Re-reading The Lord of the Rings: chapter by chapter

[Extollager]

Along with CSL's That Hideous Strength (1945), there's fellow Inkling Charles Williams's final novel, All Hallows' Eve, which has a bilocating (even trilocating) wizard, Simon. I suppose there's a good chance Williams read some or all of it to the Inklings before its publication in 1945 (they ear of CW's death, btw).

I'm not sure when Tolkien drafted this bit of the Two Towers, nor exactly when Lewis and Williams were working on their novels. At this point, I suppose it's possible that any one of them could have influenced the other two to include a "bilocation" element in their novels. This might be worth looking into further.....

Just now I checked The Treason of Isengard in The History of Middle-earth, page 428. There you find a draft bit in which Gandalf says: "I must guess that you saw Saruman [or a vision >] or some wraith of his making."

I think that comes pretty close to nailing it, as regards what Tolkien was thinking: what they saw was a magical "projection" of Saruman. But Tolkien, rightly, didn't want to make this too explicit and thereby invoke in some readers' minds the rigmarole of occultism.

 

[Hugh]

Along with CSL's That Hideous Strength (1945), there's fellow Inkling Charles Williams's final novel, All Hallows' Eve, which has a bilocating (even trilocating) wizard, Simon. I suppose there's a good chance Williams read some or all of it to the Inklings before its publication in 1945 (they ear of CW's death, btw).

I'm not sure when Tolkien drafted this bit of the Two Towers, nor exactly when Lewis and Williams were working on their novels. At this point, I suppose it's possible that any one of them could have influenced the other two to include a "bilocation" element in their novels. This might be worth looking into further.....

Just now I checked The Treason of Isengard in The History of Middle-earth, page 428. There you find a draft bit in which Gandalf says: "I must guess that you saw Saruman [or a vision >] or some wraith of his making."

I think that comes pretty close to nailing it, as regards what Tolkien was thinking: what they saw was a magical "projection" of Saruman. But Tolkien, rightly, didn't want to make this too explicit and thereby invoke in some readers' minds the rigmarole of occultism.

Nailed!

 

[Boaz]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the sense that the 'new' Gandalf -Gandalf the White - after Moria is somewhat different to the pre-Moria Gandalf the Gray. I was gutted to see what happened to him at Khazad-dum, and was overjoyed when he reappeared in Fangorn, and despite his initial apparent forgetfulness, he remembered his former self and went back to normal- or did he? The warm, friendly good-natured, passive Gandalf from the Hobbit and the Shire doesn't seem to be the same warrior-wizard that we see or at Helms Deep or on the Pelennor Fields.

Great observation. I will give my two cents, but it may take me a few paragraphs to get there.

My perception of Gandalf's return is wholly colored by The Silmarillion. I'd probably read the trilogy three times at ages fourteen and fifteen when I found The Silmarillion... and in my mind it is absolutely canon. So... Gandalf, like Saruman, Radagast, and Sauron, is a Maia (a lesser angel). He is an immortal being of power who clothed himself in humanity, i.e. he was to some degree bound by his human body and mind while developing an affinity for human tastes. He had to walk or ride in order to travel and he liked to smoke a pipe. The consequences of assuming human form led him to become more mannish over thousands of years... in effect, the goals of human society (social standing and political/economic power) vied for prioritization with his original angelic goals (resistance to Sauron). I think that is somewhat comparable to what a deep undercover agent, like Donnie Brasco, goes through.

