LotR - Foreword

[Bêthberry]

Hearsay, davem, hearsay! Not allowable in court.

Perhaps this is the time to note another piece of reported comment from Tolkien. My HarperCollins paperback includes a "Note on The Text" by Douglas A. Anderson, dated April 1933 from Ithaca, N.Y., which is placed before the (Second) Foreword. Here is what Anderson says about Tolkien's decision to write a second foreword:

In addition to revisions within the text itself, Tolkien replaced his original foreword with a new one. He was pleased to remove the original foreword; in his check copy, he wrote of it: "confusing (as it does) real personal matters with the 'machinery' of the Tale, is a serious mistake."

A very quick review of the Letters found no reference to the Forewords, but perhaps someone who knows them better than I can find one.

I did, however, find a passage in a Letter which speaks to an issue we have discussed here, why Tolkien would refrain from directly addressing his 'religious' meaning. This is from Letter 281, written to Rayner Unwin, 15 December 1965, so it is written around the same time as the Second Foreword. He is discussing one of the publisher's 'Blurbs' for TH; he objected to the blub as he felt it destroyed the 'magic' of the tale. Bolding mine.

Bilbo was specially selected by the authority and insight of Gandalf as abnormal: he had a good share of hobbit virtues: shrewd sense, generosity, patience and fortitude, and also a strong 'spark' yet unkindled. The story and its sequelare not about 'types' or the cure of bourgeois smugness by wider experience, but about the achievements of specially graced and gifted individuals. I would say, if saying such things did not spoil what it tries to make explicit, 'by ordained individuals, inspired and guided by an Emissary to ends beyond their individual education and enlargement'. This is clear in The Lord of the Rings;but it is present, if veiled, in The Hobbite from the beginning, and is allueded to in Gandalf's last words.

My own personal interpretation of this is that for Tolkien, story-telling is preferable to explict statements because it requires a more active form of participation in the generation of meaning than the passive receiving of information from direct statement.

[Guinevere]

For me it is only 3 years ago that I have read LotR for the first time - and I did read the foreword first. Like Firefoot, it made me feel intrigued and curious, but also rather mystified. Only after I had read the books (and reread the foreword) could I really understand what Tolkien was alluding to in the foreword. (I think this is generally often so. Why are forewords even called so and stand at the beginning? Mostly they deal with things which one can only appreciate fully after having read the book!)

And I thought it strange that Tolkien stated flatly that the book had "no inner meaning". For me it seemed full of meaning and timeless wisdom, even though I neither could nor wanted to analyze this. ( I remember that I used to hate it when when we had to analyze literature at school and "dig out" ulteriour meanings ..)
After having read "on Fairy-stories" , Tolkien's biography and his letters (and countless wise threads here in the BD) I think I understand better what motivated Tolkien.

... if saying such things did not spoil what it tries to make explicit,

That's exactly the point. And I agree fully with your opinion, Bethberry.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

For me it seemed full of meaning and timeless wisdom, even though I neither could nor wanted to analyze this. .

Yes. Better just to see, hear, and to experience it.

As we go, I hope you point out the sections that seemed full of meaning to you, especially if you can't articulate why. Sometimes that's the deepest stuff.

[Mister Underhill]

Regarding Tolkien's attitude on over-zealous fans and his creation: I know from a personal standpoint, I too often fall into the trap of trying to boil down Tolkien's attitude on any particular topic, such as this one, into a single pat answer.

But JRRT was a complex person who lived a long life. Like the rest of us, his opinions were subject to change according to what time in his life and under what circumstances you asked him.

I think there were times when he was flattered and happy to have moved so many people; then I'm sure there were other days -- say, after some rabid, half-psychotic "Frodo" had invaded his garden -- that he wondered if he hadn't done more harm than good.

In short, I think JRRT had a very complex relationship with LotR (and its impact on fans and the literary world), one that isn't easily boiled down.

[piosenniel]

Better late than never . . .

Just a brief comment on the Foreword before the opportunity passes by and the discussion has wholly gone onto the Prologue. And you will excuse me, if you will, if this does nothing to add to the well done thoughts on allegory, The Great War, religious impact of Tolkien’s belief systems, and etc.

