- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 11,386
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 mention is that it answers the question of the the mysteriously sketchy description of Dunharrow, the Firienfield, and especially the terrible road to the Dwimorberg, in "The Passing of the Grey Company", compared to the much fuller one in the following chapter, "The Muster of Rohan".
I assume this is one of the "defects, minor and major" Tolkien mentioned in his introduction to the second edition; whether he considered it a major or minor one, we can't know, of course.
So here's a question: could it now be "corrected"? My answer would be no, since it would require some major rewriting, and I doubt this would be tolerated, even if someone with enough hubris to try it could be found.
One way of rationalizing the text as it stands is to point to the "Hobbit-centric" viewpoint from which the story is told, something Tolkien maintained as long as he could, and returned to when possible; for instance, having the story of the Paths of the Dead related by Gimli and Legolas to Merry and Pippin, rather than showing it to us directly.
But given his lack of reticence in describing the landscape during the journey of the Three Hunters, for example, not to mention Edoras and Helms's Deep, I would find such a justification unsatisfactory.
Any thoughts?
There are many insights into the development of the story to be discovered in this volume, but the one I'll mention is that it answers the question of the the mysteriously sketchy description of Dunharrow, the Firienfield, and especially the terrible road to the Dwimorberg, in "The Passing of the Grey Company", compared to the much fuller one in the following chapter, "The Muster of Rohan".
I assume this is one of the "defects, minor and major" Tolkien mentioned in his introduction to the second edition; whether he considered it a major or minor one, we can't know, of course.
So here's a question: could it now be "corrected"? My answer would be no, since it would require some major rewriting, and I doubt this would be tolerated, even if someone with enough hubris to try it could be found.
One way of rationalizing the text as it stands is to point to the "Hobbit-centric" viewpoint from which the story is told, something Tolkien maintained as long as he could, and returned to when possible; for instance, having the story of the Paths of the Dead related by Gimli and Legolas to Merry and Pippin, rather than showing it to us directly.
But given his lack of reticence in describing the landscape during the journey of the Three Hunters, for example, not to mention Edoras and Helms's Deep, I would find such a justification unsatisfactory.
Any thoughts?
Last edited:


