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

Tyelkormo the Fair said:

To be fair, The Hobbit is meant to be a short novel for children, which is why I think deaths weren't fleshed out in general.

Click to expand...

Yes, that might be the reason. Personally, I think that children should be more exposed to death in stories, but that's just me.

Tyelkormo the Fair said:

Asfaloth would have been probably weighed down with Glorfindel's added weight.

Click to expand...

🤨

Radaghast said:

🤨

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, physic exists. Don't worry. It won't hurt you.

Much.

Tyelkormo the Fair said:

Believe it or not, physic exists. Don't worry. It won't hurt you.

Much.

Click to expand...

Seriously? 🤨 How much of a load do you think either Glorfindel or Frodo is? Or how weak do you think a horse like Asfaloth is? Look at the weight warhorses in the Middle Ages had to carry. I would expect Asfaloth would be stronger.

Radaghast said:

🤨

How much of a load do you think either Glorfindel or Frodo is? Or how weak do you think a horse like Asfaloth is? Look at the weight warhorses in the Middle Ages had to carry. I would expect Asfaloth would be stronger.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter the weight they could carry. If, as you said, Frodo himself barely escaped from the Nazgul's grasp, then the added weight of a 2m+ man packed with muscles definitely would have caught them. It's a matter of relativity.

Tyelkormo the Fair said:

It doesn't matter the weight they could carry. If, as you said, Frodo himself barely escaped from the Nazgul's grasp, then the added weight of a 2m+ man packed with muscles definitely would have caught them. It's a matter of relativity.

Click to expand...

They were never close enough to almost catch him. Also, I said Glorfindel could have taken Frodo right after he encountered the party.

Radaghast said:

They were never close enough to almost catch him. Also, I said Glorfindel could have taken Frodo right after he encountered the party.

Click to expand...

Uh I see. I think I took a sentence the wrong way. I was speaking based of om what I thought you had said. It's been years since I read LoTR, so I can't say I would be able to contribute much here besides the information others offer.

Now that I read the passage again, it makes more sense. Glorfindel is guiding and encouraging the others along, because even Strider is tired by this point.

TrackerOrc said:

Absolutely. He seems to have been around for ever yet does very, very little with his time.
Would the words 'baffling nonentity' be a tad harsh?

Click to expand...

What does Bilbo do with his time (before Gandalf urges him to get off his keister)? When we first see him he's sitting on his porch blowing smoke rings, in the morning. Would you call Bilbo a nonentity? At least Tom has a domain to watch over.

Radaghast said:

Now that I read the passage again, it makes more sense. Glorfindel is guiding the others along, because even Aragorn is tired by this point.

Click to expand...

Plus, as Glorfindel himself says, the Nazgul could be anywhere along the Road:

'Where the other four may be, I do not know. I fear we may find the Ford is already held against us.'

Click to expand...

They may be at the Ford, but could be lurking at any point; hardly a situation in which to send Frodo -- and the Ring -- off alone.

The other question: why didn't Glorfindel mount Asfoloth and ride with him at the final moments, is separate. As Radaghast mentioned, the scene is important both thematically and structurally. Frodo has identified the most important element of his quest, during his conversation with Gildor: 'Where shall I find courage? That is what I chiefly need.' We see him finding the answer as the story unfolds: it is within himself. The hero may set out with friends and helpers, and encounter others along the way, but ultimately he must stand alone against his enemy, in defiance and rejection. He may be wounded, he may be killed, he may "fail", but it's a necessary part of the quest. Tolkien certainly believed this, since he replicated and reinforced it at the end of Book I, and in the scene at Mt. Doom.

In addition, as far as plot goes, Glorfindel clearly recognized the need to obstruct the Nazgul following closely behind; I suppose some other reason could be devised, depending on one's inclination. I found it satisfactory.

Turning to Tom, as it seems half the threads have, over the years, I'd concede that the Old Man Willow and Barrow-downs sequences could have been written without his intervention, but how would you address what, to Tolkien at least, was an important element in his conception of this world, as he talks about in Letter 153?

Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental -- and therefore much will from that 'point of view' be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion, but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis mine)

Tolkien wanted his readers to get at least a glimpse into "the whole picture"; I think Tom performs that very well, even if some of us find him, or the picture itself, disturbing or unsatisfying.

Squint-eyed Southerner said:

Plus, as Glorfindel himself says, the Nazgul could be anywhere along the Road:

Click to expand...

Yeah, was going to mention that; wasn't sure how to phrase it.

Radaghast said:

What does Bilbo do with his time (before Gandalf urges him to get off his keister)? When we first see him he's sitting on his porch blowing smoke rings, in the morning. Would you call Bilbo a nonentity? At least Tom has a domain to watch over.

Click to expand...

Is Bilbo a nonentity? Like the vast majority of us, absolutely he is, and we have a very well qualified person telling us exactly that:

"You are a very fine person, Mr Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!" (Gandalf in the closing paragraph of TH)

Is he, on the other hand, baffling? Not at all. He escapes his pipe and slippers nonentity and goes on quite the adventure(s) which leaves him changed an awful lot (whether for the better or not is up for discussion). In the relatively short time that he stays in ME he packs quite a lot in.

