What are some things that J.R.R Tolkien did wrong in his writings?

[Elwing the White]

I've seen a lot of threads discussing the bad desicions that Peter Jackson, the director of the movies adapted from Tolkien's works, made, but I wasn't able to find one talking about the ones that Tolkien himself made. I know, I know. "How could J.R.R Tolkien, the author who gave us The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and many other great works do something wrong?"
Despite the fact the Tolkien wrote wonderful stories, and was an amazing world builder, it doesn't mean he never sometimes had a slip-up here and there, and strangely enough, not many people seem to talk about them.
I can't really find any major flaws in Tolkien's way of creating worlds itself, as he executed that aspect of his tales very well, so that none of it feels fake, forced, or downright simple-minded. That being said, I have been able to notice a couple of mistakes that he did make in terms of story telling.
One of these I think was Tom Bombadil. Not Tom himself (as he was a fun, if a bit weird, character), of course, but his involvement in the plot.
The scenes that Tom Bombadil is in don't really move the plot forward, and nothing is much changed when he is taken out all together.
I think that Tom Bombadil could have worked out better as a side story. For example, J.R.R Tolkien could have cut him out of the first book, but then published his encounters with the hobbits in a separate book. Or, better yet, Tom Bombadil could actually loop back into the books later on, and contribute to the plot in some different way.
There are some other things that I think Tolkien could have possibly altered a bit, but I'll save those for later.
Of course, this is my opinion, and I'm curious to see what other people think as well.

 

[Deimos]

...I can't really find any major flaws in Tolkien's way of creating worlds itself, as he executed that aspect of his tales very well, so that none of it feels fake, forced, or downright simple-minded. That being said, I have been able to notice a couple of mistakes that he did make in terms of story telling.
One of these I think was Tom Bombadil. Not Tom himself (as he was a fun, if a bit weird, character), of course, but his involvement in the plot.
The scenes that Tom Bombadil is in don't really move the plot forward, and nothing is much changed when he is taken out all together.
I think that Tom Bombadil could have worked out better as a side story. For example, J.R.R Tolkien could have cut him out of the first book, but then published his encounters with the hobbits in a separate book. Or, better yet, Tom Bombadil could actually loop back into the books later on, and contribute to the plot in some different way.
There are some other things that I think Tolkien could have possibly altered a bit, but I'll save those for later.
Of course, this is my opinion, and I'm curious to see what other people think as well.

Are you perchance related to @TrackerOrc?
I think you must be....Yes, I'm quite sure you are....same literary DNA, missing the "Tom Bombadil" cognitive gene.

I shall propose to the other forum-ites, come Christmas, we present you and TrackerOrc with copies of LOTR wherein we have cut out (with scissors) the chapters about Tom. 😁

 

[Deimos]

I've seen a lot of threads discussing the bad desicions that Peter Jackson, the director of the movies adapted from Tolkien's works, made, but I wasn't able to find one talking about the ones that Tolkien himself made. I know, I know. "How could J.R.R Tolkien, the author who gave us The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and many other great works do something wrong?"
Despite the fact the Tolkien wrote wonderful stories, and was an amazing world builder, it doesn't mean he never sometimes had a slip-up here and there, and strangely enough, not many people seem to talk about them.

Pretty sure there's another thread (or two) about this...
Will have to call upon @Squint-eyed Southerner to locate it.

 

[Elwing the White]

Are you perchance related to @TrackerOrc?
I think you must be....Yes, I'm quite sure you are....same literary DNA, missing the "Tom Bombadil" gene.

I shall propose to the other forum-ites that, come Christmas, we present you and TrackerOrc with copies of LOTR wherein we have cut out (with scissors) the chapters about Tom.

Not as far as I know. I don't want any more distant relations....

 

[Elwing the White]

Pretty sure there's another thread (or two) about this...
Will have to call upon @Squint-eyed Southerner to locate it.

Oh, I didn't know, if there was. I posted this not to be specifically about Tom Bombadil, and about other "mistakes", so to speak, in Tolkien's works as well.

 

[Deimos]

Oh, I didn't know, if there was. I posted this not to be specifically about Tom Bombadil, and about other "mistakes", so to speak, in Tolkien's works as well.