First, let me confess, that in all my many years of reading Tolkien, I have managed to skip, overlook, pass quickly by the Foreword every time. The few author forewords I have read have proved tedious, at best, in my opinion. So it was with a sense of resignation that I prompted myself to look through this one, this time.

And quick that look-through began until I came to this section:

. . . I found that the story could not now be wholly abandoned, and I plodded on, mostly by night, till I stood by Balin’s tomb in Moria. There I halted for a long while. . . .I went on and so came to Lothlórien and the Great River. . . .

I gasped . . . something rang a bell of recognition in me. The old fellow, I thought, would have made a cracking RP-Gamer!

An invisible player intrigued by the unfolding of his storyline, he stands with the fellowship at the fallen Dwarf’s tomb - tarries a while as creative juices fail for the moment; real life becomes insistent (one or the other or both); then, journeys on with them to The Great River and into the heart of the Golden Wood. Late at night, after what passes for the real work is done, he plods on as he can . . . tapping the keys of his typewriter in a two-fingered staccato (nod to Arry for that earlier image).

He’s hooked on the tale that grows in the telling of it . . .

I’d give my eye teeth to have been able to game with him! Gives me the shivers just thinking about it.

And then, of course, there are the maps . . . lovely maps . . . a Gamer’s delight . . . but that should wait ’til the Prologue is discussed, I suppose.


~*~ Pio

*. . . written in the late watches of the night . . . herself rather unskilled in the art of ten-fingered typing . . .

[Gorwingel]

Sorry that I didn't get to this thread sooner. But it is just that I have been so busy recently with things that I just haven't had the time.

I have read the Foreword everytime I have read LOTR, and even sometimes I have read it multiple times through. I find it to be very insightful, and interesting, and actually worth the time to even the regular reader.

As others have said the 2nd edition prologue is very much influenced by what Tolkien was going through at the time (i.e. massive fandom). Like for example at the end when he talks about all the "comments and enquiries" he has received from "attentive readers". At this time he was being bombarded with letters, people coming to his home, and phonecalls (some directly from the U.S.) at the most unconvienant of times. All of this activity would most definitely effect your opinion towards your work of writing (especially because he was such a quiet gentleman).

I also must bring up this quote because to me it is just so brilliant...

Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.

I just love how he was so truthful, and candid when he wrote this. We learn that the story was taken in by the public, in a way that he didn't expect (i.e. the entire section on alligory). We also learn about the actual writing process, and how long it took for him to eventually finish his masterwork. It is only 3 1/2 pages long but it tells a ton about the person behind the story.

[Guinevere]

I agree, Gorwingel!

I have similar opinions of their works, or the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.

I wonder what books those were actually? Does anyone know some examples?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Since those words appear largely to have been motivated by resentment at some of the more dismissive criticism that his writing had received, I doubt that any solid examples will ever be forthcoming. I think that Tolkien had anticipated adverse criticism, but had expected it to be more courteously phrased than some of the reviews he received. As is probably only to be expected, he dismisses such criticism out of hand as the opinions of those who enjoy reading drivel. Sad though it is to say it, I think that the phrase quoted above was more a malicious response to certain reviewers of his work than a serious criticism of any particular books.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

As it happens, we do have a fairly good idea of the kinds of books/critics who Tolkien was talking about in that moment. Most of the most cutting reviews of LotR (and they only became more cutting as the years went by and the book went through edition after edition, and worse, became a bestseller in America) came from the critics who wrote for the more "literary" reviews (The Times Literary Supplement for example).

These critics were, throughout the middle part of the last century, almost wholly in accord with one another that the "best" kind of novels were those of the High Moderns (Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Henry James, D.H. Lawrence, Joseph Conrad) and their inheritors. They valued experimentation in style (non-linear narrative, mixing genres, shifts in voice/tone/point of view) and an aesthetic that priviledges uncertainty and ambiguity. Tolkien, they felt, offered none of these things: he was writing in a style that was not only not-new, but was in fact very very old, and behind the interesting questions of his work, there was little ambiguity or uncertainty (we know not only who but what is good and evil in LotR).

