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

[Ent]

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".

For some reason @Rivendell_librarian's post keeps popping up again in my 'alert' though I've read it several times. It popped up today again. This seems to happen with other posts as well - I'm not sure why.

Since it did, I'll take opportunity to reply to Squint's here finally.

My dear Squint: It's most OK to be hesitant. And, it puts you in the vast majority of people. Generally, a comfortable place to be.
However, I'd be hesitant to assume Shippey's posture on the issue myself - for a number of reasons - stellar though he may be.

However, no remaining Ent is too big on 'seeking comfort.' (I know, because I'm the only one.) And we aren't quite as big on 'staying uninvolved in the affairs of the world' as we once used to be.

And, I'm hesitant just on my own accord, to agree with the good Shippey, mostly because I know better.

I of course confess - "That" is a very fine word, when used properly, and has a very fine and clear topic to which it refers. Though even properly used, it's still well overused. And often, even in its 'proper' use, it can leave a "multiple" of potential 'targets,' leaving the poor reader to try to sort out just which "that" is being referred to.

UNLESS of course, we're writing "that" in a setting where a person or people are speaking. There, it's best to show people as they generally really are - totally unaware of how to use "that" properly, plague that** "that" is. Otherwise our "people" don't come across as feeling genuine. We find ourselves thinking, "people just don't really seem to talk that** way." or "people just don't really seem to talk like that.**" And, we're absolutely right.

Tolkien's age was perhaps even less aware of the proper and improper uses of "that" than we are now. It is rampant among the writers of his age and earlier. Philology and Etymology were evolving and changing at an incredible pace - to a degree, being bypassed so quickly by time, we see many today consider them to be a nearly dead science. (Though they're not.)

And as Shippey spans his age and this one, and little to no improvement has been made in our use of the word, we should expect Tolkien to be lauded for his writing ability. The rest of Tolkien's writing was exceptional in many ways. Besides, Shippey referred to what Tolkien "knew,", not to what he actually employed, in the sense of certain particular words. His ability to construct his meaning through the building blocks called words was indeed pretty much unmatched. And it was in this sense he 'laboured over every word.'

So I will certainly not 'insist' on removal of "that" from conversation - verbal or written - though I only very intentionally make use of it myself.

But neither will I resist the urge to point out how much it is but a space filler in most cases, and though accurate, can still be misleading in others, and is most often overused to distraction.

Communication is, for me, an endeavor in precision. "That" is not a helper in the quest.
"That" is wasteful, and it is costly.

Tolkien could, in many places, have been clearer, and most likely reduced total production costs, had he attended to it properly. He certainly engaged no editors capable of helping him on the subject. (He had to battle with them over some much more basic things, I fear. I've not read him write anywhere of a need to engage them over the issue of "that.")

Thus stands the Perspective of the Ent. (Note - not an opinion. Fact based, and accurate. But we are also forgiving, especially with works containing 'redeeming qualities' even when saturated with the "that" disease.***)

**that - a properly used "that" in all 3 cases. The first two have as their target the precedent conversation about the way 'talking' was being done. Or even possibly just something like "I don't like the language he/she uses. People don't really talk..." &c. The third is a properly used "that", its target being the "that" immediately following it.

None of them are necessary, nor as precise as the communication could, and probably should, be. Though none of these would lead to any confusion, having only a singular possible target in view.


***disease - definition: "a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that has a known cause and a distinctive group of symptoms, signs, or anatomical changes."
-- NOTE: In the case of "that" - the 'disease' works two ways.
-- Some find an absence of "that" a disease. Used so commonly, not to hear it sets up a void - an absence - a 'disease' for them.
-- Others find the presence of "that" a disease. Used so often, its waste and cost become the source of disease for them.

"That" is very much a double-edged sword.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Well, we all gotta be pedants about something.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

The trouble with pendants is that they keep hanging on and on and on ....

As for the mystery of the perennial alert post - I have no idea.

 

[TrackerOrc]

It serves as a template for other such scenes by other authors. It's like the granddaddy of tavern scenes in the genre.

I had no idea that tavern scenes were even a thing; I'll have to look more closely at my fantasy stuff.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

The trouble with pendants

. . .is my autocorrect is an incorrectly pedantic pendant!

 

[Eljorahir]

Even the first sentence is infected!:

'...announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday...'

I counted five that's on the first page of A Long-Expected Party. That does seem...oops...This does seem like a lot of that's.

I'm starting to think that @Ent might be onto something.

 

[TrackerOrc]

It should be noted that at this point it is not stated outright that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron. Gandalf doesn't make this plain until the chapter "The Last Debate" in Book V. It is only hinted at before this in the most oblique way.