The other threads deal with the "perceived" mistakes in Tolkien, not just about Tom.
Still S-e-S will have to locate them.... I am "search stupid" when it comes to forums.

 

[Elwing the White]

The other threads deal with the "perceived" mistakes in Tolkien, not just about Tom.
Still S-e-S will have to locate them.... I am "search stupid" when it comes to forums.

I assume this thread will need to be deleted, then?

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

I wouldn't call them mistakes, personally. Tolkien was a man with too many ideas and too little time to execute them all to their full potential. Christopher Tolkien, while being heavily involved in his father's writings, was not Tolkien himself and whatever he later published are just mere shadows of what they could have been.

As for Tom Bombadil, while I'd not dare say he was unrelated to the plot, he is definitely not a favorite of mine. A bit too silly and weird for my taste.

 

[Deimos]

I assume this thread will need to be deleted, then?

@Squint-eyed Southerner will do whatever needs to be done...

So don't have a cow, man....

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

There seems to be some misplaced confidence here -- as far as my abilities go.😄

I assume this thread will need to be deleted, then?

No, we don't delete threads merely because issues were brought up some time in the past; TTF is over two decades old!

That said, there are, no doubt, threads discussing perceived "errors" in Tolkien's texts, though these would take some searching. I can give you one at the moment, which I remember because I started it myself. 😄

Why has there been no discussion on Dunharrow in this 📔book section?

I'm somewhat astounded to find that not a single discussion has been had on this important book since the creation of this section. I'll take the opportunity to make the first post. There are many insights into the development of the story to be discovered in this volume, but the one I'll...

thetolkien.forum

I confess it's a bit confusing; I was a new member at the time, and was less than clear, as you'll see. Plus it fell prey to the derailing usual with us.

As for old Tom, just enter his name into the search: you can read all you want (and more! 😆).

 

[Deimos]

There seems to be some misplaced confidence here -- as far as my abilities go.😄

 

[Ent]

We tend to forget Tolkien had some really deep purposes for who and what he included in his stories, it seems to me.

Tom Bombadil is such a 'person'. As are Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, old Gaffer Gamgee, and even Glorfiindel for example.
Among events, sticking Gandalf, the dwarves, and Bilbo up in a tree with wargs at the bottom, and introducing the Eagles, could also be such a point.
The story would move aling just fine, without all of these.

And just imagine how many fewer times we would have needed to deal with "why didn't the Eagles just fly the ring...." or "did the Balrog have wings or not..." or... or... or...

No, no. Tolkien wrote what he wrote - each thing having a purpose within his larger context. We may not always see the purpose - but that's** our problem, not his.

And yes, the story COULD have been done without many a point. But he wanted a story 'feeling real' to folks.
Have we ever (or never) seen a somewhat 'silly' person in our lives, we didn't understand - yet they were there nonetheless?

Bombadil has a very definite meaning to Tolkien. One he wasn't about to leave out of his presentation. (It's also part of why he once said most of his readers won't truly understand his work.)

**- an example of a "proper 'that'" - though the sentence does not need it. "Conversationally" however, it feels more natural than some alternatives.

 

[Ent]

If there's something I personally feel Tolkien did "wrong" in his stories - its his burdening of the text with the word "that". Both the "unnecessary 'that'" - a useless and meaningless space holder - and the "proper 'that.'" Both can be done entirely without, in writing and in speech, by simple alteration.

Yet even this is not 'wrong'. it was during his time, and remains today, a pervasive affliction for which people are constantly forgiven without a thought.
Somewhat like 'sniffing' or an involuntary 'tic' or some other 'small' malady, it is simply overlooked by most in spite of how much it degrades the delivery of the scene.

(Similar to the overused, unobserved "passive 'and'" and the insane use of "um" or "uh" in speaking. It just 'is', without value or purpose.)

 

[Deimos]

If there's something I personally feel Tolkien did "wrong" in his stories - its his burdening of the text with the word "that". Both the "unnecessary 'that'" - a useless and meaningless space holder - and the "proper 'that.'" Both can be done entirely without, in writing and in speech, by simple alteration.

