their command of style, technique, rhetoric, "colour." (Well, this was the pedagogical purpose behind the imposition of those school assignments. )

Novelty was not an especially important quality in literary merit. After all, much of the reading public already knew the plot of the ancient stories. So why did writers retell those stories? Because they saw new and different ways to tell them, new and different approaches, perspectives. So it was almost a situation where knowing the plot ahead of time was part of the reading process, being able to make comparisons and see new twists and turns, being able to appreciate how one was led up to the conclusion. So it didn't matter if readers guessed from the Prologue that Frodo survives: the interest was in his internal journey and how he came to survive.

Novelty really I suppose only became significant with . . . novels.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I absolutely agree with Bêthberry here. Tolkien's strength is not in surprising ending or a twist in the plot (the thing which is almost essential for a good novel), even the final revelation that the Shire is destroyed and that Sharkey is Saruman is not, in my opinon, that surprising twist, though it has very close to it.
As I said in the Foreword thread, I did not read the Prologue the first time I read FotR, yet it did not bother me in the slightest: I did not seem to miss anything (like knowing when old Toby started to grow his herbs) and, of course, I was not affected by the spoilers - at least in the beginning. Nevertheless, it was quite clear to me that Frodo survives and I must say in Cirith Ungol I did not think for a second that he could be really dead, and I'm sure any spoilers would not play any role in this, whether I read them or not.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So it didn't matter if readers guessed from the Prologue that Frodo survives: the interest was in his internal journey and how he came to survive.

Only to this: at least personally, my interest was not during my first reading - and probably not even in the later readings - whether Frodo or how Frodo survives at all. In fact, Frodo and the hobbits were on the edge of my interest. I could even say that it was not that I would follow the tale of Frodo and the Fellowship, as they pass through some sceneries and events and pass by some people, but that I was trying to explore all of Middle-Earth's sceneries and events and characters, while I had some group of Frodos to lead me through, like tour guides. You know what I mean? At least for the first time, I hardly cared about Frodo or his mission, even. I entered this fantastic world and the only way I could explore all its beautiful places was to follow the "camera view" that was given to me by the author. Otherwise, the world was shut to me, it was a different world that I was not welcome in, that I did not belong to, but as long as I followed this group of Frodos and Sams and Striders, I had the privilege to take a peek at least on a little part of it. (And after all this time, today I can say that only very slowly it has opened to me, but I can feel a little more welcome in there and I feel I can move almost freely there now.)
It's not that I would completely ignore Frodo's quest and the storyline: of course not, I was thrilled at many moments, I was moved, I shared his or his fellows' feelings. But it was not the first place for me, and only in later readings this gained more and more importance for me.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Davem, thanks for the reminder that not all we read today was originally printed. Still, when it was included it was within JRRT's lifetime, so he must not have seen the possibility of spoilers as a disadvantage.

Bêthberry, excellent thoughts! There were, of course, murder mystery writers back in Tolkien's day, so I assume the authors and readers of 'whodunits' must have been interested in keeping others from knowing the murderer, but your remarks on the non-existent role of spoiler warnings in traditional literature are a valuable addition to this discussion. And you make an interesting connection between novels and novelty!

Legate, I enjoyed your post about your personal reading experience. I find it fascinating to see how differently the same book is perceived by different people - and even by the same person at different times of her/his life.