The Structure of The Lord of the Rings

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I've already broached this topic once before in another thread, but I did so in a relatively restrictive way. The discussions in the Chapter by Chapter forum have been broadening my understanding of the structure of LotR and I thought it worthy of a thread of its own.

The Lord of the Rings is, as the Professor himself once admitted, "a funny old thing" (and who here could say "boo" to that? ): it's not really a novel, nor is it any of the other tags that usually get thrown at it (epic, myth, legend, etc). It is simply, and powerfully, a story. I do not want to start a discussion on the genre of LotR (since that would be an argument over which label to apply; although the topic may very well come up here) but about how it is structured. That is, what holds it together? How is it built? How has Tolkien managed to write such a vast and complicated story, really, a series of connected stories, and yet have them work and meld so seamlessly (is it seamless?) into a single narrative?

At times the story seems almost hopelessly episodic, particularly in the earlier chapters where there are a series of disconnected adventures that have nothing to do with the principle action; sure, there are thematic resonances, but these episodes are not an integral part of the overall structure and yet they make up almost 100 pages of the tale.

At other times the narrative becomes almost grippingly linear as the action rushes forward, but then the story breaks and swerves away to another story.

Sometimes, it's as though we are listening to an oral tale, being spoken to us by someone who is relating events as they occur to him; at others it reads like a legendary account transcribed by a careful monk or scholar from historical records.

There are jarring shifts in tone of voice, perspective, focus -- everything. So again, I ask, how is it that Tolkien manages to unify the whole?

As a first attempt at answering this, allow me to put forward a few possibilities. None of these is particuarly well worked out yet. . .hence the thread!

Imagery: This is probably the most significant way in which Tolkien holds things together, particularly through the central image of the Ring itself, insofar as all the action is directed toward the Ring in some way. But is it not problematic that the story would be centred upon/organised around an image of evil?

There are many many other images that recur throughout the story as well: trees, the Road, water, towers, vision, light, and on and on and on. To what extent do these images hold things together? Are they the primary means whereby this odd mishmash is united into a single tale? Does not the whole thing begin to become something of a dream-like experience inasmuch as the only things that unify the experience are the relatively non-linear, non-narrative images?

Thematic Concerns: Just as there are a number of recurring images there are a number of recurring themes and ideas that keep cropping up. Just a brief list would be friendship, time, evil and good, magic, art, nature, duty, loyalty, kingship, authority, and on and on and on. Like the images, however, these themes do not seem to be 'going anywhere' insofar as I don't see any one of them taking centre stage, nor do I see any of them really being advanced and developed in a linear way. Just like the episodic plot, themes are picked up by particular characters or particular moments (or particular images) explored for a time, developed in a particular way, and then left. It's more of a cumulative effect rather than an evolutionary one as the thematic concerns accrue and gain new views rather than being 'resovled' or 'concluded' in some absolute way.

The Circular Narrative: The story ends where it begins (the Shire), and this is just one instance of 'return' or even 'regressing'; is the story held together simply because we keep going around and around the same sorts of stories and action. One of the clearest structural devices in the story is the repeating pattern of escape-danger-refuge. This is an effective and economical way of telling a story, but does it not tend to imprison the action to some extent? How can the story be 'going' anywhere when it keeps reworking the same pattern of action, and then going back to its beginning?

Pairings and Twinnings: Again, I've already raised this topic elsewhere, but I think it deserves being readdressed as part of a larger discussion. In addition to the sense of eternal return/recurrence in the action, the characters themselves do not seem to have a wholly independent existence, in that each one of them is mirrored/reflected or repeated and completed in other characters: Merry and Pippin are a pair who reflect Frodo and Sam; Sauron and Saruman -- Aragorn and Gandalf; Galadriel -- Eowyn; Theoden -- Denethor; Boromir and Aragorn -- Aragorn and Faramir; Smeagol and Gollum; and on and on and on. Given this, how can we look at the story as one centred upon individual heroes? It seems to be the story of Aragorn and Frodo, but we cannot discuss these single heroic figures without reference to other heroes and types of heroes -- so how is the heroic narrative being structured: around individual experience or groups of people?

There are a lot of questions here, and much to consider (I think) but I would love to see what others make of all this. How is the story of LotR put together? What kind of a story is it? What holds it together? What takes its various parts and pulls them together into a single tale?

[Boromir88]

I think some other things we can add about structure are parallels, irony and personification.

Parallels of the Amons

There is a thread about the parallels I was thinking of.

On the ironic side...

"And even if you pass the Gates of Argonath and come unmolested to the Tindrock, what will you do then? Leap down the Falls and land in the marshes?"