Of the Istari (the five Maiar sent by the Valar (the greater angels) to assist the Free Peoples in resisting Sauron), Gandalf the Grey remained truest to his original purpose. The two Maiar in blue disappeared to the east and do not enter into the story. The original purpose of Radagast the Brown was to tend the flora and fauna of Arda (the entire world) and he became infatuated with these to the extent that they alone were really what he was trying to preserve from the corruption of Sauron. Saruman the White's strong suits were knowledge and creativity. He knew about craftsmanship of many types and their uses for the strengthening or domination of others. To aid in his opposition to and his study of Sauron, he built a power base at a secure and strategic location and became a lord in his own right. (It occurs to me that there may be inferred similarities between Saruman's temporal power and that of the Papacy, though I highly doubt Tolkien, as a good Roman Catholic, ever intended this.) Which brings us to the mission of Gandalf the Grey. White and blue have the strongest thematic connotations, brown less so... and grey is the most ambiguous. Before being sent to Middle-earth, Olorin (Gandalf's real name) remained invisible to the Elves while walking among them. He whispered noble, courageous, and inspiring words to their minds and hearts. It was for this that he was chosen to be among the Istari. He did not have a set domicile, so the Elves called him Mithrandir, the Grey Pilgrim/Grey Wanderer. He had concern not just for Elves, but for Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, and Ents as well, i.e. all the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. He stayed truest to their calling... encouraging hearts, bridging cultural and racial differences, and promoting defiance of evil. He could be accused of being overly friendly with less important, weaker, and ugly races (Hobbits and Dwarves) and to be free in his use of mannish customs (smoking and drinking).

When Gandalf the White appeared, he claimed he had forgotten some things he thought were important over the last two thousand years (a temporal perspective) while relearning things of Valinor (an eternal perspective). Personally, I think he returned to the same body (renewed in purpose and power). If he was in a different body, why return to the place where he died? He could have returned right at Frodo's side or in Minas Tirith or in Lothlorien... instead of begging rides from Gwaihir and Shadowfax. So I think he was in the same body, but completely restored to his original purpose and completely invigorated by his contact with Aman (the holy land of the angels).... though a bit exhausted from the entire experience.

And Gandalf is called a wizard... but how much magic does he really perform? A bit of light in Moria. A shot of light at Minas Tirith. Maybe putting some flame on Legolas' arrow in Eregion. Some horse effects to Elrond's river wave. For me, his greatest magic is in his domination of Saruman at Orthanc and his breaking of Saruman's staff. My point is that Gandalf greatest magic is when he is the White, but still his greatest powers are wise counsel, encouraging words, and timely rallying of troops. He was not sent to directly confront Sauron. He was sent to help others.... and as the White, he did this more openly than before.

Now, if I'd not ever read The Silmarillion, I am not sure how I would view this. I'd probably think that the blinders of two thousand years had been removed, but not that he'd been refilled with righteous purpose and angelic power.

 

[Overread]

Lets not forget that magic in Lord of the Rings is very low key in general. This matches with the world shifting from the Age of the Elf into the Age of Men - where technology rather than magic is taking its place. Sauron and Saruman both showed the extreme evil capable of such a future - not of technology but of industry.

By today's standards the magic is very low, much of it appearing more subtle and slight rather than big showy fireballs and lightning.

I also got the impression that Gandalf's view was that the races of the world he's sent to protect should be the ones to achieve their own release from the dark powers. His view appears quite unique in many ways from others of his ilk (Radagast appears to more want to retreat and hide rather than unite the wilds powers to fight the dark forces; Saruman has given up and the elves are running away). I think that curbs his magic use more than anything else. He doesn't use magic because he wants others to do the work. He is purely there as the guide (a role that he fills so well that its a concept copied over and over and over again in fantasy stories since) to nudge things in the right way. He uses magic only lightly when needed to give an edge. He's willing to go toe to toe with a Balrog if need be, but he'd rather the men, hobbits and dwarves would rise up where they are capable and able to do so. I think he focuses in part on making hobbits heroes because he can see that otherwise men will rule all. By helping make a hobbit a hero he helps cement their importance in the world. Dwarves he also tries to help, but it seems that the Dark Lord and dark forces turn on Dwarves most heavily; which when coupled to their nature to burrow and hide in their mountains, makes them less suited in this new age to rising up.




I also think one thing that is forgotten and isn't done well in the films, is that the Wizards are shown to be physically not human. Bushy eyebrows that extend beyond the rim of their hats and other subtle elements to their form which suggest that they are man-like, but not human in form. Nor are they elf, dwarf or hobbit. They are their own creature.

 

[Boaz]

I agree Gandalf is all for helping peoples, both individuals and nations, stand on their own rather than propping them up.