I think what I've always liked so much about Tolkien's work is that he often doesn't spend time stating the obvious over and over, like a lot of fantasy stuff full of exposition which really feels stilted. I think we've had enough evidence of how much Sauron put into the ring to surmise (if that's the right word?) that it's destruction would have serious consequences for him.
And we do have rather a strong hint from 'The Council of Elrond' itself:

'Maybe when the One has gone, the Three will fail, and many fair things will fade and be forgotten. That is my belief. Yet all the Elves are willing to endure this chance,' said Glorfindel, 'if by it the power of Sauron may be broken, and the fear of his dominion be taken away for ever.'

And how terrible is this Ring where even its destruction will cause so much misery; good heavens Tolkien knew a thing or two didn't he?

 

[Radaghast]

I think what I've always liked so much about Tolkien's work is that he often doesn't spend time stating the obvious over and over, like a lot of fantasy stuff full of exposition which really feels stilted. I think we've had enough evidence of how much Sauron put into the ring to surmise (if that's the right word?) that it's destruction would have serious consequences for him.
And we do have rather a strong hint from 'The Council of Elrond' itself:

'Maybe when the One has gone, the Three will fail, and many fair things will fade and be forgotten. That is my belief. Yet all the Elves are willing to endure this chance,' said Glorfindel, 'if by it the power of Sauron may be broken, and the fear of his dominion be taken away for ever.'

Good point, and I appreciate that Tolkien didn't want to give too much of the game away too soon. Saying that the Ring's destruction would also destroy Sauron's corporeality at this juncture might have defused some of the overall tension.

 

[Ent]

I'm starting to think that @Ent might be onto something.

The Ent can only say he's far from the only editor seeing "that" as a bit of a plague, and generally mis-used about 80% of the time.
yet being pedantic* on the matter is not an answer either.
One can only graciously point out what is 'better,' and leave the results of such effort to others - much as with any other subject.
It all started as something of a 'training item' for our writers.
For good or ill, it has evolved.

*pedantic - def: to be annoyingly concerned with minor details, correct small errors, or emphasize one's own expertise, especially in a narrow or boring subject.

It is my hope I'm neither "correcting small errors," nor "emphasizing my own expertise." The error in view is far from 'small', and I have no expertise.
I'm simply pointng out a mis-use of language - in this case a word, a most particular and peculiar word - and it a case which was sadly a Tolkienian habit, along with the countless swarms of other people caught up in "that's" grip.

However, obviously my effort is 'annoying' to some - and the subject certainly qualifies as narrow and boring, though still being exceedingly prevalent. So as the issue has 'grown' among the larger populace, so has its detrimental impact upon them.

Therefore... therefore...
I shall desist in further mention of the subject of "That". At least, until and unless anyone asks something truly stupid, like "what is the most common and glaring mistake made in people's use of the English language, whether spoken or written." I would not likely be able to restrain myself in the face of such a question.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

I shall desist in further mention of the subject of "That".

So can we talk about 'This' instead then?

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Or "the other"?

 

[Ent]

It might be wise not to get me started. 😁

 

[Radaghast]

One of the things I used to think a little odd is how the Witch-king rides to the gates of Minas Tirith on what I assume is a horse, then shows up at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields on a flying mount. Now it makes sense that the WK would want to be on the ground to direct Grond, then ride through the gates of Minas Tirith, something he'd not be able to do on his 'fell beast'.

 

[Radaghast]

Here's something else that's not so easy to explain. What happened to the trolls at the battle near the Black Gate?

...through them there came striding up, roaring like beasts, a great company of hill-trolls out of Gorgoroth. Taller and broader than Men they were, and they were clad only in close-fitting mesh of horny scales, or maybe that was their hideous hide; but they bore round bucklers huge and black and wielded heavy hammers in their knotted hands. Reckless they sprang into the pools and waded across, bellowing as they came. Like a storm they broke upon the line of the men of Gondor, and beat upon helm and head, and arm and shield as smiths hewing the hot bending iron.

• "The Black Gate Opens"

The way the text describes them this "great company" of trolls seems like they could win the battle all by themselves. Yet when we get back to the battle and the Enemy is defeated there is only minor mention of them. It's as if they'd had no impact at all.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

Having just read The Mount Doom chapter I do wonder about the whoops-a-daisy, how clumsy of me, it was good while it lasted Gollum tripping and falling into the hot soup. Also all the remaining Nazgul being fried by the flames from Mount Doom seems also to be too pat. They were the charismatic baddies in the Fellowship of the Ring and their demise seems too abrupt.

 

[TrackerOrc]

Here's something else that's not so easy to explain. What happened to the trolls at the battle near the Black Gate?

• "The Black Gate Opens"

The way the text describes them this "great company" of trolls seems like they could win the battle all by themselves. Yet when we get back to the battle and the Enemy is defeated there is only minor mention of them. It's as if they'd had no impact at all.