It wasn't just Tolkien who came in for this kind of dismissive treatment. Evelyn Waugh (of Brideshead Revisited fame) and Graham Greene received similarly bad reviews. Interestingly, all of these writers were "openly" Catholic in their writings and dealt with issues of faith, belief and absolute notions of good and duty. You won't find much of that in the Moderns valued by the critics at the TLS in Tolkien's lifetime!

[mark12_30]

These critics were, throughout the middle part of the last century, almost wholly in accord with one another that the "best" kind of novels were those of the High Moderns (Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Henry James, D.H. Lawrence, Joseph Conrad) and their inheritors. They valued experimentation in style (non-linear narrative, mixing genres, shifts in voice/tone/point of view) and an aesthetic that priviledges uncertainty and ambiguity. Tolkien, they felt, offered none of these things: he was writing in a style that was not only not-new, but was in fact very very old

To paraphrase Reepicheep (who always reminded me of Boromir): It is, then, my very good fortune not to be a "modern critic." I much prefer the older styles.

It's interesting that conservationism and conservativism are regarded as opposites these days, for Tolkien was both. He brings them into harmony within his own personality and in his writings. He cherished, protected, and championed that which was old, good, honorable, and vulnerable. Everything from forests to epic prose to gentleness, humility, and self-sacrifice, to honor, responsibility, and just plain "The Good Old Way Of Doing Things"-- as long as it is honorable and high, purged of the gross, beautiful, poetic, he brings us to love Age and the Ancient, and

faith, belief and absolute notions of good and duty

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It's all well and good to identify a major source of criticism and point to the tastes of its authors, but since Tolkien refuses to name names, either of the reviewers he was describing or of 'the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer', it's very difficult to pin him down to specific examples of books or authors that he considered inferior. I don't remember reading any comment by Tolkien on any of the 'high modern' authors mentioned above, let alone anything resembling an opinion on them. His only comments on modern literature (in one case, English literature in general) admit an absence of both knowledge and interest, and the most recent writers I find mentioned in his letters are Isaac Asimov and Mary Renault, of whom he approved. Although we might speculate as to which authors and critics were the target for his broadside in the 1966 foreword, there's no indication that Tolkien had even read a book by Joyce or Woolf, let alone decided what he thought of their writing.

I think that Tolkien intended his comments to be taken personally by a few reviewers and critics who had been particularly scathing about The Lord of the Rings. 'What they think is immaterial to me,' says Tolkien, 'because I have no desire to write the sort of rubbish that appeals to them.' This isn't a precise indication of Tolkien's literary tastes, but pure defensive aggression. He may well have disliked modern literature (actually his attitude towards it seems to have been closer to indifference), but as far as his actual words are concerned, his statement comes across simply as a counter-blow in print against the people who had been most contemptuously critical of his own work. Perhaps more completely than any other line in the later foreword, this gives away its true nature as the author's response to his work's reception, and by no means is it an apologia.

[davem]

I suspect what Tolkien disliked was the trend towards moral relativism (see Aragorn's words to Eomer) & the taste for irony he found in modern literature ( not much irony in LotR - though as Brian rosebury points out Saruman attempts it in his confrontation with Frodo).

Tolkien obviously felt he had something to offer modern readers which was lacking in the literature of the time. I think he was simply taking a stance, & felt that stance would be acceptable - which he probably didn't at the time of the first forword, where he seems almost apologetic about 'inflicting' this 'old fashioned', 'reactionary' work on the world. His first forword seems almost submissive, in his second he seems to have realised that he's not a voice crying in the wilderness. He cleary believed that literature could have some effect on society, & wanted to make his own position clear.