As for the exact appearance, I do not know. The appendices say the Isatari were something like "in the appearance of old men", but I can't find my book to give the exact words. As to their height, coloring, eye shape, nose size, hair length, etc, I don't know. All humans differ. But everyone who views them, sees them as men. The denizens of Bree and the Shire both view Gandalf as little more than a purveyor of fireworks or a carnival act. To the Rohirrim, he possesses a mysterious aura because of his rapport with animals and his friendship with Elves. Dwarves and the Dunedain view him a bit more suspiciously because of his vast knowledge that applies to their problems. To the Umanyar (Elves who never went to Aman) he probably seems like a spirit of nature.... except to Cirdan, who knew exactly what Gandalf was, and to Elrond who was told exactly what Gandalf was. The Noldor highly honored Gandalf for they had felt his presence in Aman, even if they never saw him. And I think Gandalf's mission was first to strengthen Elrond and Galadriel, second to rehabilitate the Dunedain, and third to help the other Free Peoples as he could. But I digress...

Maiar are definitely not human, but able to assume the shapes of the Children of Iluvatar. Melian did... and bore an Elven child to Elwe.

Staying off topic, it is interesting that neither Saruman, Gandalf, nor Radagast sired children. They did not go that native.

As a teen, I fell in love with Middle-earth, it's stories, and characters. Tolkien wrote with a leaning towards mythology, purposefully leaving enigmas in his world. I believe that mystery is half of what magic is. Compared to a contemporary work like Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series, Middle-earth is definitely low magic, but highly mysterious. In Mistborn, everything is explained. Don't get me wrong, I was intrigued by Sanderson's systematic description of magic. But is the story still fantasy if the magic is fully explained? Magic without fantasy seems like an alternate science to me. I need some enigmas.... so that I can use my imagination. My imagination and the lack of systematic explanation leaves me wanting more. That is mystery, fantasy, magic.

But Boaz, you always give us detailed commentary and definitions of your interpretations of Middle-earth!!!

Hey, I don't hold myself to that standard. I'm a critic.

 

[Pyan]

Gandalf defines himself exactly at one point: when he take Aragorn to the edge of the snows on Mount Mindolluin to find the new Tree.
Aragorn says that he would still like to have Gandalf's counsel, but Gandalf replies:

'The Third Age was my age. I was the Enemy of Sauron; and my work is finished. I shall go soon. The burden must lie now upon you and your kindred.'

My emphasis - RotK, Ch 5, The Steward and the King

 

[Extollager]

Nailed!

Maybe not... I looked more closely at The Treason of Isengard. Christopher Tolkien thinks his father might have considered the possibility that the apparition of Saruman was projected by Gandalf, who had been thinking hard about him (p. 428), The idea is suggested by a marginal note by Tolkien: "Vision of Gandalf's thought." But that was an afterthought, and Tolkien did nothing to develop it; it would also open a real can of worms as to if, or why not, Gandalf "projected" apparitions at other times of concentrated thought -- and evidently without realizing that he was doing so. Wouldn't this make Gandalf sometimes a liability for the defenders of the West? Is it likely that he would begin so to "project" deceptive images after his return? So I think we can say the notion occurred to Tolkien, but that we have no reason to think he entertained it seriously. He has left the passage uncertain in the book as published, but, to my mind, the idea that the apparition wasn't Saruman in the body but an apparition emanating from him is the most likely.

 

[HareBrain]

Christopher Tolkien thinks his father might have considered the possibility that the apparition of Saruman was projected by Gandalf, who had been thinking hard about him (p. 428), The idea is suggested by a marginal note by Tolkien: "Vision of Gandalf's thought."

One possibility that strikes me is that Tolkien was speculating about it being a vision of Gandalf, not of Saruman, caused by Gandalf thinking or being concerned about the three travellers. It sounds perhaps like Tolkien put the vision in because it felt useful plot-wise, but then he couldn't come up with a watertight explanation for it, speculated about a couple of possibilities, and ended up leaving it vague. Believe me, this is how some fiction writers work!

