The Lord of the Rings discussion: Foreword and Prologue

[Valandil]

*sigh* this is the 19th reply... so it's doomed to oblivion at the bottom of the first page. Just when I came up with some things to say.

First of all... like Tuor, I had thought his reference to 'conducting a war... or rather reporting it' (however exactly worded) had to do with WW2... I had never considered, but think you could be right (because of 'conducting' - changed to 'reporting' in keeping with the 'wilful suspension of disbelief') that he's talking about reporting 'the War of the Ring'... I'll look closer at it and decide.

Second... not sure he was totally dissing the way WW2 was handled by the Allies... I think he was just explaining how HIS story differed from actual recent history. Sauron and The Ring were different problems from Hitler, Germany and Atomic Bombs. Different problems require different solutions. I don't think he was saying that Germany should have been destroyed (as Mordor was), etc. And while he conveys shock elsewhere about the first use of an atomic bomb (sorry if I'm going 'out of bounds' for those just learning about LotR - but there's a book containing a collection of his letters - and he wrote one to a son of his on the topic... I imagine it caught the whole world by surprise in 1945 though), I don't think he was saying that atomic weapons could be destroyed like the One Ring could... the Ring was one thing, in one place... atomic weapons were being developed in many places - and if one place would be wiped out in a raid, the knowledge and will to create them would still exist in another.

Third - types of hobbits: I had never thought of the three types as being representative of Elves, Men and Dwarves... and not sure I'd agree. I see what you're saying though, but you threw me a bit at first by saying that the Harfoots were representative of Dwarves and the Stoors representative of Men... that MAY be right in a representative sense (although again, I see no reason to buy it! ), but he DOES mention that the Stoors are the most dwarf-like of the three types of hobbits, physically.

Fourth - about how hobbits like books full of things they know, set out fair and square, with no contradictions: I think he's talking not ONLY about himself, but also about those with simple tastes, maybe country folk in general... heck, maybe even PEOPLE in general. Can't we ALL be like that at times? I know I can... and it seems like a lot of 'mooters are that way too.

I'll try to think of more to add later.

[Fat middle]

First of all, thank you, azalea, you've done a wonderful job on the Foreword and Prologue! And I'm also ejoying the commets of the others (yep, even yours, Val, at the bottom of the page )

Just to add a couple of things:

1. About elves remaining in ME. I agree with you, but I'd add something. I believe it's in Letters where Tolkien speaks pejoratively about Shakespeare's elves... He wanted to make it clear that his inspiration for the elves hadn't been on Shakespeare, but in other sources (cannot remember now). However, when I read in the prologue that bit of elves STILL here and I know all that stuff about the fading of the elves (that is all about LOTR and in HOME X), my conclusion is that those remaning elves (that obviously would have faded, but would be still here) are relatives to Shakespeare's elves and all those "spirits" that populate English tales. I see it as a remnant of Tolkien's original intention of building a mytholgy for the UK.

2. Concerning Pipeweed. I just wanted to say that I love how his explanation of this odd habit of the shirefolk in the prologue uses exactly the same words that Merry uses to explain it to Theoden Since Merry is supposed to be the author of the lore-book about herbs and pipeweed, I think it is another way of showing how this all story has "real" sources.

Well, I'll re-read again the thread, since I'm sure there is a lot still to say.

[Valandil]

Oh yeah! I also had a thought about the pipeweed: I hadn't really thought about how it came from Numenor, in the West... and you conclude he's saying it's a 'heavenly' gift of sorts. I wonder though, if he was referring to how tobacco originally came to Europe from the Americas...??

Also, I hope everyone makes the connection: Tobold... Old Toby... Tobacco???

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by Valandil
Also, I hope everyone makes the connection: Tobold... Old Toby... Tobacco???

oops! I hadn't noticed that! Great!

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Right. As an imaginary "real" history i thought a way of JRRT explaining things like potatoes and tobacco was that tobacco came from the far west (which would be the far, far east of a round world?), then died out sometime in later ages until reintroduced in the 16th and 17th centuries.

[Rían]

by Valandil
*sigh* this is the 19th reply... so it's doomed to oblivion at the bottom of the first page. Just when I came up with some things to say.

Time for a spam post! then put the good one at the top of the next page!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Valandil
Also, I hope everyone makes the connection: Tobold... Old Toby... Tobacco???

Er... I'm making it now!

[azalea]

Earniel -- your comments about the Red Book made me think how funny it is that the actual book is the very same way, as I mentioned about the Note on the Text -- so many different editions and printings, each of which may or may not have very small changes or differences and mistakes! How funny!

After re-reading Tolkien's words about conducting the war, I am now quite confident in standing by my assertion that he refers there to the War of the Ring. I can go into why, but I think everyone might want to be spared of another long-winded explanation from me! Or maybe I'm not being "considerate," just tired.
Valandil -- on your second point: I think I see what you mean, but his use of the words "if it were an allegory [of WWII]" to me means "if it were to exactly represent what happened, this is how it would look." He then goes on to describe it. So if he's describing how his own allegory of WWII would look, wouldn't it make sense that those would have been his own observations of the war? That's how I'm looking at it. It may be through a muddy glass, though.

