Moria naming error?

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by Attalus

I don't think that we should regard Frodo as the narrator of any of the LotR, as the prologue obviously casts an omniscent narrator who has studied the Red Book thoroughly in order to tell its story to modern men. That narrator obviously had access to many other documents, viz. the Silmarillion.

So that Frodo was only the narrator of large parts of the Red Book, and LotR is more of a derivative work?

[Coffeehouse]

The narrator of LOTR is...... tada! Tolkien.

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The narrator of LOTR is...... tada! Tolkien.

No, he's the translator into English.

[Willow Oran]

Except for the pov shifts where he breaks that illusion, presumably on purpose.

We're hardly the first fans to discuss this and one story internal theory I've come across is that the name Moria was in such persistent usage among the elves of Eregion (especially those of the Sindar) that the name stuck despite dwarvish preferences and was the only one that would make the enchantment on the gates work.
Purely speculative, of course, but much more amusing.

[Jon S.]

I strongly agree with the POV that the Hobbits are writing the history in LOTR with Tolkien doing the translating. It's why, in the movie section, I'm usually more open to the personality changes than most. The Hobbits worshipped, for example, Aragorn and Faramir. They had every incentive, in the Red Book, to present them as "larger than life." Well, so be it.

It is an interesting angle from which to consider the Moria name issue, though.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Varnafindë

No, he's the translator into English.

Can you provide evidence for this?

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Can you provide evidence for this?

Only textual evidence, if you are prepared to take Tolkien's own word for it

In presenting the matter of the Red Book, as a history for people of today to read, the whole of the linguistic setting has been translated as far as possible into terms of our own times. Only the languages alien to the Common Speech have been left in their original form; but these appear mainly in the names of persons and places.

The Common Speech, as the language of the Hobbits and their narratives, has inevitably been turned into modern English.

From Translations, the last part of the Appendices

He then goes on to tell in the first person some considerations he has made in his translations.

As I said, we've only got his word for it

[Coffeehouse]

His word is holy so that's good enough for me.

[Galin]

Also The Lord of the Rings title page reads (written in runes): 'The Lord of the Rings translated from the Red Book'.

And the Tengwar on the bottom reads: 'of Westmarch by Jhon Ronald Reuel Tolkien. Herein is set forth the history of the War of the Ring and the Return of the King as seen by the hobbits.'

[Coffeehouse]

Yeah, but f.ex. when the Uruk Hai and the Orcs speak when they've captured Merry and Pippin the two hobbits don't understand the language do they (Or did these foul creatures speak (unlikely) in Westron? ), and that would suggest that definitely the narrator possesses more info than the hobbits do.. I'm sure there are numerous examples of this in the books.

*Sees that Galin is the only other Mooter online and waits eagerly for her (Guesses her..)/his solitary answer in the midst of Entmoot-loneliness*

[Galin]

Well, as seen by the Hobbits is true enough in any case, generally speaking.

Regarding the detail you raised on the language anyway, to Pippin's surpise he found that much of the Orc-talk was intelligible, as the Orcs resorted to 'ordinary language' to better communicate with each other it seems. And at one point an Orc says something in his abominable tongue, and then spoke to Pippin in the Common Speech, for example.

Edit: he said

[Coffeehouse]

Yeah I had a sneaking feeling that they spoke intelligbly to the hobbits..

[Attalus]

From another Forum:

:
Originally Posted by Coconut Ent

The story is told purely from a single point of view in FOTR: Frodo's (although there was a brief bit from Fatty Bolger's POV). So while Frodo is still zonked out after surgery, we don't know what Aragorn has been up to, or how Arwen was finalizing the design of the Standard. Aragorn knew of the Standard, recognizing it when Halbarad brought it to Rohan, so Arwen and he must have discussed it in Rivendell at some point. But we don't get to see it because Frodo didn't.

After the Fellowship is split, we get the narratives from different POV of various members. The story in FOTR and TTT is worm's eye view from the members, with no info-dump of the larger canvas, not even during the battles at Helm's Deep. We don't get anything of the Battle of the Fords of Isen at all because none of the Fellowship was there. (It didn't even make it into the Appendix!)

Only in ROTK during the great battles (Siege of Gondor, Pelennor, Dagorlad) do we get a "helicopter view" of what was happening overall.

This is the exact reason I get so irritated when people insist that the LotR's narrator is Frodo.

[Alcuin]

Most of the story is told from the point of view of the various hobbits: Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, and Fatty Bolger. The adventures of the Three Hunters from the Emyn Muil to the entrance to the Paths of the Dead is told as if from Gimli’s perspective, or at least as if from his recollection. Only once, I think, are we given a view into Aragorn’s thinking, when he’s chasing after Sam when Frodo disappeared at Parth Galen; but never into the mind of any other character that I can recall.

Everything else, as far as I can recall, is told as if from the point of view of one of the (hobbit) observers: the expressions on Boromir’s face at the Council of Elrond, for instance; the actions of Legolas; and so forth.

The end product reads as if it were constructed by the hobbits from their writings, notes, and recollections, with additional information gained from Gimli, along with emendations and explanations from the Gondorian scribes who copied the books for them.