Ironic how it is Boromir who finds himself leaping down the falls and landing in the marshes .

Then for personification..
This is a quote of mine from the chapter by chapter discussions on suggesting that Aragorn is a personified hope for Gimli.

There's a lot here Galadriel is saying. She says "in one hand lies darkness, the other only hope." Is Aragorn the symbolism of Hope, for he was just given Estel.

Gimli had two choices, darkness (which may be going home or abandoning the company who knows), or hope (Aragorn). Gimli can follow hope (which he does through the rest of the story), and if hope does not fail, "his hands will flow with gold, yet over him gold shall have no dominion." Indeed that's a big deal, concerning the dwarves, greed, their greed for more and more riches. Which is why I believe here, Gimli would have been last of the Fellowship to fall to the ring, due to Galadriel's statement, and indeed, in Gimli hope does not fail. As he chooses to stick with "hope" (Aragorn), and not go with darkness (which I feel darkness would be abandoning the company).

I think all three of these aspects (and there are probably many others) Tolkien uses for his books.

[Bêthberry]

For now, the briefest and perhaps even too flippant a reply to a question which will receive further thought...

Despite its episodic nature, one way this marvellous yarn holds together so well is through the very careful and laborious effort of Tolkien at ceaselessly revising his drafts, coordinating dates, times, phases of the moon, distances. I think in particular the maps were not just a secondary inspiration, but became for him a way to help manage the tapestry. The temporal and geographical features are so precise that the looseness of the narrative structure is overcome--or compensated for, or held together, however one wishes to consider it.

I also think Tolkien had a very clear idea of audience as he was writing, in particular in the person of his son Christropher. But this is a harder thing to explain...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Despite its episodic nature, one way this marvellous yarn holds together so well is through the very careful and laborious effort of Tolkien at ceaselessly revising his drafts, coordinating dates, times, phases of the moon, distances. I think in particular the maps were not just a secondary inspiration, but became for him a way to help manage the tapestry. The temporal and geographical features are so precise that the looseness of the narrative structure is overcome--or compensated for, or held together, however one wishes to consider it.

I also think Tolkien had a very clear idea of audience as he was writing, in particular in the person of his son Christropher. But this is a harder thing to explain...

Excellent points, both. I do recall hearing Tolkien in his BBC radio interview say something to the effect of, "Of course when one is writing a really complicated tale you must have a map." In this sense, I think you are absolutely right Bb the geography and sense of place (and placedness) we have in LotR is crucial to the narrative cohesion. The story is 'about' Middle-earth rather than the people walking and warring across it?

And I very much like this idea of audience, for there are a number of points in the narrative at which Tolkien allows the story to become conscious of itself as story. In addition to the more obvious examples (such as Frodo and Sam's conversation upon the Stairs of Cirith Ungol) there are those odd moments in which the narrative steps outside itself (the narrative 'present') and acknowleges that there is an ending, and even hints at it. The two examples that come to mind here are the reference to the brown scar that Merry "bore to the end of his days" (giving away that he is going to survive and go on to live out his life) and the revelation that when Aragorn leaves the hill in Lorien where he and Arwen pledged troth (can't remember the name of the place) he "came there never again as living man". In each case, it looks as though the story is tilting its hand and giving something away, but of course it isn't as we know that Aragorn and Merry are going to survive and win -- we know that the good guys will triumph because that's just the kind of story this is. In this way, the story itself announces itself as story, which highlights to the audience that it is unified in and by and through our own reading act.

Hmmmm. . .and back to the maps: since it is a readerly act of turning to the maps and referencing them that makes the experience of the story both interactive and unified. How many times I looked at the map to find where Frodo and Sam were, then looked as well to figure out where Merry and Pippin were as well; and then even, in later readings, ploughed into the Appendices to seek out dates etc to co-ordinate things in my own mind.

Is all this just a much longer way of saying what you meant Bb?

[Lalwendë]

Maybe casting myself back into the mindset of my 12 year old self will help me to see what it was that gripped me so about the books.

Story - the plot can never be underestimated, it is what makes us want to go on, to persevere with reading, as it is essentially a complex and difficult activity, even to a compulsive reader. We have to believe the plot, it has to be surprising, even if it is based upon plots we may have seen many times before. I am always envious of writers who can master the true complexities of a magnificent plot; in LotR there are many plot twists, there is narrative which drives us on, there is death, there is urgency. I could not leave the books alone once I had started on them and still cannot leave them alone now, but on that first reading, the surprises of the plot were vital.