Yet even this is not 'wrong'. it was during his time, and remains today, a pervasive affliction for which people are constantly forgiven without a thought.
Somewhat like 'sniffing' or an involuntary 'tic' or some other 'small' malady, it is simply overlooked by most in spite of how much it degrades the delivery of the scene.

(Similar to the overused, unobserved "passive 'and'" and the insane use of "um" or "uh" in speaking. It just 'is', without value or purpose.)

 

[Radaghast]

One of these I think was Tom Bombadil. Not Tom himself (as he was a fun, if a bit weird, character), of course, but his involvement in the plot.
The scenes that Tom Bombadil is in don't really move the plot forward, and nothing is much changed when he is taken out all together.
I think that Tom Bombadil could have worked out better as a side story. For example, J.R.R Tolkien could have cut him out of the first book, but then published his encounters with the hobbits in a separate book. Or, better yet, Tom Bombadil could actually loop back into the books later on, and contribute to the plot in some different way.

Tolkien's works are not perfect and I myself considered starting a post like this; as I type this my sleep-deprived brain struggles to remember what I was going to open it with or any overall flaws. But one general thing I do have somewhat of a problem with is the idea of orcs as being immutably and irredeemably evil. I think the whole idea of orcs is somewhat flawed. But more on that some other time, perhaps.

But of all the flaws, Tom is not one of them. It is incorrect to say Tom has no effect on the plot. For one he and the Old Forest provide refuge for the Hobbits from the Ringwraiths. For another he saves them from being sacrificed by the Barrow-wights. Finally he gives them weapons, one of which helps kill the Witch-king. As Tolkien wrote in a letter (Letters, #144), "I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

 

[Deimos]

Tolkien's works are not perfect and I myself considered starting a post like this; as I type this my sleep-deprived brain struggles to remember what I was going to open it with or any particular flaws in general. But one thing I do have somewhat of a problem with is the idea of orcs as being irredeemably evil. I think the whole idea of orcs is somewhat flawed. But more on that some other time, perhaps.

But of all the flaws, Tom is not one of them. It is incorrect to say Tom has no effect on the plot. For one he and the Old Forest provide refuge for the Hobbits from the Ringwraiths. For another he saves them from being sacrificed by the Barrow-wights. Finally he gives them weapons, one of which helps kill the Witch-king.

This should be shouted from rooftops around the world.

 

[Ent]

This should be shouted from rooftops around the world.

Extremism lives..!! 🤣
In a world where one can be assaulted just for putting up candidate posters, this could be cause for a sniper's scope.

 

[Elwing the White]

I wouldn't call them mistakes, personally. Tolkien was a man with too many ideas and too little time to execute them all to their full potential. Christopher Tolkien, while being heavily involved in his father's writings, was not Tolkien himself and whatever he later published are just mere shadows of what they could have been.

As for Tom Bombadil, while I'd not dare say he was unrelated to the plot, he is definitely not a favorite of mine. A bit too silly and weird for my taste.

I wouldn't have liked to call them mistakes either, as its just a form of opinion to what he could have done a bit better, so if anyone can think of a better word, please do so. I also agree that he is too silly, he seems like something that would be from a children's fairytale book rather than the more serious book Tolkien incorporated him into.

 

[Elwing the White]

We tend to forget Tolkien had some really deep purposes for who and what he included in his stories, it seems to me.

Yes, it is possible that Tolkien had some reason for such a character as Tom. It kind of came off to me as something that didn't really belong in The Lord of the Rings, but I guess Tolkien will be Tolkien.
However, I still stand by my belief that Tom doesn't really contribute as much as he could have. If he had the deep purpose mentioned, I wish he could have done something with it.
At least the rest of the book makes up for this, and I'll be reading and re-reading it until the end of time.

 

[Elwing the White]

Tolkien's works are not perfect and I myself considered starting a post like this; as I type this my sleep-deprived brain struggles to remember what I was going to open it with or any overall flaws. But one general thing I do have somewhat of a problem with is the idea of orcs as being immutably and irredeemably evil. I think the whole idea of orcs is somewhat flawed. But more on that some other time, perhaps.

Yeah, the stuff about the Orcs is a bit strange, and it does make them out to be irredeemable. But it also kind of demonstrates the fact that people can be so far gone into evil that you really can't save them, no matter how hard you try to make them repent.