 

[Extollager]

Tolkien apparently often "waited" to "find out" what happened next, rather than trying to concoct the next episode. Kind of the opposite of Poe's "Philosophy of Composition" (where "philosophy" more less="science").

 

[paranoid marvin]

As I said earlier, Eomer has already warned the trio that Saruman "walks here and there...as an old man hooded and cloaked, very like to Gandalf". They then meet 'an old bent man, leaning on a staff and wrapped in a great cloak' who disappears when they see him and (seemingly) scares away their horses; I cannot see this as anyone other than Saruman - even though I think it odd that he is there in the first place.

I agree that it is important that magic takes a stepback from the defeat of Sauron in thus age, as the time of wizards is pretty much over. Not only is magic taking a stepback, but it is seen to be weakening (as in the failiures of Saruman's magic and the dwindling of Elven magic) to the point that it is the destruction of the most magical thing in Middle Earth that will bring about the end of the Age.

Also interesting comment that Gandalf, Saruman etc aren't human in form; I wonder if they all look the sae as each other. And maybe go so far as to suggest that they have never changed in appearance whilst in Middle Earth - which is why Saruman is mistaken for Gandalf - other than the colour of their cloaks, it is difficult to tell them apart.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Tolkien apparently often "waited" to "find out" what happened next, rather than trying to concoct the next episode. Kind of the opposite of Poe's "Philosophy of Composition" (where "philosophy" more less="science").

Which is odd for a man who created a land, a history and even a language for his creations before he wrote Lord of the Rings. He arranged everything else out in advance, so it's a little surprising that he hadn't also planned out the storylines of his characters.

 

[paranoid marvin]

In fact we have to wonder just how much magic there is still left in the world. Even Saruman, who is not adverse to using magic, needs thousands of orcs; he needs to cut down trees and build large workshops, and his chief weapon is his tongue. It's interesting to most of his magic appears to be in objects like his staff, the Ring he desires and the Palantir he possesses. The Ents are able even to stop him leaving his tower, so he must have little innate magical ability. Wormtongue berates the guards for allowing Gandalf his staff in Théoden's Hall, so we have to assume that most (all?) of his magical ability in in his staff, and how much magic can Sauron wield without his Ring?

It appears that there are a lot of magical 'items' in Middle Earth, but not necessarily magical people.

 

[Extollager]

There is now a place to discuss the writing of The Lord of the Rings according to a 7-month schedule for the rest of 2020.

"The History of The Lord of the Rings": 2020 Discussion Group

There's been a thread on the 12-volume History of Middle-earth, edited by the late Christopher Tolkien. https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/1505/#post-12352 This thread is a place for discussion of the volumes of HoME specifically devoted to the story of Tolkien's writing of The Lord of the...

www.sffchronicles.com

Hope to see you there.

 

[Dan Jones]

I can't believe I've missed this thread until now, and to post at this point feels very After The Lord Mayor's Show, but FWIW...

I read LOTR at that sweet spot that Lewis describes about Spenser in Extollager's post, and so it has that same sort of resonance with me. At the same time, I never read Hitchhiker's Guide in my formative years, and when I tried to read a few years ago in my mid-30s I didn't get on with it, and I remember thinking, if I'd read this at 15 I would have absolutely loved it, as I was into Pratchett around the same time, so it seems I missed the boat on that one.

There are many things that make LOTR great, and which also hamstring it. It's like a work that was created, fully formed, preserved in aspic - it came into the world having already been in the world forever, because its themes are so classical and ancient. I fully understand Brian's reasons for not getting the work, because if - as @The Big Peat says - your yardstick is looking for worlds that show progressive representations - you're only ever going to be disappointed. Tolkien was always very clear that this book was about creating a very specific and timeless piece of mythology for England. And as Brian notes in his commentary, there is the sense that this is taking place in our world that is somehow altered and forgotten (like the Ring itself), not some secondary world on a different planet in a faraway galaxy, but this somehow represents lost history.

