Tolkien's shifting style

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

One of the most remarkable things (for me) about The Lord of the Rings has always been the wide variety of styles employed throughout to tell the story. From twentieth century realism to Romance, Old English epic and Celtic fairy-tale, all the way to Homeric bravura and Dickensian verisimilitude. Probably because it's been such a favourite aspect of the book for me, it's been swirling around at the back of my head for a number of years, but recently I've had a series of thoughts about it that are perhaps going somewhere...

1) Audience: The first thing that occured to me is that the shifts in style seem to match up with the audience at that moment: obviously, not the actual audience, since you are (more or less) the same the whole time you read, but the notional audience, or those 'in the book' who are 'between' us and the action in some way. For example:

The earlier sections detailing the Hobbits' adventures are clearly told in a very 'hobbitish' way (which is to say, according to the dictates of modern relism). The assumed audience of these sections is someone very much like the real reader will probably be.

The first really interesting shift in the narrative comes with the entrance of Tom Bombadil, when it becomes much more like a children's book (makes sense when you realise that Tom began as a series of bedtime stories for Tolkien's children). But then this tone is immediatly complicated and enriched with the emergence of Goldberry who brings about the novel's first real foray into the "higher" style that really dominates many of the later chapters. The notional audience for these sections are more "Elvish" (if I dare say that). The effect of this merging of realism and high style, is to subtly shift the reader from Realism to Romance, perhaps preparing us for much more of the same later on.

Of course, as the story progresses, these forays into non-Realistic modes of narrative become more and more frequent, until you have whole chapters written in nothing but that style. In these moments you can see that the notional reader is now no longer a Realist in any way, but something else. Which leads me to point number

2) The Audience in the Work: as the story goes on we get more and more moments where the narrative doesn't just tell us what's happening, but it tells us what's happening through the eyes of observers in the text. The coming of Gandalf to Helm's Deep; the destruction of Isengard; even the passage of the paths of the dead are not narrated directly, but through the eys of an observer (the army of Rohan watches Gandalf come; Merry and Pippin narrate the destruction of Isengard; Gimli watches Aragorn in his greatest moment).

By the time we reach the final chapters of the book, this narrative shift from 'in' to 'out' is almost entirely complete with the Coronation of Aragorn, and then the return of the hobbits to the Shire -- both of these moments are told from the point of view of citizens of Minas Tirith or of the Shire, respectively. We're not so much 'with' the omniscient narrator as he looks 'through' the protagonists' eyes as we are 'with' the omniscient narrator as he looks 'through' the eyes of people watching and observing the protagonists. Which now leads to my final point...

3) The return to the oral tradition. I was listening to an interview with an inuit film-maker and he argued that in the oral tradition of story telling you don't find that singular focus on the individual hero that dominates the novelistic tradition. He argued that oral stories are about the communities that they take place in and not in the 'hero' -- there still are heroes, of course, but the story does not focus on them, it only 'uses' them to reflect on the wider experience of the community.

And I thought: whoa!

Seems to me that this can go a long way to explaining much about Tolkien that fascinates and intrigues me. The emphasis in the narrative does seem to move from the individual to the communal as we shift point of view from Frodo, to other members of the Fellowship, to the whole societies who regard the heroes and who try to figure them out. We move from looking out of Frodo's eyes, to looking at Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin and Gandalf through a lot of other people's eyes. It's almost as though the story goes in reverse, beginning with the written tradition and then moving 'back' toward an oral tradition.

So are there other ways in which this move to orality exists in the story? Does it even move the way I think it does? There is such an emphasis throughout on story-telling, it only makes sense to me that it would be partly, well, told rather than written, but is that possible in a printed book?

And what of the impact on the heroes of approaching the story as an oral tale rather than a written novel? Does it indeed move us away from Individual Heroes toward heroic individuals in a community?

[Lalwendë]

Two initial points came to mind right away. The first is the most simplistic, but is still relevant, and that's that Tolkien took so long to write LotR it was almost inevitable that his 'voice' would change; there is certainly a marked difference in tone between the early chapters of Fellowship and RotK. Of course this argument depends on whether we can detect a return to the original writing style of Fellowship in the final chapters of RotK.

