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

[Elwing the White]

One other thing I could point out is that Tolkien is often sparse with details and it's kind of disappointing.

Hmm... Personally, I find it quite the opposite, I think that Tolkien adds lots of detail, usually to a level that makes it enjoyable to read, but not overwhelming (in most cases!).

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

As it happens, while looking through Letters for another post, I came across this:

As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); and I have perhaps from this point of view erred in trying to explain too much, and give too much past history. Many readers have, for instance, rather stuck at the Council of Elrond. And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).

Letter 144, to Naomi Mitchison

 

[Elwing the White]

Tolkien's exact words were, "even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

Ah, yes, Radaghast pointed this one out.

 

[Radaghast]

Hmm... Personally, I find it quite the opposite, I think that Tolkien adds lots of detail, usually to a level that makes it enjoyable to read, but not overwhelming (in most cases!).

I meant more in the sense of physical descriptions of characters, at least certain ones. Legolas, for instance.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Ah, yes, Radaghast pointed this one out.

Oops -- I guess I forgot about that! 😵‍💫

 

[Elwing the White]

I meant more in the sense of physical descriptions of characters, at least certain ones. Legolas, for instance.

Oh, yes, that makes more sense now. It appears that the color of Legolas' hair will forever remain a mystery....

 

[Radaghast]

Oh, yes, that makes more sense now. It appears that the color of Legolas' hair will forever remain a mystery....

There's also the battle of Gil-galad and Elendil vs. Sauron. Just a maddening lack of detail there.

 

[Elwing the White]

There's also the battle of Gil-galad and Elendil vs. Sauron. Just a maddening lack of detail there.

Hmm, I've never really thought about this one much. I thought it had enough detail on its own, but perhaps that's just because I don't remember it too well, as it wasn't one of the scenes the really stuck out to me. Which parts do you think could have had more detail?

 

[Radaghast]

Hmm, I've never really thought about this one much. I thought it had enough detail on its own, but perhaps that's just because I don't remember it too well, as it wasn't one of the scenes the really stuck out to me. Which parts do you think could have had more detail?

There's hardly any description given of the battle that I've seen. Here's one such description by Elrond at the Council of Elrond:

I was the herald of Gil-galad and marched with his host. I was at the Battle of Dagorlad before the Black Gate of Mordor, where we had the mastery: for the Spear of Gil-galad and the Sword of Elendil, Aiglos and Narsil, none could withstand. I beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin, where Gil-galad died, and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him; but Sauron himself was overthrown, and Isildur cut the Ring from his hand with the hilt-shard of his father’s sword, and took it for his own.’

From "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" in The Silmarillion:

There in the valley of Gorgoroth Anárion son of Elendil was slain, and many others. But at the last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth; and he wrestled with Gil-galad and Elendil, and they both were slain, and the sword of Elendil broke under him as he fell. But Sauron also was thrown down

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

There's hardly any description given of the battle that I've seen.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Gil-galad died from the heat of Sauron's hands, burned to death as he wrestled with him. (Implying Sauron didn't even use a weapon besides his own hands?)
I have no idea where this was taken from, though.

 

[Radaghast]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Gil-galad died from the heat of Sauron's hands, burned to death as he wrestled with him. (Implying Sauron didn't even use a weapon besides his own hands?)
I have no idea where this was taken from, though.

Yes, that was also in "The Council of Elrond", read from Isildur's scroll:

The Ring misseth, maybe, the heat of Sauron’s hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Was Gil Galad ever laid to rest anywhere? I only remember reading that he was killed by Sauron.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Was Gil Galad ever laid to rest anywhere? I only remember reading that he was killed by Sauron.

If he was, it was probably in Lindon.

 

[TrackerOrc]

Not sure what you mean by 'run rampant'. OMW lures unwary travelers to their doom, but there aren't very many in the Old Forest. As far as keeping OMW from eating people, Tom can't be everywhere at once, and doesn't expect a lot of visitors in his domain.

The Hobbits have never heard of him (assuming you mean Tom here) because they've never been to the OF before and they don't interact with Farmer Maggot that much.

As far as Beorn, he is another enigma, though, unlike Tom, probably not intentional. Or perhaps 'disparity' is a better word. The Hobbit was not originally meant to be part of the legendarium, therefore Tolkien was not held by the rules he established in said mythology. When Tolkien made TH part of the legendarium, he didn't change Beorn in The Hobbit, but when Beorn and his kin are mentioned in The Lord of the Rings, their skin-changing is not; it's sort of swept under the rug, because human skin-changers are not a thing in the legendarium.


Mermaid? Where on earth do you get that idea? 🤨 She's a spirit of the River Withy-windle. Do we really need to know more than that? If you don't see rhyme or reason in them, again, that's intentional on Tolkien's part.


They don't really need to. And I find amusing your attempts to make sense of Tom and GB, when you're willing to overlook anomalies in the films. It's fine when they don't make sense, I guess 😄


Baffling, maybe. Nonentity? Nah, I disagree.

View attachment 37778

None of these apply to Tom Bombadil.

Well 'running rampant' and 'luring unwary travellers to their doom' are both fairly poor outcomes if you're supposed to be ruling a domain aren't they? It seems purely accidental that he manages to save the hobbits from OMW, which doesn't lead me to believe that he is in any way competent.

The hobbits actually do know the Old Forest:
'Oh yes they do!' said Merry. 'The Brandybucks go in - occasionally when the fit takes them. We have a private entrance. Frodo went in once, long ago. I have been in several times.' ('A Conspiracy Unmasked')
There's no reason to think that the Tooks especially wouldn't know Maggot fairly well, which makes this all the more puzzling.

