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

[Elwing the White]

Huh? 🤨 How is that ad hominem?

It is in relation to TrackerOrc's character, not their argument. Rather than proving the argument wrong (only in this particular statement of course, not in the rest), it is pointing out the fact that TrackerOrc "overlooks anomalies in the films" instead of addressing the subject.
Of course, I'm not trying to be involved too much here, so now I shall going to go back to watching silently in the shadows.

 

[Radaghast]

It is in relation to TrackerOrc's character, not their argument. Rather than proving the argument wrong (only in this particular statement of course, not in the rest), it is pointing out the fact that TrackerOrc "overlooks anomalies in the films" instead of addressing the subject.

No. Again, it's an observation regarding TO's willingness to overlook discrepancies in the films but not in the book. TO even makes a statement in support of this in this very thread. It has nothing to do with TO's character. But if I have unintentionally offended, I apologize.

Of course, I'm not trying to be involved too much here, so now I shall going to go back to watching silently in the shadows.

Probably for the best.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I agree we should try to keep to the subject of the thread, and not get it tangled up with the films, an entirely different can of worms.

I'll add something to the actual subject: his disorganization, which for example led to misplacing the description of the doors at Meduseld.

I can't blame him too much, given the task, but still.

 

[Radaghast]

I agree we should try to keep to the subject of the thread, and not get it tangled up with the films, an entirely different can of worms.

I'll add something to the actual subject: his disorganization, which for example led to misplacing the description of the doors at Meduseld.

I can't blame him too much, given the task, but still.

Yeah, I tend to forgive a lot of discrepancies. He was tasked with something he initially had no real interest in writing. The initial interest I think came from the flattery of being asked to write anything, and later to weave the story into his legendarium.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I don't know if I'd call it "flattery" -- The Hobbit sold well, so his publishers would naturally want more of the same.

Of course, what they eventually got wasn't exactly "the same". 😁

 

[Elwing the White]

No. Again, it's an observation regarding TO's willingness to overlook discrepancies in the films but not in the book. TO even makes a statement in support of this in this very thread. It has nothing to do with TO's character. But if I have unintentionally offended, I apologize.


Probably for the best.

I guess I shall disappoint by returning once more....
I believe it has absolutely nothing to do with TrackerOrc's argument. Their opinion of the films has no relation to their debate. The fact that they overlook anomalies in the films isn't connected to the thought that Tom Bombadil didn't contribute enough to the plot.
Perhaps you're right in the sense that "ad hominem" might not be the correct word, in which case, I apologize.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Let's just keep our discussions civil.

And I'd suggest to all that repeating the same points over and over -- even with small adjustments -- doesn't tend to encourage people to follow a thread.😉

 

[Elwing the White]

And I'd suggest to all that repeating the same points over and over -- even with small adjustments -- doesn't tend to encourage people to follow a thread.😉

Couldn't agree more!
Anyway, if there was something that I thought Tolkien did "wrong" it would probably be the fact that (for the most part) I liked his writing too much, and there will never be enough books or stories written by him to satisfy me.

 

[Eljorahir]

In the Foreword to LOTRs Tolkien talks a little (though mostly evasively) about what Tolkien did wrong in the story...

'The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short.'

As for me, I think it was a mistake (if only in the appendices) to allow Gimli and Sam to sail into the West. One exception to the rule for Frodo is perfect. As much as the exceptional friendship of Sam and Frodo is central to the story, I'd have to think that Sam's connection to his children would be just as strong. Yet, he chooses to leave them forever.

Also, IMO, the larger story is served best if Elrond's ship is truly the last ship to take the Straight Road. I like the way the end of the era is handled in the final words of the Silmarillion:

''White was that ship [the last ship] ... and an end was come for the Eldar of story and of song.'

 

[Radaghast]

In the Foreword to LOTRs Tolkien talks a little (though mostly evasively) about what Tolkien did wrong in the story...

'The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short.'

As for me, I think it was a mistake (if only in the appendices) to allow Gimli and Sam to sail into the West. One exception to the rule for Frodo is perfect. As much as the exceptional friendship of Sam and Frodo is central to the story, I'd have to think that Sam's connection to his children would be just as strong. Yet, he chooses to leave them forever.

Also, IMO, the larger story is served best if Elrond's ship is truly the last ship to take the Straight Road. I like the way the end of the era is handled in the final words of the Silmarillion:

''White was that ship [the last ship] ... and an end was come for the Eldar of story and of song.'