Compare Bombadil. Apparently around for millenia, he does almost nothing apart from picking flowers for his weird wife, with his 'domain' seemingly a cottage next to a river.
Baffling nonentity.

TrackerOrc said:

Is Bilbo a nonentity? Like the vast majority of us, absolutely he is, and we have a very well qualified person telling us exactly that:

"You are a very fine person, Mr Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!" (Gandalf in the closing paragraph of TH)

Is he, on the other hand, baffling? Not at all. He escapes his pipe and slippers nonentity and goes on quite the adventure(s) which leaves him changed an awful lot (whether for the better or not is up for discussion). In the relatively short time that he stays in ME he packs quite a lot in.

Compare Bombadil. Apparently around for millenia, he does almost nothing apart from picking flowers for his weird wife, with his 'domain' seemingly a cottage next to a river.
Baffling nonentity.

Click to expand...

Now his wife is weird too? LOL. I don't know why he's such a non-entity anyway; that term escapes me. And his domain is the Old Forest, not just a cottage. He watches over and protects that Forest. That is quite a bit far from "nothing". Why this little forest? Because Tom is, in Tolkien's words, "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside" a landscape which he experienced in his youth, and the comparatively tiny Old Forest represents that vanishing countryside. Actually, Tom's realm does more than represent that countryside; it is geographically the same (in a fictional sense, of course).

Radaghast said:

Now his wife is weird too? LOL. I don't know why he's such a non-entity anyway; that term escapes me. And his domain is the Old Forest, not just a cottage. He watches over and protects that Forest. That is quite a bit far from "nothing". Why this little forest? Because Tom is, in Tolkien's words, "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside" a landscape which he experienced in his youth, and the comparatively tiny Old Forest represents that vanishing countryside. Actually, Tom's realm does more than represent that countryside; it is geographically the same (in a fictional sense, of course).

Click to expand...

So he helps out the travellers, gives them a place of refuge/sustenance for a while, and sends them on their way to continue their quest.

Am I describing Bombadil or Beorn here? The latter is a fairly minor character (of which there have to be a lot in such a big story) who actually plays his part understandably and logically; he has a little backstory and it all makes sense. Bombadil, however, is someone who has been around for millenia and does little more than Beorn - which is why I call him a Baffling Nonentity. There's no hinterland, there's no sense of an understanding with a character who seems to have been around for so long.
If the Old Forest is his domain, he isn't doing a very good job letting Old Man Willow run rampant is he? And why have the hobbits never heard of him? Makes no sense.
And what exactly is Goldberry? A river goddess/mermaid mash up? Her and Bombadil stick out like a sore thumb and I just can't see rhyme or reason for it.
No one who reads LoTR would know anything about Tom being a spirit of the vanishing countryside, which is just another example of how he simply makes no sense.
Baffling Nonentity.

TrackerOrc said:

So he helps out the travellers, gives them a place of refuge/sustenance for a while, and sends them on their way to continue their quest.

Am I describing Bombadil or Beorn here? The latter is a fairly minor character (of which there have to be a lot in such a big story) who actually plays his part understandably and logically; he has a little backstory and it all makes sense. Bombadil, however, is someone who has been around for millenia and does little more than Beorn - which is why I call him a Baffling Nonentity. There's no hinterland, there's no sense of an understanding with a character who seems to have been around for so long.
If the Old Forest is his domain, he isn't doing a very good job letting Old Man Willow run rampant is he? And why have the hobbits never heard of him? Makes no sense.

Click to expand...

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.

TrackerOrc said:

And what exactly is Goldberry? A river goddess/mermaid mash up? Her and Bombadil stick out like a sore thumb and I just can't see rhyme or reason for it.

Click to expand...

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.

TrackerOrc said:

No one who reads LoTR would know anything about Tom being a spirit of the vanishing countryside, which is just another example of how he simply makes no sense.

Click to expand...

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 😄

TrackerOrc said:

Baffling Nonentity.

Click to expand...

Baffling, maybe. Nonentity? Nah, I disagree.



None of these apply to Tom Bombadil.

Hmm... I was hoping to see other views than those concerning Tom, but it seems as though the subject has taken control over this thread. Oh, well, I guess he is an interesting discussion topic.

Elwing the White said:

Hmm... I was hoping to see other views than those concerning Tom, but it seems as though the subject has taken control over this thread. Oh, well, I guess he is an interesting discussion topic.

Click to expand...

There are. I mentioned the Glorfindel scene. Turns out that what I was talking about is not to really be a flaw, but I did mention it.

Radaghast said:

There are. I mentioned the Glorfindel scene. Turns out that what I was talking about is not to really be a flaw, but I did mention it.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes, I know that there, are, I was just remarking that currently Tom Bombadil seems to be dominating this thread. (Of course, I'm not trying to criticize or stop all posting regarding Tom in any way)

And I posted a link to a thread on another "flaw". 😉

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