I don't see Beorn as an enigma at all. He is a minor character who plays a small but important part in the story. Much like Bombadil. So where is all the literature about Beorn to sit alongside the Bombadil books?

Spirit of the River? River Goddess? Mermaid? My point is that she sticks out like a sore thumb in the world of ME, as does Bombadil. You say this is intentional on Tolkien's part; if this is correct, then I see it as a really big mistake on his part - I just can't understand why an author would bring in a character who so obviously doesn't belong to the narrative.

Whatever the films do have no consequences for the books. They are fanfic writ large. Enjoy them, or don't enjoy them; nothing in the films can affect what has been written in the books in any way.

I'd say that the first point in the nonentity definition describes Bombadil perfectly; he is around for an enormously long time yet does more or less the same as Beorn who is around for the blink of an eye relatively speaking. That complete imbalance speaks volumes.

 

[Elwing the White]

Well 'running rampant' and 'luring unwary travellers to their doom' are both fairly poor outcomes if you're supposed to be ruling a domain aren't they? It seems purely accidental that he manages to save the hobbits from OMW, which doesn't lead me to believe that he is in any way competent.

The hobbits actually do know the Old Forest:
'Oh yes they do!' said Merry. 'The Brandybucks go in - occasionally when the fit takes them. We have a private entrance. Frodo went in once, long ago. I have been in several times.' ('A Conspiracy Unmasked')
There's no reason to think that the Tooks especially wouldn't know Maggot fairly well, which makes this all the more puzzling.

I don't see Beorn as an enigma at all. He is a minor character who plays a small but important part in the story. Much like Bombadil. So where is all the literature about Beorn to sit alongside the Bombadil books?

Spirit of the River? River Goddess? Mermaid? My point is that she sticks out like a sore thumb in the world of ME, as does Bombadil. You say this is intentional on Tolkien's part; if this is correct, then I see it as a really big mistake on his part - I just can't understand why an author would bring in a character who so obviously doesn't belong to the narrative.

Whatever the films do have no consequences for the books. They are fanfic writ large. Enjoy them, or don't enjoy them; nothing in the films can affect what has been written in the books in any way.

I'd say that the first point in the nonentity definition describes Bombadil perfectly; he is around for an enormously long time yet does more or less the same as Beorn who is around for the blink of an eye relatively speaking. That complete imbalance speaks volumes.

Thank you for phrasing this better than I could have.

 

[TrackerOrc]

Thank you for phrasing this better than I could have.

The Anti-Bombadil League marches proudly on

 

[Radaghast]

Well 'running rampant' and 'luring unwary travellers to their doom' are both fairly poor outcomes if you're supposed to be ruling a domain aren't they? It seems purely accidental that he manages to save the hobbits from OMW, which doesn't lead me to believe that he is in any way competent.

Competent? At what? Saving the odd unwary traveler? Like that's his job or something? 🤨

The hobbits actually do know the Old Forest:

'Oh yes they do!' said Merry. 'The Brandybucks go in - occasionally when the fit takes them. We have a private entrance. Frodo went in once, long ago. I have been in several times.' ('A Conspiracy Unmasked')

There's no reason to think that the Tooks especially wouldn't know Maggot fairly well, which makes this all the more puzzling.

I stand corrected. Evidently, no hobbit ever went as deep into the Forest as our heroic quartet do.

I don't see Beorn as an enigma at all. He is a minor character who plays a small but important part in the story. Much like Bombadil. So where is all the literature about Beorn to sit alongside the Bombadil books?

As I said, perhaps 'disparity' is a better word. Or 'anomaly'. His skin-changing ability does not fit within the legendarium. I have never seen any books written about Tom Bombadil, though.

Spirit of the River? River Goddess? Mermaid? My point is that she sticks out like a sore thumb in the world of ME, as does Bombadil. You say this is intentional on Tolkien's part; if this is correct, then I see it as a really big mistake on his part - I just can't understand why an author would bring in a character who so obviously doesn't belong to the narrative.

Are we really second-guessing Tolkien? How would you have handled this particular juncture in the story? I'm honestly curious to know. Would you have just eliminated him altogether, as well as the Barrow-downs, as Peej did and Ralph Bakshi before him?

Whatever the films do have no consequences for the books. They are fanfic writ large. Enjoy them, or don't enjoy them;

So, it's okay for one medium to do something but not okay for another. Seems to me like an arbitrary line to draw.

nothing in the films can affect what has been written in the books in any way.

That's not really related to the point I was making.

I'd say that the first point in the nonentity definition describes Bombadil perfectly; he is around for an enormously long time yet does more or less the same as Beorn who is around for the blink of an eye relatively speaking. That complete imbalance speaks volumes.

I eagerly await the first such volume, and your explanation regarding this supposed "imbalance". Overall, I think you're overthinking Tom.

 

[Radaghast]

If he was, it was probably in Lindon.

There's also that verse written by Bilbo (sung by Sam) that suggests he was returned:

But long ago he rode away,
and where he dwelleth none can say;
for into darkness fell his star
in Mordor where the shadows are.

 

[Elwing the White]

when you're willing to overlook anomalies in the films.

Not trying to get too involved here, as I'm not in the mood to debate, but....
Ad hominem attack?

 

[Radaghast]

Not trying to get too involved here, as I'm not in the mood to debate, but....
Ad hominem attack?

Huh? 🤨 How is that ad hominem? That comes from an observation in another thread.