Yeah, I'm sure he saw certain things he wished he could have done over. On the other hand, sometimes you just have to "stick a fork" in something, especially when you've been working on it for over a decade.

 

[TrackerOrc]

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


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


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.


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?


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


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


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

Isn't it the job of the ruler of the domain to keep the place spick and span and so on? If he can't control one old tree then yes, I'd definitely question his competence; or perhaps competence is the wrong word. I'd say imbalance - as noted later by you - his aeons long existence paired up with what we know that he actually does (pick flowers for his wife basically) is completely out of kilter. Why hasn't he got a presence in the Appendices to flesh out his backstory, like so many of the other characters? Why doesn't he help the Shire when they endure the Long Winter or Saruman's 'invasion'? An immensely long presence and a tiny amount of action equals imbalance.

It's probably not much value for anyone for us to trade minutiae (though I personally love this stuff!), as we are so far apart as to Bombadil. Just a couple of tiny points and I think we can agree to disagree.
I can't agree with the hobbits as a heroic quartet. More like the Four Stooges; they go into the Old Forest, get lost, nearly get eaten by a tree, and are then rescued by a weirdo. Can't really see any heroism there.
Unless of course you mean the bravery shown (especially by Frodo) at the Barrow Downs. This works, but has nothing to do with Bombadil. It comes from within Frodo himself, so yes, I would happily do without Bombadil but keep the Barrow Downs.

 

[TrackerOrc]

Let's just keep our discussions civil.

And I'd suggest to all that repeating the same points over and over -- even with small adjustments -- doesn't tend to encourage people to follow a thread.😉

Couple of things to add here.

I had to google 'ad homimem' attack just to understand the point! Turns out I've been using a variation of this for years - I call it playing the man and not the ball, which I always wondered about. Cool to learn new things.

It's great to be in a forum where members are looking out for each other and attempting to keep things level headed and civil; we poor downtrodden Orcs don't always get the sympathy we so richly deserve so being in such a respectful place is extremely welcome. I don't actually think that it was such an attack, but it's a measure of this place that we can talk about stuff like this without rancour.

Lastly, I think I've finally cracked the mistake I've been making! - you shouldn't post multiple times one after the other in the same thread. Obviously this is just what I'm doing right now, but this is just to let people know I won't be doing it in the future.

Well that seems clear as mud...

 

[Radaghast]

Unless of course you mean the bravery shown (especially by Frodo) at the Barrow Downs. This works, but has nothing to do with Bombadil. It comes from within Frodo himself, so yes, I would happily do without Bombadil but keep the Barrow Downs.

Except Tom saves the Hobbits from the Barrow-wights. To have Frodo defeat the Wights by himself would stretch credibility.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Well, one barrow-wight. 😉

Frodo is instrumental in defeating him, when he finds the courage within himself to resist the temptation to escape alone, and begins the rhyme that summons Tom.

But yes, it is Tom who banishes the wight.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

I agree we should try to keep to the subject of the thread, and not get it tangled up with the films, an entirely different can of worms.

I'll add something to the actual subject: his disorganization, which for example led to misplacing the description of the doors at Meduseld.

I can't blame him too much, given the task, but still.

To be fair, the Red Book was in another language so he probably had trouble translating it and staying organized (which he was not). I doubt he could find any hobbits about that would meet with him to help or that even could help.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

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.)

Ah I've been informed of that (or is it this) in another thread.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I'd be very hesitant to criticize the use of language by the man T.A.Shippey said "during his lifetime, probably knew more about the English language than anyone in the world".

 

[TrackerOrc]

Except Tom saves the Hobbits from the Barrow-wights. To have Frodo defeat the Wights by himself would stretch credibility.

As I think I've posted elsewhere, you could have had Strider defeat the Wight - what an entrance this would be!

 

[Deimos]

To be fair, the Red Book was in another language so he probably had trouble translating it and staying organized (which he was not). I doubt he could find any hobbits about that would meet with him to help or that even could help.

The Red Book was in another language? You are talking about The Red Book of Westmarch, right?
I thought Bilbo authored the first part of the Red Book, Frodo wrote about the War of Ring, and then Sam added some supplemental info.
And I thought it was written in Common Speech (Westron).

 

[TrackerOrc]

The Red Book was in another language? You are talking about The Red Book of Westmarch, right?
I thought Bilbo authored the first part of the Red Book, Frodo wrote about the War of Ring, and then Sam added some supplemental info.
And I thought it was written in Common Speech (Westron).

They say history is written by the winners; no wonder poor old Gollum gets such a bad press! I can just see Gamgee crossing out all the good stuff he did...