Tolkien's shifting style

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

One of the most remarkable things (for me) about The Lord of the Rings has always been the wide variety of styles employed throughout to tell the story. From twentieth century realism to Romance, Old English epic and Celtic fairy-tale, all the way to Homeric bravura and Dickensian verisimilitude. Probably because it's been such a favourite aspect of the book for me, it's been swirling around at the back of my head for a number of years, but recently I've had a series of thoughts about it that are perhaps going somewhere...

1) Audience: The first thing that occured to me is that the shifts in style seem to match up with the audience at that moment: obviously, not the actual audience, since you are (more or less) the same the whole time you read, but the notional audience, or those 'in the book' who are 'between' us and the action in some way. For example:

The earlier sections detailing the Hobbits' adventures are clearly told in a very 'hobbitish' way (which is to say, according to the dictates of modern relism). The assumed audience of these sections is someone very much like the real reader will probably be.

The first really interesting shift in the narrative comes with the entrance of Tom Bombadil, when it becomes much more like a children's book (makes sense when you realise that Tom began as a series of bedtime stories for Tolkien's children). But then this tone is immediatly complicated and enriched with the emergence of Goldberry who brings about the novel's first real foray into the "higher" style that really dominates many of the later chapters. The notional audience for these sections are more "Elvish" (if I dare say that). The effect of this merging of realism and high style, is to subtly shift the reader from Realism to Romance, perhaps preparing us for much more of the same later on.

Of course, as the story progresses, these forays into non-Realistic modes of narrative become more and more frequent, until you have whole chapters written in nothing but that style. In these moments you can see that the notional reader is now no longer a Realist in any way, but something else. Which leads me to point number

2) The Audience in the Work: as the story goes on we get more and more moments where the narrative doesn't just tell us what's happening, but it tells us what's happening through the eyes of observers in the text. The coming of Gandalf to Helm's Deep; the destruction of Isengard; even the passage of the paths of the dead are not narrated directly, but through the eys of an observer (the army of Rohan watches Gandalf come; Merry and Pippin narrate the destruction of Isengard; Gimli watches Aragorn in his greatest moment).

By the time we reach the final chapters of the book, this narrative shift from 'in' to 'out' is almost entirely complete with the Coronation of Aragorn, and then the return of the hobbits to the Shire -- both of these moments are told from the point of view of citizens of Minas Tirith or of the Shire, respectively. We're not so much 'with' the omniscient narrator as he looks 'through' the protagonists' eyes as we are 'with' the omniscient narrator as he looks 'through' the eyes of people watching and observing the protagonists. Which now leads to my final point...

3) The return to the oral tradition. I was listening to an interview with an inuit film-maker and he argued that in the oral tradition of story telling you don't find that singular focus on the individual hero that dominates the novelistic tradition. He argued that oral stories are about the communities that they take place in and not in the 'hero' -- there still are heroes, of course, but the story does not focus on them, it only 'uses' them to reflect on the wider experience of the community.

And I thought: whoa!

Seems to me that this can go a long way to explaining much about Tolkien that fascinates and intrigues me. The emphasis in the narrative does seem to move from the individual to the communal as we shift point of view from Frodo, to other members of the Fellowship, to the whole societies who regard the heroes and who try to figure them out. We move from looking out of Frodo's eyes, to looking at Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin and Gandalf through a lot of other people's eyes. It's almost as though the story goes in reverse, beginning with the written tradition and then moving 'back' toward an oral tradition.

So are there other ways in which this move to orality exists in the story? Does it even move the way I think it does? There is such an emphasis throughout on story-telling, it only makes sense to me that it would be partly, well, told rather than written, but is that possible in a printed book?

And what of the impact on the heroes of approaching the story as an oral tale rather than a written novel? Does it indeed move us away from Individual Heroes toward heroic individuals in a community?

[Lalwendë]

Two initial points came to mind right away. The first is the most simplistic, but is still relevant, and that's that Tolkien took so long to write LotR it was almost inevitable that his 'voice' would change; there is certainly a marked difference in tone between the early chapters of Fellowship and RotK. Of course this argument depends on whether we can detect a return to the original writing style of Fellowship in the final chapters of RotK.