As to the 'applicability' thing, Rosebury (Tolkien: a Cultural Phenomenon) makes an interesting comparison - that Tolkien is doing, in a sense, what Illuvatar does with the Ainur - giving them the theme to sing, but they apply it in the way they wish - some positively, some negatively, but they are free to apply their creativity to making the world reflect the ideal - Eru's or their own. In that sense Tolkien gives the reader LotR, & we apply it to our lives & our thinking, but just as Eru, having given the gift of creativity & the freedom to apply it to the Ainur & the Children, so Tolkien does with his 'Theme'. Eru is not a dictator, but a creator, whose greatest gift to his children is the ability to 'apply', & the freedom to bring forth, what they have been given; to create themselves in His image. As he puts it:

If I am right, his rejection of the author's 'purposed domination' over the responses of the reader is much more than an acceptance of the modern truism that a literary text, once published, becomes an item of 'public property' which anyone can interpret or misinterpret; rather, it is an intentional adoption of the creative ethic of Illuvatar Himself, & is in absolute harmony with the moral & political values which pervade Tolkien's work

[Guinevere]

Thank you all for the interesting responses to my question!

As for Tolkien's taste in literature, didn't he and CS.Lewis at one time say something like "There is not enough literature of the kind we like , so we have to write it ourselves!" (Sorry I don't remember the exact quote and cannot find it now)
And I remember that in one letter he wrote that he disliked Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Whimsey. (I do like him, though.. Although not of English mothertongue, I've read Henry James and Virginia Woolf and can imagine that that wasn't what Tolkien would have fancied. (I didn't like it, at any rate. Joyce I've never read, although he is buried in Zürich, where I live. Sorry for the o.t. )


Now something different which I noticed :

As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches.

In this sentence in the foreword, Tolkien used almost the same words as in "Leaf by Niggle" about the painting of the tree:

The tree grew, sending out innumerable branches, and thrusting out the most fantastic roots.

When I read this, I took it immediately for a kind of symbol of LotR. Although Tolkien denied allegory, he wrote in letter # 241 about "Leaf by Niggle":

Also, of course, I was anxious about my own internal Tree, "The Lord of the Rings". It was growing out of hand, and revealing endless new vistas - and I wanted to finish it, but the world was threatening.

[Aiwendil]

Guinevere wrote:

As for Tolkien's taste in literature, didn't he and CS.Lewis at one time say something like "There is not enough literature of the kind we like , so we have to write it ourselves!" (Sorry I don't remember the exact quote and cannot find it now)
And I remember that in one letter he wrote that he disliked Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Whimsey. (I do like him, though..

I believe he said that he read and enjoyed Peter Whimsey up to Gaudy Night, but found that book to be a turn for the worse. I also recall a letter where he says he enjoys, as he puts it, "so-called 'science fiction'" - particularly Isaac Asimov. I've always enjoyed the fact that my favorite author appears to have been a fan of my second favorite.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I have decided to try and read the corresponding section of HoMe as I review LotR for these discussions. In any case, I was reading Return of the Shadow, the chapter entitled "Of Gollum and the Ring", which was eventually incorporated in Chapter 2, "Shadow of the Past", surely one of the most important sections of the entire book.

The interesting thing is that when JRRT did the earliest draft of "Shadow of the Past", he later called it a "foreward". CT says it is clear his father wrote it as a possible new beginning of the book, in which Gandalf tells Bingo before the Party of the history of the Ring, the danger it posed, and urges Bingo to leave! (At this point in the successive drafts, Bingo was giving the party and Bilbo had already taken off into the wilds.)

Would this foreward have been put forth instead of the current one or, more likely, would it have replaced the prologue we now have? We know this piece was written in about the spring of 1938, prior to any part of the prologue being written (and certainly prior to the composition of the foreward).

In any case, the book would have had a very different tone if it had started off with this dark "foreward" rather than the existing foreward or prologue. I am reminded of what Tokien said later on: how important it is that we know about Rose Cotton and other things back home since we must have some idea of what Frodo and Sam were fighting to defend. Perhaps for the same reason, Tolkien decided to drop the "gloomy" foreward and instead stress the "hominess" of the Shire so we would all understand that the book was not just about fighting evil, but also the preservation of goodness.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

What a wonderful idea, Child! I'll join you, as this seems to be a good motivation for continuing in my very slow-paced reading of HoME! (I just picked up my copy of Return of the Shadow from the bookshelf - this HarperCollins edition has John Howe's lovely illustration 'Gandalf Returns to Bag End' on the cover.)

[mark12_30]

Chile!!! ... great idea... I hope I can do it. (As I still haven't read Ch1 yet, I'm bashfully lerry!) But I'd love to do that too. I've had 'em for long enough...