Representative -- no, I don't think so, just exhibiting traits that mirror to an extent. The "dwarf-like" partly gave me that opinion, then he says the Stoors were less shy of men, and the Fallohides were more friendly with the elves, and when described seem to have traits that are more elf-like than the others (for instance, taller). In fact, they sound almost like Hobbit versions of the Mirkwood elves. But then it says they mingled with the others, and so you wouldn't find a "pure blooded" one of any of them, but the different strains running through the different families. I think he wanted Frodo especially to have elf-like traits, and in the Appendices, there's the line about Frodo having a great natural ability for Elvish. That was accomplished by he and Bilbo having a lot of Took in them. I don't think they were supposed to be representative, just a little like them, whether by chance or because they tended to hang out with them (the influence of dwarves on hole-dwelling -- or did they hang out with them BECAUSE they both were fond of being underground? The influence of elves on the artistry of the Fallohides -- or were they friendly with the elves BECAUSE of their penchant for that kind of thing?) I think Tolkien even bothered with this (besides giving an explanation for why the Tooks were more adventurous) was to give the Shire citizens some depth (as he did with everything) and to add another genealogical component to their makeup -- just as the average British child reading it might have a mix of Nordic, German, Anglo, etc., heritage.

Oh, and thanks for your thoughtful note to newbies, Val.

(That reminds me, I forgot to put the Note to Newbies on the first post -- oops, I'll have to add that!)
I'll respond more tomorrow -- too tired! (where's the sleepy smiley? )

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by azalea
Earniel -- your comments about the Red Book made me think how funny it is that the actual book is the very same way, as I mentioned about the Note on the Text -- so many different editions and printings, each of which may or may not have very small changes or differences and mistakes! How funny!

As a medievalist, this is not unlike what Tolkien faced in doing much of his own work. Take the Ancrene Riwle which he edited in the 50s and 60s, there are versions for men and women, versions in Middle English, in Anglo-French, in Latin, some are shorter, some are longer, some include very unique rules and guidelines for anchoress/anchorite etc. Which version is the right one? Or does one finally do what the society Tolkien published this text in do and print editions of the different versions? Both the imagined Red Book of Westmarch as well as simply the physical state of Tolkien's own personal notes and so on, strike as very like that situation of the Anchoress Rule (Ancrene Riwle).

Forkbeard

[Bombadillo]

In his foreward, I think Tolkien was clarifying that there was NO allegory whatsoever in the book that was intentional, but he more or less welcomed us to read into it. I didn't look to hard for any specifically because I'd already been told i wouldn't find any. And i think that was the importance of telling us about it in the beginning. Plus, as any great author would confess to, elements of the story are most likely related to events from Tolkien's own life, but that doesn't mean that they necassarily represent that event. I don't believe the War of the Ring was supposed to be WWII, but I'm sure that Tolkien's descriptions were affected by his knowlege of that war.

Concerning the Suspension of Reality:
When Tolkien states that he is "reporting" the tale, I love it. This one sentence doesn't do much to actually convince the reader to forget all (s)he had previously learned to make the story possible, but I see it more as a way to set the tone, partly with his dull sense of humor he makes reference to, and to keep the foreword and prolouge (sections often ignored) tied in with the story itself. He's making the book make sense, and be effective. (Frodo wouldn't have seemed "the unlikely hero" had the reader not been told of usual hobbit additudes.)
He's establishing his own reality that he was lucky enough to be a part of somehow, and I want a part of it. He's giving all the background information so we can get the most from the story. He's setting the precedent (as the god of fantasy does) of how closely fantasy should relate to reality, and here are his guidelines before the story even begins.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by azalea
Earniel -- your comments about the Red Book made me think how funny it is that the actual book is the very same way, as I mentioned about the Note on the Text -- so many different editions and printings, each of which may or may not have very small changes or differences and mistakes! How funny!

Hey, I hadn't looked at it that way! Very interesting POV. I wonder if Tolkien saw the irony: he goes out of his way to create a mythology and he ends up doing it, partly already by only having so many different versions of it!

[The Gaffer]

Great job, Azalea. You brought up lots of things I hadn't thought of re: the Prologue.

I also see it as bridging the Hobbit and LOTR by putting them into the broad picture of the same history.

We'll probably come back to this, but making the transition from a kids' fairy tale (where "realism" doesn't matter too much) to one where everything has to be self-consistent is the main challenge for the first few chapters of LOTR.

The Prologue implies that hobbits and elves still exist, thus linking with the kids' Hobbit book, but then grounds it all against this self-consistent backdrop.

It also primes us to deal with lots of other stories (like the elves) and gets us ready to be gobsmacked by the scale of each culture and its mythos.

On a negative note, the first time I read LOTR I started with the Prologue and got bored stiff after about five pages, gave up, and didn't read it for another year.

For this reason, I always recommend to people not to read it until they're finished, unless they haven't read the Hobbit, in which case it's worth reading just the recap of that story.

I agree that it's interesting that he "gives away the ending" to some extent, but that displays supreme confidence in the creation. It actually doesn't spoil it at all, since the fact that the goodies win would hardly come as a surprise to anyone.