The second thing that springs to mind, and its something that's struck me for a while now, following the CbC read through. There's always a Hobbit present. We don't see Middle-Earth through any eyes but Hobbit eyes. Do we also read Hobbit words? If so, then the tone and style could have been set by the Hobbit observers.

It might be worth looking at which chapters are written in which style. For instance, is all the 'high-flown' language found in the chapters which are viewed through Merry's eyes at Pelennor? Or is it also found elsewhere? And who relates the chapters about Elves? Is it Sam? Are the Elves really like he says?

It could be a whole new area to explore.

I have to disagree that the chapters set in The Shire are 'realism' though. They strike me as more Romantic than the rest of the text to be honest; you could almost imagine Dorothy Wordsworth sitting in the garden of Bag End. I find the most 'realism' to be in the chapters involving Frodo and Sam's struggles through Mordor.

[Aiwendil]

The second thing that springs to mind, and its something that's struck me for a while now, following the CbC read through. There's always a Hobbit present.

This is a good point, but it's not completely true. There are several chapters in Book III that concern only Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and (eventually) Gandalf.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

This is a good point, but it's not completely true. There are several chapters in Book III that concern only Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and (eventually) Gandalf.

True; but aren't those relayed mostly from Gimli's perspective?

Hah-- Gimli, le Faux Hobbeet. If he only knew.

Edit: Much of LOTR was written "to" Christopher, and mailed to him as he fought in WW2. (Africa, wasn't it?) Since Christopher was always one of Tolkien's oral audiences as a child-- how many bedtime stories WERE there?-- it strikes me as quite natural that oral storytelling techniques and characteristics would percolate through Tolkien's writing: especially as he writes to his son overseas.

[Rumil]

I've always thought that it was a mark of Tolkien's mastery as a storyteller that the early Shire chapters are comparatively lighthearted in what you might call 'tone' (I guess there's probably a technical expression), but as the fortunes of the fellowship ebb and flow the tone alters with the situation.

For me the most marked contrast is between the Shire chapters and Mordor. The Mordor chapters I find almost exhausting to read, which I imagine may have been Tolkien's intent; to put the reader through, in a miniscule fashion, the torments of Sam and Frodo.

Using the 'translator conceit' one must remember that the depressing Mordor chapters were written by Frodo, and must therefore reflect his dark memories of that perilous journey. One can contrast this with the Rohan and Gondor chapters, which must mostly have been based on the memories of Merry and Pippin and are therefore considerably jauntier.

Other sections which strike me as different are naturally, Tom Bombadil (I seem to remember an old thread on this - regarding faerie etc??), then the contrast in pace when Frodo is struggling through the Trollshaws.

[Boromir88]

Well certainly Tolkien's style, or perspective changes. I think it's all a ploy to get the readers more involved into his story. It's used to get the readers to be able to connect with the characters more. We get to see the workings of their mind so to say. It's not simply someone telling us...'Frodo is fully of Pity and Mercy' it's seeing through Frodo's mind, and having us figure out through Frodo's own actions and words that we see this.

There are two authors that I can think of who have done this before. There is William Faulkner's As I lay Dying. Where a mother of a twisted and dysfunctional family has died, and Faulkner every chapter switches to another family members (or sometimes a neighbor's) point of view. This way we get to relate and connect with the character, as we get to see how their mind ticks. It's more of a personal connection...to put it that way.

Then there's Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, which starts out in Jane's early childhood and it's narrated by the author. Then by the middle part switches over to Jane's husband, Rochester's point of view. Finally the end of the book, Jane had been locked up in this room, she has lost all sanity, and we see things through the insane Jane Eyre's eyes.

Those some that I'm aware of, and it's an effective device author's use so the readers can connect more with the character's.