Well your average Troll always seemed as thick as two short planks to me - didn't that empty head Pippin manage to kill one of their chiefs?

And once the ring was destroyed didn't most of them lose whatever feeble wits they had to begin with and 'ran hither and thither mindless'?

 

[Radaghast]

One thing that occurred to me that I can't quite explain aways is, how does Frodo stop Asfaloth on the Ford? The horse was given a command by Glorfindel (noro lim, noro lim, Asfaloth! "run swift, run swift, Asfaloth!") when the Ringwraiths caught up to the group, yet on the Ford the horse stops:

At the top of the bank the horse halted and turned about neighing fiercely. There were Nine Riders at the water’s edge below, and Frodo’s spirit quailed before the threat of their uplifted faces. He knew of nothing that would prevent them from crossing as easily as he had done; and he felt that it was useless to try to escape over the long uncertain path from the Ford to the edge of Rivendell, if once the Riders crossed. In any case he felt that he was commanded urgently to halt. Hatred again stirred in him, but he had no longer the strength to refuse.

• "Flight to the Ford"

So, the implication here seems to be that the horse stops because Frodo is "commanded urgently to halt". Frodo somehow overrides Glorfindel's command to Asfaloth. But how? I suppose he could have pulled on the reins or the horse's mane but the text doesn't say. Could anything Frodo does be enough to override Glorfindel's command though? I'm not sure this ever much sense to me. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

 

[Deimos]

One thing that occurred to me that I can't quite explain aways is, how does Frodo stop Asfaloth on the Ford? The horse was given a command by Glorfindel (noro lim, noro lim, Asfaloth! "run swift, run swift, Asfaloth!") when the Ringwraiths caught up to the group, yet on the Ford the horse stops:

• "Flight to the Ford"

So, the implication here seems to be that the horse stops because Frodo is "commanded urgently to halt". Frodo somehow overrides Glorfindel's command to Asfaloth. But how? I suppose he could have pulled on the reins or the horse's mane but the text doesn't say. Could anything Frodo does be enough to override Glorfindel's command though? I'm not sure this ever much sense to me. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Interesting ....
I would say that tho' Glorfindel commanded Asfaloth, the command may not have been strong to override the animal's instinct for survival.
The animal sees/senses the malevolence of the wraiths, and so it halts. The command is still "present" in its consciousness and it may have been searching for a way to get around the wraiths.

The situation brought to mind Gandalf blessing Bill the Pony at the gates of Moria (who is unable to enter the Mines), to aid him in his return journey to safety.
After he blesses him he says to his distraught owner, "There, Sam! He will have quite as much chance of escaping wolves and getting home as we have."
But if you think about this, it really isn't very reassuring because no one, not even Gandalf, knows what the party's chances are for "getting home."
That is, he has done the best he can for Bill, but he hasn't guaranteed anything. And Gandalf is a Maia, and is far more powerful than Glorfindel.

So if Gandalf cannot make certain that Bill will get safely home, Glorfindel's command to Asfaloth, cannot guarantee that he will plow through all obstacles to get to Rivendell. Glorfindel's command can aid the beast, as Gandalf's blessing aided Bill, but it cannot ensure that the horse will be unimpeded or even halted. (That is my opinion anyway..FWIW 🙄.)

 

[Radaghast]

Interesting ....
I would say that tho' Glorfindel commanded Asfaloth, the command may not have been strong to override the animal's instinct for survival.
The animal sees/senses the malevolence of the wraiths, and so it halts. The command is still "present" in its consciousness and it may have been searching for a way to get around the wraiths.

But Frodo was already on the far side of the Ford. If Asfaloth wanted to get away, there's nothing impeding him (also, since Asfaloth is significantly faster than the Black Riders' horses, then there's even less reason for him to worry; another possible oddity). Again, the horse turns around and Frodo is "urgently" commanded to stop. So, Frodo is stopped by the Witch-king and Asfaloth is somehow stopped by Frodo. It's not a major thing, though.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

So, the implication here seems to be that the horse stops because Frodo is "commanded urgently to halt".

I'm not sure I see any such implication here:

At the top of the bank the horse turned about neighing fiercely.

This looks like an autonomous volitional act by Asfaloth, with which Frodo has nothing to do. Only later in the passage does he feel "commanded urgently to halt". It's true that "he had no longer the strength to refuse", but neither does he try to restrain the horse, who has turned in defiance of the Nazgul. We could speculate that he might, had he had the strength, have at least tried to urge the horse to turn and run, but Asafloth seems to have had a mind of his own about it.

Edit:

So, Frodo is stopped by the Witch-king and Asfaloth is somehow stopped by Frodo.

As I pointed out above, this is the reverse of the order of the two in the text.