World Creation - Tolkien literally invented a completely immersive world. Languages, natural history, maps, cultures, all of these opened up this world as something real. Even now I often read with my mouth hanging open, startled at the sheer scale of this world, and as we all know, it is so complex that you can go there every day and see something new.

Description - this is a vivid world, it sometimes seems clearer to me than my own world - especially when I am reading. I have heard some say that they do not like too much description in novels but LotR proves them wrong. I think that the effectiveness of this description is due in no small measure to Tolkien's own knowledge of poetry, particularly the old epics, which were related orally; vivid description is vital to this art, and Tolkien has picked up on it well.

Characters - even though there seems to be no one central character, the story still works. Everything is centred around the mission to get Frodo and the Ring to Mount Doom, so even when we are not with him, we still know that if say, Theoden does not win out at Helm's Deep, then the risk to Frodo, and hence to the world we have invested our time in, and which we have grown to love, will be too much to bear.

Thinking with my adult mind, I see that there are more reasons to the success of this great rambling story.

Chapters - these are clearly delineated. Each has a central theme, and in particular after the Fellowship breaks up, are self contained adventures. This was necessary to carrying on the story with several disparate groups each carrying on their own tasks. Yet in other novels I have found this to have a disruptive effect on my reading enjoyment. Why not in LotR? I think because we constantly receive reminders of the central core of the tale, that story of two hobbits going to Mount Doom.

Narrative - as opposed to pure plot, Tolkien makes clever use of narrative. We have episodic chapters where an 'event' happens, but these are then interspersed with movement. We don't suffer from stasis at any point because the tale must go onwards, and we've got to go with it, and when we go with it, we too see the changing scenery through the eyes of the characters.

Suspense - Tolkien makes great use of this, one such example being the 'death' of Gandalf. Who remembers their first reading when Gandalf was taken by the Balrog? After this happened, there was nobody who could wrestle the book from my hands until I had found out more, and it was a huge relief when he returned. But Tolkien filled the book with suspense. Just some examples include Gollum pursuing the Fellowship, Frodo's capture by Shelob, the tension at Helm's Deep, whether Saruman will yield to Gandalf...

What a topic!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

What a compendium Lalwende!

Correct me, please, if I misrepresent your post, but it seems to me that there are two aspects of the story that you are paying particular attention to as structural devices: the Ring (properly, the quest to destroy the Ring) and the land.

You come back several times to these two devices, and if it be not too bold to interpret you, could I say that you 'see' (you have a highly visual imagination!) the story as a circle about a single point? The circle being the 'horizons' of Middle-earth as Tolkien creates it for us, and the single point being the Ring.

If this is not too far wrong from what you are suggesting, it would appear to me that the essential structure of the story (in this view, if it is your view) is a largely moral one, in which the 'blot' of evil at the heart of an essentially 'good' creation must be expunged.

[Boromir88]

I wanted to bring up some extra points I recently discovered. This passage in the Uruk-hai chapter has an interesting tone. I'm not one who knows indepth what Tolkien believed in. I simply know he was a religious man, and he incorporates religion in his writing. This paragraph (and don't ask me why), but to me just sort of has a biblical tone. Sounds like something you would actually read from the bible, has that sort of sentence structure.

So ended the raid, and no news of it came ever back either to Mordor or to Isengard; but the smoke of the burning rose high to heaven and was seen my many watchful eyes.

In one of your threads a long time ago Fordhim you discussed the circular/straight pattern of LOTR. I found this discussion interesting and to point out the total 360 found in the story.

We start out in the Shire, which is portrayed as a happy/safe place to live. Then we get a sense that things in the Shire aren't what they used to be, and it is no longer safe. However, they leave the danger of the Shire, and plunge into more danger, the rest of Middle-earth. I would say at the beginning of the story the Shire is a safe place, it's not corrupted, and it is much safer then the rest of Middle-earth. Even the haven of Lorien is starting to face the Orcs. Point is Frodo leaves the safety of the Shire, and plunges into the danger of Middle-earth.

Now, once the Ring is destroyed we see a bunch of chapters of "good byes." The new "safe havens," are what used to be the dangerous ones. Places like Minas Tirith, Rohan, Lorien, are now ridding themselves of the danger, and are safe places for Frodo to stay. However, when we hit Bree, Tolkien gives us a curveball, the Shire is corrupt. They leave the safety of Rivendell, Minas Tirith....etc and plunge into the now unsafe Shire. A complete turn around, a 360.

I don't know about you, but I don't like when writers give you what you expect, I like that curveball of the unexpected, to throw you off. That is what Tolkien does do. He will give us these curveballs to catch us offguard.