[Mister Underhill]

Having agreed with Fordim that the discussion of how (or whether) to integrate HoME info into the Chapter-by-Chapter read-through belongs in the Feedback and Suggestion Box thread, I've gone ahead and moved the relevant posts over there, starting with Child's "Slightly off-topic but pertinent to future discussion..." post.

Go there to continue that line of conversation.

Thanks!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

3 1/2 years later, I just reread the Foreword in my new copy; my old Ballantine's paperback has suffered more in the past few years since I've been on the Downs than it did in the decades before that! That could give me a fresh outlook, I thought, and underlined as I read - only to see that much of what is important to me now was the same when I wrote in my introductory post on this thread!

Famous first words - people who don't read forewords aren't always missing something in other books, but much of what Tolkien writes here has been quoted over and over again in discussions of his books. The second edition foreword is the one that has survived and has been kept in newer printings and editions of the LotR.

One thing that I noticed more this time around was the analogy of the story as a tree - having studied Tolkien's biography im comparison to his story Leaf by Niggle this past year, it was an obvious connection.

Another thing I particularly noticed was his theory about what would have happened with Saruman had LotR been patterned after the real war - he speculates that the wizard would then have learned enough Ring-lore to make a Great Ring for himself!

In the light of Jackson's explanations (understandable, I'm sure, regarding the length of the films!) for the absence of the Scouring in the movie, I took note of Tolkien's evaluation that it was planned from the beginning, essential and necessary for the story.

Oh, and I smiled over his statement that some questions could not be answered because "I have failed to keep my notes in order"! It took his son years to find his way through all those papers!


I will post my thoughts on the corresponding chapter in the Companion later - hoping that others will add to the discussion to keep me from double posting!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I read Hammond and Scull's Reader's Companion with great interest and found some remarks that gave me a fresh look at the Foreword. First of all, I read the original Foreword for the first time since the last discussion; it was interesting to see how the translator conceit was emphasized in it. I smiled over Tolkien's reference to the study of Hobbits as having "no practical use" - it reminded me of his lecture that referred to the development of his languages as a "secret vice".

It amuses me that the author is more tolerant than some of his fans; he allowed those who aren't interested in his appendices on languages etc. to "neglect these pages; and the strange names that they meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like."

The thought that I found most fascinating was the fact that both versions of Tolkien's Foreword contain spoilers for those who haven't yet read the story. Did you notice those when you first read it? Did you read the Foreword first, or not at all? Let's have a closer look and see what spoilers lurk there!

note: For those who do not have a book that includes the original Foreword, Squatter posted it here in the first discussion.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I'm here to break your monologue, Esty I only hope it does not get out of hand. (EDIT after looking at the completed post: already happened... and warning, seems this contains lot of personal ramblings and not much actual thoughts that should have any objective value)

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

One thing that I noticed more this time around was the analogy of the story as a tree - having studied Tolkien's biography im comparison to his story Leaf by Niggle this past year, it was an obvious connection.

Exactly, I definitely thought about it, and mainly, I don't know, I would have to check, but the words "as the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches" are (almost?) word-to-word (the "threw out unexpected branches" part) the same as in one place of the Leaf by Niggle, at least in Czech translation of both. It must be for the first time I read the Foreword properly since reading Niggle, which means about eight years anyway, but this sentence just hit me in the eye. I don't have the Leaf in English, so I cannot say it for sure about the original.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

The thought that I found most fascinating was the fact that both versions of Tolkien's Foreword contain spoilers for those who haven't yet read the story. Did you notice those when you first read it? Did you read the Foreword first, or not at all? Let's have a closer look and see what spoilers lurk there!