It does that very successfully because Tolkien's greatest strength is his knowledge and ability to wield classical themes and, for all its antiquated, almost stuffy prose style, LOTR is filled with sophisticated psychological truths that manifest via the themes of the book. @Toby Frost's point about the Arthurian element is a case in point; the Arthurian legend, yes, is about replacing the bad king with the good king, but that's not just tied to the land, but to every individual in the land. Every one of us has the ability, and the imperative, to cast out the bad part of ourselves and replace it with the best part of ourselves. In that sense it's the same story that goes all the way back to Cain and Abel, which is more of a warning where the bad brother casts out the good after not living the way he should. LOTR offers it up in a fully realised sense.

The Scouring Of The Shire is a funny one; when I first read the book it was the part I liked least, but upon second reading it was my favourite part. I think it was Peat who mentioned that it showed the propensity of war to change even peace-minded creatures like Hobbits, which is surely true, but I also think that the journey would not be complete without this episode as it reveals one more psychological truth – that the journey we go on, whatever it is, changes the person who goes on the journey, and when you return home, home is not the same, and neither are you. And so there's a sense of your own personal history being lost, irrevocably. You can replace that bad king with the good king, but you can't make the scars vanish. This theme was kind of there in The Hobbit, where the respectable Bilbo's character arc is interesting because he has to take on some negative character traits (burglary) in order for his character to grow and for him to understand certain truths about the world. For all the clunky language, I do think there's a lot of subtlety on show in these books. And if they weren't so old-fashioned, I don't think they'd be so successful on these other counts.

Also, @HareBrain's map /poster looks cool, and I want one.

 

[soulsinging]

I don't have the discipline for chapter-by-chapter, but I recently bought the theatrical LOTR trilogy cheap on bluray, not having seen any of these films in a decade. I got an hour into the first and decided that since a reread was even further back in my past, it was time. I'd also just sputtered out on Master and Commander on my kindle and was looking for something else to read in the wee hours when our new baby won't sleep. I got very immersed in Tad Williams's Memory, Sorrow & Thorn trilogy with my first son, so the stars seem to be aligning.

I'm going to read The Hobbit, then the Silmarillion, then the Lord of the Rings. Will update as things occur to me.

 

[Pyan]

Also, @HareBrain's map /poster looks cool, and I want one.

A Map of Middle-earth - Pauline Baynes

 

[soulsinging]

Finished The Hobbit and it's enjoyable but remains my least favorite. It's livelier than I remembered in the early going, and fairly flies along up until their escape from the wood elves. Bilbo also is a much more active hero than Frodo. The most interesting part for me is the allusions to history contained in the Silmarillion that I'm not sure I was privvy to the last time I read this. Smaug as the last dragon has a certain gravitas missing when he's just "dragon on a pile of gold." Beorn's parentage is intriguing.

Still, some of Tolkien's impulses as a writer continue to leave me flat. The action always takes a back seat to the setting, even when fighting off spiders in Mirkwood. The end of Smaug is oddly anti-climactic to me. The arrival of the party does drive him to his end, but Bilbo and the dwarves have virtually nothing to do with his demise other than nudging him out the door (interesting counter-point to Gandalf nudging Bilbo out the door). And after a few swoops over town, a superhero human you never met before brings him down out of nowhere... because of course he and his arrow are of better blood than everyone else.

Then follows the odd Tolkien trait of an anti-climactic denouement. Smaug dies, then various armies march in, there's a squabble over the treasure, and a long journey home. The tone here is very different... more Iliad than Odyssey as Thorin is brought down. The battle itself is rushed compared to the rest of the book, and doesn't seem to fit the adventurous spirit to now.

I always thought the Hobbit was written in a style Tolkien was less comfortable with. He seems more in his element at the darker ending of the book, which is closer to his epic poetic inspirations. I also never realized just how "British" Bilbo is... that sense of a stiff upper link and swinging a deadly sword while yearning for a good cup of tea. These parts are more whimsical Wind in the Willows than epic fantasy.