The second thing that springs to mind, and its something that's struck me for a while now, following the CbC read through. There's always a Hobbit present. We don't see Middle-Earth through any eyes but Hobbit eyes. Do we also read Hobbit words? If so, then the tone and style could have been set by the Hobbit observers.

It might be worth looking at which chapters are written in which style. For instance, is all the 'high-flown' language found in the chapters which are viewed through Merry's eyes at Pelennor? Or is it also found elsewhere? And who relates the chapters about Elves? Is it Sam? Are the Elves really like he says?

It could be a whole new area to explore.

I have to disagree that the chapters set in The Shire are 'realism' though. They strike me as more Romantic than the rest of the text to be honest; you could almost imagine Dorothy Wordsworth sitting in the garden of Bag End. I find the most 'realism' to be in the chapters involving Frodo and Sam's struggles through Mordor.

[Aiwendil]

The second thing that springs to mind, and its something that's struck me for a while now, following the CbC read through. There's always a Hobbit present.

This is a good point, but it's not completely true. There are several chapters in Book III that concern only Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and (eventually) Gandalf.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

This is a good point, but it's not completely true. There are several chapters in Book III that concern only Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and (eventually) Gandalf.

True; but aren't those relayed mostly from Gimli's perspective?

Hah-- Gimli, le Faux Hobbeet. If he only knew.

Edit: Much of LOTR was written "to" Christopher, and mailed to him as he fought in WW2. (Africa, wasn't it?) Since Christopher was always one of Tolkien's oral audiences as a child-- how many bedtime stories WERE there?-- it strikes me as quite natural that oral storytelling techniques and characteristics would percolate through Tolkien's writing: especially as he writes to his son overseas.

[Rumil]

I've always thought that it was a mark of Tolkien's mastery as a storyteller that the early Shire chapters are comparatively lighthearted in what you might call 'tone' (I guess there's probably a technical expression), but as the fortunes of the fellowship ebb and flow the tone alters with the situation.

For me the most marked contrast is between the Shire chapters and Mordor. The Mordor chapters I find almost exhausting to read, which I imagine may have been Tolkien's intent; to put the reader through, in a miniscule fashion, the torments of Sam and Frodo.

Using the 'translator conceit' one must remember that the depressing Mordor chapters were written by Frodo, and must therefore reflect his dark memories of that perilous journey. One can contrast this with the Rohan and Gondor chapters, which must mostly have been based on the memories of Merry and Pippin and are therefore considerably jauntier.

Other sections which strike me as different are naturally, Tom Bombadil (I seem to remember an old thread on this - regarding faerie etc??), then the contrast in pace when Frodo is struggling through the Trollshaws.

[Boromir88]

Well certainly Tolkien's style, or perspective changes. I think it's all a ploy to get the readers more involved into his story. It's used to get the readers to be able to connect with the characters more. We get to see the workings of their mind so to say. It's not simply someone telling us...'Frodo is fully of Pity and Mercy' it's seeing through Frodo's mind, and having us figure out through Frodo's own actions and words that we see this.

There are two authors that I can think of who have done this before. There is William Faulkner's As I lay Dying. Where a mother of a twisted and dysfunctional family has died, and Faulkner every chapter switches to another family members (or sometimes a neighbor's) point of view. This way we get to relate and connect with the character, as we get to see how their mind ticks. It's more of a personal connection...to put it that way.

Then there's Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, which starts out in Jane's early childhood and it's narrated by the author. Then by the middle part switches over to Jane's husband, Rochester's point of view. Finally the end of the book, Jane had been locked up in this room, she has lost all sanity, and we see things through the insane Jane Eyre's eyes.

Those some that I'm aware of, and it's an effective device author's use so the readers can connect more with the character's.

And what of the impact on the heroes of approaching the story as an oral tale rather than a written novel? Does it indeed move us away from Individual Heroes toward heroic individuals in a community?~Fordim

I'm sure this would fit well in the True Hero: Frodo or Samwise? thread. Whether either of them (or anyone in Tolkien for that matter) was a true 'hero' or just your average joe with heroic qualities.