Yup, I wanted to say that even when I reread it today, and even when I read your first post now where you mention the foreword. Fortunately, I have to say, fortunately I did not read it first, and I did not read even the Foreword, and I don't remember it exactly, but I believe I was quite upset even with the narrative rant before the Party itself started - I was about eight back then, so no wonder, I wanted some action (now looking at it, probably I started to read properly around the moment when old G talks to Bilbo for the first time inside Bag End, right after Gandalf's arrival with the fireworks - I remembered that part, nevertheless, because it features the rune G, as I was intrigued by the runes back then, and not knowing Tengwar yet but the runes from The Hobbit only - I fluently wrote and read in them - I kept thinking it is a Dwarven G-rune, which would be of course great, as I missed G in the Dwarven runes). Nevertheless, I read the foreword sometime during reading the rest. It must have been after Rivendell, most probably during Two Towers - that means around February that year, I don't know, 1995? Anyway, why I am sure it was after Rivendell and Two Towers - I already knew Saruman and when reading that Tolkien said in the Foreword the tale is not inspired by the WW2, I was quite, well, not surprised, I accepted it calmly, but I said to myself something like "and you know what, Tolkien? I always thought Mordor is like the Nazi Germany and Saruman is like the Soviet Union." I remind you once again, I was 8, and my view was rather flat, but the model of WW2, as I saw it, was the same model as the one I read about: evil Germans and good Western allies and good yet at the beginning treacherous Soviets (referring to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, yet in the end they took the "good" side and went against Hitler). The archetypal "the good, the bad and the one who is good, yet commited treachery at certain point" was there for me.
Anyway, what was I talking about? Yes, the Foreword. Obviously there are major spoilers, the Scouring (but obviously, after what I wrote above, I must have read this spoiler before reading the chapter itself - obviously, it did not bother me. After all, there is just something about Saruman and then Tolkien jumps to rambling about his childhood, which for a reader who does not care hardly has any value - especially when he has thousands of more important things to read at the moment, like Pippin finding the Palantír and so on).

Another thing I would like to mention is this:

It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.

I emphasised the second part, because from the moment I read the FotR for second time, I, for reasons unknown, have stuck in my mind that this is referring to the moment when Frodo looks from Amon Hen. I know Tolkien speaks in general, but back then I cared a little for that part when I first read it (maybe even skipped it... ahem) and when I read the book for the second time, chills went down my spine and I thought it was fascinating. And so I thought that probably many people could have skipped or not liked this part (like I did in the first place) but some others found it absolutely unearthly wonderful (like I did while reading it properly). And every time I read this part of the Foreword, I thought: oh my, good Tolkien that you did not heed the advices of the many (in my imagination there were many, and only a few chosen ones were able to discover the beauty of the part ) and did not revide your works by skipping it...

Another thing, and maybe (hopefully for you) this is going to be the last one. I did not fully realise, till the time I re-read this foreword now, that actually, the most brilliant or at least one of the best books (as some minimalists could say) in the world was written almost whole during the time of the Second World War. I mean, isn't it strange? Just think about it. I don't know what do you imagine when someone says "1939-45", probably depends on where you come from and other factors, but I think: battles, people dying, bombardements, innocent people dying, concentration camps, the most horrible deeds against humanity, gestapo, ending with an image of tanks passing through silent, half-destroyed city with houses with doors locked, blinds pulled... and now I should also add to this chain of images the image of the Professor sitting somewhere and writing LotR? This LotR? This fantastic, beautiful, kind book we all so love to read? It is in complete contrast? And now, I will say it otherwise to make it more apparent (I hope) - when you say "Shakespeare, Hamlet" and I should say when it was written, I imagine the 16th century England; when you say "Homer, Illias and Odyssey" I imagine some ancient Greek people in front of this beautiful temple with these funny outfits, and so on, but always, I imagine some peaceful, stylized picture. But when someone says "Tolkien, Lord of the Rings", I should actually imagine the things I named above about the World War. That's just horrible. You know what I mean?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Esty

It amuses me that the author is more tolerant than some of his fans; he allowed those who aren't interested in his appendices on languages etc. to "neglect these pages; and the strange names that they meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like."

That's good because I frequently do pronounce things just as I please, mostly out of habit and that once a thing enters my mind it tends to be memorised in a certain way and it's hard to change that. Plus when I first read the books I most certainly did NOT turn to the page giving correct pronunciations first!