To my final point, setting. Good writers will use setting to their advantage. Writers won't simply use setting to set up the time and place, setting can also be used for other purposes. There are 5 purposes of setting, and as you will see, Tolkien uses a lot of these.

Uses for Setting-
Background for Action-
Create atmosphere-
Antagonist-
Reveals Character-
Reinforces the theme-

Tolkien uses a lot of these functions for setting. The Antagonist, simply where nature, the atmosphere acts as the antagonist to the protagonist(s). Clear example-Caradhras. Creates Atmosphere-Lorien. When we think of Lorien it is a magical, mysterious place. As the Fellowship is in Lorien it is like a dreamworld, remembering of past days. Reveals Character-Frodo in the barrowdowns. When Frodo and his companions are with the barrow wright, Frodo could have easily left his friends to die, and to move on for the greater good. But, Frodo decides not to, revealing his "compassion," and his love for his friends.

If you wish to look a little more into the setting, check out the Importance of Setting thread here

[Turin]

For a good analysis of the Structure of LoTR, read Tom Shippey's "Tolkien - author of the Century".

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Turin

For a good analysis of the Structure of LoTR, read Tom Shippey's "Tolkien - author of the Century".

Hello Turin, and welcome to the Downs.

Many of us already have read Shippey. But for those who have not, could you elaborate on your recommendation? Ours is to reason why.

[Turin]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Hello Turin, and welcome to the Downs.

Many of us already have read Shippey. But for those who have not, could you elaborate on your recommendation? Ours is to reason why.

Thank you for your welcome

I've not been a particular fan of Shippey in the past, his writing style seemed to be too tedious and pedantic, and he often reads too much into little things. However, Author of the Century is written in more simpler language and with simpler experessions. It is useful for someone who is not that experienced in reading Tolkien. This time round, Shippey breaks things down in easily understandable terms and, as I have said, focuses on less "academic" matters and discusses structure, themes, symbolism etc.

I'll have to refer to the book again to comment on the specifics with regards to the structural elements.

Hope that's not a cop-out

[ivo]

Thank you littlemanpoet, very kind.
I'm not familiar with the work of Joseph Campbell, please tell me why I should be.

[ivo]

quote: Now, once the Ring is destroyed we see a bunch of chapters of "good byes." The new "safe havens," are what used to be the dangerous ones. Places like Minas Tirith, Rohan, Lorien, are now ridding themselves of the danger, and are safe places for Frodo to stay. However, when we hit Bree, Tolkien gives us a curveball, the Shire is corrupt. They leave the safety of Rivendell, Minas Tirith....etc and plunge into the now unsafe Shire. A complete turn around, a 360. quote

I think plotwise the story ends with the destruction of the ring. That's the climax (no wonder they left the scouring of the shire out of the movies).
I think of LOTR more as a chronicle, which doesn't explain the structure fully but gives it a name which might help to grasp it.

There is an interesting interpretation of the scouring of the shire though. If we look at hobbits as people who have little knowledge of the outside world and are only interested in themselves, in their own history, the whole quest could be seen as an awareness of the mind. In hegelian terms (german philosopher): The mind becomes conscious as it travels to Mordor. There it faces its ultimate negation, death. But in order to become selfconscious it has to return to where it came from. Only then it is Geist.

Interesting is also that all the three main characters (Gandalf (Balrog), Aragorn (Path of the Dead) and Frodo (Dead Marshes) overcome dead. (to be born again first you have to die).

This is a bit brief, due to little time, but I had to react.
Great topic indeed!

[littlemanpoet]

This paragraph (and don't ask me why), but to me just sort of has a biblical tone.

I know what you're talking about, Boromir88. The term that I'm familiar with in this regard is archaic. Tolkien, who took to language like great swimmers take to water, knew exactly what he was doing, as you probably well know. He was shooting for precisely that feel in that part of the story.

Archaic language is typically used in heroic verse. Whereas this is prose, it gives an account of a heroic battle. Tolkien is harking back to the Anglo-Saxon roots of his Rohirrim, to Beowulf and other old Anglo-Saxon (Old English) works of literature. It's no surprise that the original writers of the King James Version also used this kind of language. In some regards, they were using heroic language in translating the stories of David and Moses, etc.. On the other hand, their "Shakespearian" English seems archaic to us; but of a different kind.

Have you ever read any ancient literature besides the Bible (KJV version for example)?

ivo, it's pretty clear to me that you bring a wealth of knowledge and insight to the boards. Welcome! Are you into, or knowledgeable of, Joseph Campbell?