And what of the impact on the heroes of approaching the story as an oral tale rather than a written novel? Does it indeed move us away from Individual Heroes toward heroic individuals in a community?~Fordim

I'm sure this would fit well in the True Hero: Frodo or Samwise? thread. Whether either of them (or anyone in Tolkien for that matter) was a true 'hero' or just your average joe with heroic qualities.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Lal: I agree in your assessment of Mordor vs Shire and 'realistic' vs romantic -- but are we talking about the same thing? When I said that I find the Shire chapters to be realistic, I meant that they are written to the norms of literary realism, where the effect is one of normative reality, and where all fabulous or 'archaic' elements are expunged. Sure we have hobbits, but they are behaving a lot more like people in our own Primary world than any of the Men! What's more important is, I think, the importance these chapters give to psychological characterisation of individual characters (or, moral quandries and exploration by individual characters). The individualised struggle of the lone protagonist is the very heart of Literary Realism. What happens in Mordor is not so much about that as it is about the battle between Good and Evil, redemption, fate, despair and hope, etc (of course it's still about the story of two individuals, but it's much more in the tradition of Romance and Moral Fable in which the struggles of Sam and Frodo become almost allegorical of the journey everyone must make).

Boro: I agree with your comment on 'drawing us in' to the story and I think that is very much what I saw in those moments. As we have the narrator assuming almost a bardic role, singing to us of what's happening, we are literally in the audience watching it. The quintessential moment for this that I can think of is the arrival of Arwen in Minas Tirith. The way that incident is narrated it is almost as though I am standing in the healing fields of the Pelennor shoulder to shoulder with Gimli and Legolas, watching in joyous amazement as my new king brings to me my new queen. To have the narrator 'writing' that moment as in a realist novel, it would focus on Aragorn's perceptions of it as his 'reward' and 'fulfillment' -- thus making it 'his' moment and not necessarily 'mine'. But by having it narrated as a public/communal event to an observing crowd of which I am a part, I am literally drawn in and made a citizen of Minas Tirith (or, rather, it allows me to imagine myself into that position very easily) and the marriage is about me and my own fulfillment and satisfaction at the end of a long journey.

Rumil: one way I've always thought about that transition from the early chapters to the later is that it reflects Tolkien's own slow transformation of the story from a sequel to The Hobbit (and thus intended for children) and into something "altogether more dark and serious", "not suitable for bedtime reading" (if I am remembering the relevant letters correctly). I think this picks up Mark 12_30 and her point about the story being 'told' to Christopher over a number of years.

But, here we are in a thread about narrative mode and Bethberry has yet to rear her formidable head... And where's davem to tell me how it's all productive of faerie enchantment? And Saucy is needed to correct my mis-citations of the Letters. Am I not the only Downer on sabbatical??

[Estelyn Telcontar]

My impression on the change in narrative tone from the beginning to the end of the book is that it parallels the changes in the Hobbits. They start out provincial, insular, childlike, then as their horizon expands and they see more of the world, especially the "higher" levels of society, they gain vocabulary and acquire a more formal manner of speaking. It's almost like what we experience when visiting other areas of the country and putting on the accent spoken there, whether intentional or not.

Though the point of view is not at all times entirely hobbitish, we basically see Middle-earth through hobbit eyes. The change in style is the hobbits' change, not so much a change in point of view, in my opinion.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The hobbits' heroic journey = the development of a (more informed? better?) reader??

LOVE IT!!

[davem]

I don't see the early part of LotR as being 'childish' - certainly not in the style of the early parts of TH. Certainly the early drafts are, but not the finished version. Its a much more 'conversational', storytelling style. Its not that it becomes more 'adult' but rather that it becomes 'higher' in tone, reflecting the increasing seriousness of the situation. What's interesting to me (as I pointed out in the CBC thread) is that we begin with the narrator's voice reporting events & conversations but without any description of places, characters, costume etc. Its as though we are not 'seeing' anything, only 'hearing' a story. Gradually, we get description - as if our imaginative capacity is slowly growing as we enter the Secondary World.

I'm reminded of Olivier's Henry V - as the movie starts we are in the theatre, watching the players on stage, gradually we move to a series of stylised sets, designed along the lines of medieval manuscript illustrations, & finally, when we get to Agincourt, we move into live action. Then we move back through those stages till at the close of the movie we are back in the theatre watching the actors on stage. The same kind of thing happens with LotR, as we move from 'listening' in the dark, slowly beginning to 'see' the world of Middle-earth form. The world we see initially is also very 'stylised' in the way its presented, gradually becoming more & more vivid & powerful till we get to the destruction of the Ring. From then on we move back through the same stages, till we end up back with only the words of the Narrator in our heads. I think we see this clearly with the return of the Hobbits to the Shire where Frodo speaks of 'falling asleep again.'