And anyway, I always say Tol-kin, not Tol-keen. And I don't care

Originally Posted by Legate

I did not fully realise, till the time I re-read this foreword now, that actually, the most brilliant or at least one of the best books (as some minimalists could say) in the world was written almost whole during the time of the Second World War. I mean, isn't it strange? Just think about it. I don't know what do you imagine when someone says "1939-45", probably depends on where you come from and other factors, but I think: battles, people dying, bombardements, innocent people dying, concentration camps, the most horrible deeds against humanity, gestapo, ending with an image of tanks passing through silent, half-destroyed city with houses with doors locked, blinds pulled... and now I should also add to this chain of images the image of the Professor sitting somewhere and writing LotR? This LotR? This fantastic, beautiful, kind book we all so love to read? It is in complete contrast?

Good stuff, and I can just picture Tolkien locked away in his little room writing away. Writing under the strict conditions of the blackout and limited fuel supplies, he was no doubt writing with his nose a couple of inches off the paper, hoping no chinks of light would show. If he was writing during the blitz itself, then he will also have been disturbed by air raids; I wonder if his precious drafts of Rings stayed up in his study while he joined the family in the shelter? No doubt they did.

I'm tempted now to go and look in the Companion & Guide to see what his life involved during wartime - as it must have been like mine now, not enough hours in the day!

[Guinevere]

Well, it is with this foreword as with most forewords: they contain hints that I can only fully understand after having read the book.

Perhaps forewords should begin like the introduction Tolkien started to write for "The Golden Key" : "DON'T READ THIS! Not yet."
(And he even continued to say: "I never read what are called "introductions" to tales, "fairy" or not."!)

The sentence "As for any inner meaning or "message", it has in the intention of the author none." is often quoted, but may be misunderstood , if one doesn’t add Tolkien’s words about applicability and the freedom of the reader.
Perhaps Philip Pullman's harsh judgement of LotR ("just fancy spun candy") is influenced by this? (I don't believe he's ever reread the book itself as an adult!)

I do like the foreword to the first edition better, I'm so grateful that Squatter posted it here. Where else but in the Downs would one be able to find such gems?!

Originally posted by Legate of Amon Lanc:
Exactly, I definitely thought about it, and mainly, I don't know, I would have to check, but the words "as the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches" are (almost?) word-to-word (the "threw out unexpected branches" part) the same as in one place of the Leaf by Niggle, at least in Czech translation of both.

for the exact words see my post #93 in this thread.


As for how Tolkien's life was in wartime, some of his letters to Christopher (and others) are quite informative.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

If he was writing during the blitz itself, then he will also have been disturbed by air raids; I wonder if his precious drafts of Rings stayed up in his study while he joined the family in the shelter? No doubt they did.

Oxford was never bombed- a personal order from Hitler. Of course the British didn't know that, hence JRRT's time as an air raid warden- but no huddling in a shelter listening to the explosions. The closest JRRT came was seeing the reflected light from the bombing of Coventry, over the horizon.

[Rumil]

Hi all,

I am resolved to sit in on readthrough v2.0, though any that followed the 'Battles' thread will know that this is not to be relied upon!

Anyway, before the foreword is the Ring poem. I noticed the phrase 'dark throne' this time. What would the throne of Sauron look like? Dark naturally, very tall, very spikey in all probability too. I guess the poem must date back to the Second Age?? Therefore throne destroyed by Isildur et al or survives buried until the Third Age re-occupation of Mordor? On a frankly silly note I'm tempted by the idea of the throne having various buttons, levers, trigger for the trapdoor to the spider-pit etc, in a rather disturbing 'evil Jim'll Fix It' sort of way. Think Mr Burns or Dr Evil!

Forthrightly ignoring canonicity, allegory and applicability, the timeframe of the writing does intrigue me. The start of the writers' block at Balin's tomb was late 1940. At this time of the war things looked very bleak for Britain, France had been lost, the RAF were just holding their own in the Battle of Britain and the Blitz was
starting. No surprise maybe that Tolkien lost inspiration during this time, or perhaps thought that his writing was irrelevant? Of course by late 1941 things were rather different, the USSR (and USA in December) had joined the Allies and the war looked winnable. Maybe the story germ needed a little optimism to bear the great tree that was to become Lord of the Rings?