Dumbing down the Books

[Aiwendil]

Eurytus wrote:

Reading through this thread I have seen ever more convoluted arguments for these events;
1. The use of archaic language.
2. The jarring change in style and tone.

I don't see how the following arguments are convoluted:
1. Archaic language imparts the writing with a special flavor, which may be desirable in itself. Also, in the present case, this flavor matches the flavor or feel of the actual events described.
2. The change in style is achieved gradually and thus is not jarring.

I do agree about the difficulty in believing that the hobbits would change their style to such a degree; I think this is a minor flaw. But it is a flaw of a very different sort than the charge that the change in styles is jarring, or that the prose is poor.

in my view the simply answer is that Tolkien simply wanted it to sound epic and to ape the works he was fond of.

after reading the HOME series, the simple answer is that Tolkien began the book as a sequel to the Hobbit, with childish names and woeful characters (a hobbit called trotter with wooden shoes indeed), and that once he had morphed this into a sequel to the Silmarillion (partly no doubt because he could not get the latter published) he failed to go back and sufficiently correct the earlier clashes of tone.

I think that you are confusing means and ends. A discussion concerning the merits and flaws in a book ought not to depend at all upon the motivations of the author, but rather upon the final product itself.

Bethberry wrote:

Aiwendel is ascribing to me points I never made and which do not follow logically from any of my points.

I had written:

I fear I may be misreading you here,

I may be ascribing views to you that you don't hold, but I think that they are whither your arguments ultimately lead - if I understood your criterion correctly.

I tried to indicate that I was unsure about your intent so as not to offend you by misrepresenting you.

Was I correct in surmising that you think "that one criterion is that the writing conforms in general to common patterns in phrasing and grammatical structure"? If so, I think that this line of reasoning eventually must lead to the kinds of problems I referred to - with the quality of a work of literature depending on where and when it was written, and so forth.

Or was I correct in my second guess, that you meant "that the too frequent use of any kind of phrasing or grammatical structure is an detriment"? If this is the case, then I stand by my reply - that a great many older works use a similar style to Tolkien's, and that a great many modern works employ other techniques of phrasing with equal frequency, and that I don't think that all of these are poorly written.

Or did you mean something else? If you did, please correct my error.

For your information, I have supplied a plausible reason for Tolkien's use of archaic style. It is just that none of you like the reason.

I would surmise that this is "because he could not conceive of heroism in the modern age", as you said in an earlier post.

First of all, let me point out that I neither like or dislike that hypothesis as an explanation for Tolkien's use of his particular style. But I don't think that Tolkien's motivation for using the style has much of anything to do with whether the style is good or not.

My answer to the latter question is that: 1. there is nothing inherently poor about the archaic style; 2. Tolkien's command of this archaic style was good; 3. the archaic style lends a feeling/flavor/atmosphere to the writing; 4. this feeling is appropriate to the content of the book and is also enjoyable in itself; thus the style is good.

I take it you disagree with 2 (and possibly with others). But I don't see how Tolkien's motivations for choosing the style he chose determine whether or not he was adept in the use of that style.

And, yes, "Borne upon the wind they heard the howling of wolves" is a grammatical error.

I'm going to have to simply disagree with you on this and leave it at that (for it seems neither of us can produce proof). I was always under the impression that this is one of those "grammatical rules" invented by nineteenth century scholars to enforce what they took to be good style (along with rules against "split infinitives" and not ending sentences with prepositions).

I think Finwe has come close to providing one way to recognize a great read: when we are completely taken up in the created world an author presents to us. I, too, feel this way about Tolkien's world and writing. Yet I also feel let down. I come crashing back to 'reality' when I come to certain passages in LOTR and this is disappointing.

But if this is to be the criterion, then we are back where we started. I never came crashing back to reality when I came to certain passages. Where does that leave us? With no room for debate.