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

But, here we are in a thread about narrative mode and Bethberry has yet to rear her formidable head... And where's davem to tell me how it's all productive of faerie enchantment? And Saucy is needed to correct my mis-citations of the Letters. Am I not the only Downer on sabbatical??

Bethberry's head these days is attempting to rest as much as possible in the soothing lap of water at beach, pool, lake in an effort to subdue the humidity and give lethargy the acceptable face of athletic endeavour. Her thoughts under such conditions are anything but formidable, although a certain beverage with lime and Mexican water may help matters here. After all, I was beaten down some time ago for comments about Tolkien's style and the community has never forgiven me. Oh the censorship that reigns under the mask of fandom.

I suppose it is not only the marriage of Arwen and Aragorn which shows this epic style. Faramir and Eowyn stand on the walls of Gondor, where their troth is observable for all to see, although we are not told that people see it. Yet the kiss is clearly tied in with the passing of darkness and communal celebration. Here, clearly the public role of the aristocrats takes on larger proportion than their individual status. Tolkien said something to this effect in one of his letters justifying the speedy progress of the romance, but I don't have the letters to hand now.

It's a tantalizing theory, but like all, it may work best as a generality which does not assume all the details. I'm still not convinced, for example, that it works well for Legolas' and Gimli's speeches in "The Last Debate", where they are given dialogue that is quite different in style from that they used earlier. They talk like the narrator. Yet they are reciting events to the hobbits, so perhaps they fall into this epic style of narration.

Interestingly, though, this very difference between realism of the 19C novel and the epic style of poetry is something talked about as the difference between polysemy of voice and monolithic voice. (Fordim, I assume you are familiar with Bahktin.) Does the epic style, in conveying a communal perspective rather than individual voice, strike a note of The One Voice? Does it deny linguistic diversity? It certainly would fit in with Tolkien's thoughts about democracy to give preference of place to communal voice rather than individual voices.

Okay, I'm off to sip more of the lime stuff and cheat the heat. Expect any more replies when you see them.

PS. Boro, your thoughts on Jane Eyre are most intriguing. There are those who believe that Jane concludes her autobiography in a hightened state of some anguish, assuming a voice of hyperbole as she imagines a glorious martyrdom for her rejected lover.

[Břicho]

I know it's no crime, but I feel a little weird resurrecting such an ancient thread, but I'm new 'round here and haven't read a lot of these threads til now...


Anyway, I have considered the possibility-- that(within the "conceit") some of the chapters were not necessarily directly written by the hobbits: In particular "the Battle of the Pelennor", parts of "the Ride of the Rohirrim" and parts of "the Field of Cormallen" and "the Steward and the King" in which the style is radically different, far more heightened, stiffer, more like a Medieval text than the more "modern" styles employd by the hobbits. Tolkien does say that the Westron of the Gondor was a more archaic and heightened dialect than the "rustic" dialect of the Shire--and that indeed the actual differences between the dialects were greater than has been represented in the books.

Consider that the "Red Book" that Tolkien-the-fake-translator translated was NOT the original Red Book but a version that had been copied by a scribe of Gondor, who added various accounts from annals of Rohan and Gondor(mostly to the Tale of Years.) as well as the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. I thought that the battle of the Pelennor reads more like the "official Gondor account" then the story told by the Hobbits themslves. This applies also to the various alliterative "Rohirric" songs recorded in this chapter and the chapter before, as they are explicitly noted in the text as having been written many years later. While it's possible that Merry himself, at the end of his life, may have heard these songs and added them to his copy of the Red Book, I thought that at that point the story seems to be narrated as not as having been just recently completed but actually a very long time after the fact.(I have no evidence for this but the FEELING I get from reading the texts in these parts.)

AS far as the more playful tone in the beginning of the FOTR, couldn't it be that the more jovial Bilbo wrote those chapters, but didn't get any further as he was growing more interested in sleep than writing; and that the more sober, more mature Frodo wrote most of the rest of the book(with the exceptions of the heightened language "official records" passages in a few passages/chapters of ROTK that might have been added by an unnamed Gondorian scribe?)