[Maedhros]

From the Prologue

There, though Elrond had departed, his sons long remained, together with some of the High-elven folk. It is said that Celeborn went to dwell there after the departure of Galadriel; but there is no record of the day when at last he sought the Grey Havens, and with him went the last living memory of the Elder Days in Middle-earth.

First, it is to be noted that when JRRT refers to High-elves, he refers especifically to the Ñoldor.
We have from the Letter 154

When she weds Aragorn (whose love-story elsewhere recounted is not here central and only occasionally referred to) she 'makes the choice of Lúthien', so the grief at her parting from Elrond is specially poignant. Elrond passes Over Sea. The end of his sons, Elladan and Elrohir, is not told: they delay their choice, and remain for a while.

It is interesting that the Prologue would give us information regarding the fate of the sons of Elrond.
If the sons of Elrond had until their father left ME their choice to either become one of the Eldar or Atani, what do you suppose their choice was?
I have always thought that because they chose to remain in ME when their father left, I supposed that they had accepted to become Mortal but the words of the draft letter to Peter Hastings makes me wonder a little bit. How could they delay their choice?

[azalea]

It could be that they chose mortality, but continued to live with the elves. Or maybe they chose to retain their immortality, but stayed on. That's kind of what I was getting at -- I thought ships continued to depart even after Celeborn left. It's just that all of the oldest elves had gone. The "younger" ones may have stayed on, and (I like to think ) maybe even still "existed" when Tolkien wrote this, just hidden, living secretly in deep woods. But then there's the whole issue of "fading" which gets confusing (for me anyway). But maybe faded elves are still here, just unseen.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Maedhros
If the sons of Elrond had until their father left ME their choice to either become one of the Eldar or Atani, what do you suppose their choice was?
I have always thought that because they chose to remain in ME when their father left, I supposed that they had accepted to become Mortal but the words of the draft letter to Peter Hastings makes me wonder a little bit. How could they delay their choice?

My theory is that because Elrond chose to be Elvish, his offspring, while they also might face a choice themselves, were Elvish (because of Elrond's choice) until they decided otherwise... namely by binding themselves to a mortal.

And yeah... if you read all this stuff in the Prologue before you know the story and read the books for the first time, you have NO IDEA what he's talking about and NO CHANCE of keeping up with the names... so in some ways, he's really not giving away anything to new readers... just providing some extra enjoyment to re-readers!

[Maedhros]

It could be that they chose mortality, but continued to live with the elves. Or maybe they chose to retain their immortality, but stayed on. That's kind of what I was getting at -- I thought ships continued to depart even after Celeborn left. It's just that all of the oldest elves had gone.

I'm afraid my dear azalea that that is not possible or is it:
From LOTR: The Númenorean Kings

But to the children of Elrond a choice was also appointed: to pass with him from the circles of the world; or if they remained, to become mortal and die in Middle-earth. For Elrond, therefore, all chances of the War of the Ring were fraught with sorrow.

So we have the two conflicting accounts. The one in the Letters, states that Elladan and Elrohir stated and delayed their choice but it contradicts the line from the Númenoreans Kings in which they had to make their choice when their father departed from Middle-earth.
It just makes me wonder.

[azalea]

Probably grasping at straws here, but what if "with him" didn't mean "in the same boat," necessarily? So they had to make their choice, but they could stay on after he left, thus delaying the choice. But eventually they had to either take a boat, or become mortal. Again, just a wild speculation on my part. It probably is a true inconsistancy, at which I'm hardly surprised, considering all the info flying around.

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by Maedhros
I'm afraid my dear azalea that that is not possible or is it:
From LOTR: The Númenorean Kings

So we have the two conflicting accounts. The one in the Letters, states that Elladan and Elrohir stated and delayed their choice but it contradicts the line from the Númenoreans Kings in which they had to make their choice when their father departed from Middle-earth.
It just makes me wonder.

It depends on how literally we take "pass with him"--many take this as literally that they must be on the same ship with Elrond. I'm not so sure that that is what Tolkien means. To pass with him beyond the cirlces of the world doesn't necessarily mean to be physically present in the same time and space breathing the same air as Elrond. It can be more general than that, and mean that they make the same choice he did--to be Elvish and so leave Middle Earth and be with Elrond while the circles of the world remain in Valinor. Thus "with" is more general than "Physically present".

That's my .02 anyway

Forkbeard

[Rían]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
On a negative note, the first time I read LOTR I started with the Prologue and got bored stiff after about five pages, gave up, and didn't read it for another year.

I had forgotten this - I did the same thing! And I just started my re-read a couple of weeks ago - and did it again! I'm not that wild about it, and I agree that it's a better read AFTER reading the books.

[Snowdog]

Since I went into the Fellowship fresh from The Hobbit, I pead the Prologue and ate it up. I was like a lost hobbit who had just realized he had missed out on all the stories in his youth.

As for the children of Elrond, I don't think it was a literal having to leave "with him" when he goes, but a 'with him' in joining him in the west when they left.

Which brings up the bit about Cirdan and the 'last ship'.