In short, my opinion of this remains unchanged from when I first read it years ago. I remember then liking it, but not LOVING it, particularly in comparison to the Dragonlance Chronicles I had just read at the time. Interestingly, my reaction to those has frequently changed dramatically with subsequent rereadings (for better and worse). This almost certainly says more about me than about the merits of either work.

 

[Justin Swanton]

And now I've just stumbled across this thread. Way too late in the day but what the heck.

I've read the Silmarillion several times, LOTR at least twice, the Hobbit once and parts of Unfinished Tales. In LOTR I never had a problem with the ambling pace of the first few chapters as I find them crucial in the setting up of the tale. Unlike Rivendell, Lothlorien, Edoras and Minas Tirith, we get time to see the Shire in a state of normality, a tranquil society disturbed only by rumours of troubles in distant lands. Tolkien takes the trouble to show what Frodo and Sam are willing to risk their lives for, a way of life that is blessed in its own fashion, if not perfect. All the other Myst-like 'ages' in Middle Earth are at battle stations, surrounded and under siege. We never really get the chance to appreciate them as worlds in themselves; they are presented purely from the viewpoint of their enmity with Sauron and Saruman.

Tolkien was not in love with modernity, at least in two of its aspects: industrialisation and totalitarianism. In Middle Earth both are characteristics of the power of evil: Saruman industrialises Isengard and goes a considerable way towards industrialising the Shire, and of course all the powers of evil are military regimes and not corrupt and indolent societies. The Shire, which is the embodiment of what all the good people on Middle Earth are fighting for, is a rural community that has virtually no government. It is close to the earth, literally under it, and the greatest hero of the book is a gardener.

I think LOTR remains perennially popular because people can identify with these themes, more so as the contemporary world is looking increasingly like a creation of Saruman. We instinctively want to revert to something like the world of the Shire (even if we can't) and end up loving the good in Middle Earth as the hobbits did.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

@Brian G Turner 's report remind me of Rupert books where the plot can read in three forms

Headings, poem, and story.

The thing I like about them (Old chesnuts are the best) are they basically outline all that's needed from the books.

Had they been available when I read it, I could have just read his comments and been an expert on LOR without the hassle of reading the actual thing.

Have you considered doing the same for Potter Brian.

 

[paranoid marvin]

And now I've just stumbled across this thread. Way too late in the day but what the heck.

I've read the Silmarillion several times, LOTR at least twice, the Hobbit once and parts of Unfinished Tales. In LOTR I never had a problem with the ambling pace of the first few chapters as I find them crucial in the setting up of the tale. Unlike Rivendell, Lothlorien, Edoras and Minas Tirith, we get time to see the Shire in a state of normality, a tranquil society disturbed only by rumours of troubles in distant lands. Tolkien takes the trouble to show what Frodo and Sam are willing to risk their lives for, a way of life that is blessed in its own fashion, if not perfect. All the other Myst-like 'ages' in Middle Earth are at battle stations, surrounded and under siege. We never really get the chance to appreciate them as worlds in themselves; they are presented purely from the viewpoint of their enmity with Sauron and Saruman.

Tolkien was not in love with modernity, at least in two of its aspects: industrialisation and totalitarianism. In Middle Earth both are characteristics of the power of evil: Saruman industrialises Isengard and goes a considerable way towards industrialising the Shire, and of course all the powers of evil are military regimes and not corrupt and indolent societies. The Shire, which is the embodiment of what all the good people on Middle Earth are fighting for, is a rural community that has virtually no government. It is close to the earth, literally under it, and the greatest hero of the book is a gardener.

I think LOTR remains perennially popular because people can identify with these themes, more so as the contemporary world is looking increasingly like a creation of Saruman. We instinctively want to revert to something like the world of the Shire (even if we can't) and end up loving the good in Middle Earth as the hobbits did.

It surprises me that you have read Silmarillion more times than any of his other books. This is the one which (imho) is the most difficult and least interesting of his books/ Perhaps that is because , after reading The Hobbit and LOTR, I came to it last and - expecting another interesting story - ended up with a different type of book altogether.

I agree that most of hearken back to the 'good old days' (even if they weren't always that good!) and The Shire epitomises those carefree days of Summer in the countryside.