Stan Brown
2003-12-17 18:17:51 UTC
I hope it is legitimate to post Letter 210 in full, once. The
reasons so many of us find the films flawed are, I think, very
similar to Tolkien's objections written almost half a century ago.
210 From a letter to Forrest J. Ackerman
[Not dated; June 1958]
[Tolkien?s comments on the film ?treatment? of The Lord of the
Rings.]
I have at last finished my commentary on the Story-line. Its length
and detail will, I hope, give evidence of my interest in the matter.
Some at least of the things that I have said or suggested may be
acceptable, even useful, or at least interesting. The commentary
goes along page by page, according to the copy of Mr Zimmerman?s
work, which was left with me, and which I now return. I earnestly
hope that someone will take the trouble to read it.
If Z and/or others do so, they may be irritated or aggrieved by the
tone of many of my criticisms. If so, I am sorry (though not
surprised). But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination
sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the
resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds,
his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places
recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it
is all about. ....
The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly
different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in
exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to
not perceiving where the core of the original lies.
Z .... has intruded a ?fairy castle? and a great many Eagles, not to
mention incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic (such
as the floating body of Faramir). He has cut the parts of the story
upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends,
showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt
to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the
Ringbearers. The last and most important part of this has, and it is
not too strong a word, simply been murdered.
[Some extracts from Tolkien?s lengthy commentary on the Story Line:]
Z is used as an abbreviation for (the writer of) the synopsis.
References to this are by page (and line where required); references
to the original story are by Volume and page.
2. Why should the firework display include flags and hobbits? They
are not in the book. ?Flags? of what? I prefer my own choice of
fireworks.
Gandalf, please, should not ?splutter?. Though he may seem testy at
times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular
attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and
great dignity. The description on I p. 2391 should never be
forgotten.
4. Here we meet the first intrusion of the Eagles. I think they are
a major mistake of Z, and without warrant.
The Eagles are a dangerous ?machine?. I have used them sparingly,
and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness.
The alighting of a Great Eagle of the Misty Mountains in the Shire
is absurd; it also makes the later capture of G. by Saruman
incredible, and spoils the account of his escape. (One of Z?s chief
faults is his tendency to anticipate scenes or devices used later,
thereby flattening the tale out.) Radagast is not an Eagle-name, but
a wizard?s name; several eaglenames are supplied in the book. These
points are to me important.
Here I may say that I fail to see why the time-scheme should be
deliberately contracted. It is already rather packed in the
original, the main action occurring between Sept. 22 and March 25 of
the following year. The many impossibilities and absurdities which
further hurrying produces might, I suppose, be unobserved by an
uncritical viewer; but I do not see why they should be unnecessarily
introduced. Time must naturally be left vaguer in a picture than in
a book; but I cannot see why definite time-statements, contrary to
the book and to probability, should be made. ....
Seasons are carefully regarded in the original. They are pictorial,
and should be, and easily could be, made the main means by which the
artists indicate time-passage. The main action begins in autumn and
passes through winter to a brilliant spring: this is basic to the
purport and tone of the tale. The contraction of time and space in Z
destroys that. His arrangements would, for instance, land us in a
snowstorm while summer was still in. The Lord of the Rings may be a
?fairy-story?, but it takes place in the Northern hemisphere of this
earth: miles are miles, days are days, and weather is weather.
Contraction of this kind is not the same thing as the necessary
reduction or selection of the scenes and events that are to be
visually represented.
7. The first paragraph misrepresents Tom Bombadil. He is not the
owner of the woods; and he would never make any such threat.
?Old scamp!? This is a good example of the general tendency that I
find in Z to reduce and lower the tone towards that of a more
childish fairy-tale. The expression does not agree with the tone of
Bombadil?s long later talk; and though that is cut, there is no need
for its indications to be disregarded.
I am sorry, but I think the manner of the introduction of Goldberry
is silly, and on a par with ?old scamp?. It also has no warrant in
my tale. We are not in ?fairy-land?, but in real river-lands in
autumn. Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such
lands. Personally I think she had far better disappear than make a
meaningless appearance.
8 line 24. The landlord does not ask Frodo to ?register?!2 Why
should he? There are no police and no government. (Neither do I make
him number his rooms.) If details are to be added to an already
crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described.
9. Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an
impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which
I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is
based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg
Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the
unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no
great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and
the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The
Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the
others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III.
There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force.
But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just
broken. See III 114.3
10. Rivendell was not ?a shimmering forest?. This is an unhappy
anticipation of Lórien (which it in no way resembled). It could not
be seen from Weathertop: it was 200 miles away and hidden in a
ravine. I can see no pictorial or story-making gain in needlessly
contracting the geography.
Strider does not ?Whip out a sword? in the book. Naturally not: his
sword was broken. (Its elvish light is another false anticipation of
the reforged Anduril. Anticipation is one of Z?s chief faults.) Why
then make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly not
fought with weapons?
11. Aragorn did not ?sing the song of Gil-galad?. Naturally: it was
quite inappropriate, since it told of the defeat of the Elven-king
by the Enemy. The Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more
terrifying silence. Aragorn does not blanch. The riders draw slowly
in on foot in darkness, and do not ?spur?. There is no fight. Sam
does not ?sink his blade into the Ringwraith?s thigh?, nor does his
thrust save Frodo?s life. (If he had, the result would have been
much the same as in III 117?20:4 the Wraith would have fallen down
and the sword would have been destroyed.)
Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for
the rest of the tale? I can see that there are certain difficulties
in representing a dark scene; but they are not insuperable. A scene
of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowly
approaching as darker shadows ? until the moment when Frodo puts on
the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed ? would seem to me far
more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather
meaningless slashings.....
I have spent some time on this passage, as an example of what I find
too frequent to give me ?pleasure or satisfaction?: deliberate
alteration of the story, in fact and significance, without any
practical or artistic object (that I can see); and of the flattening
effect that assimilation of one incident to another must have.
15. Time is again contracted and hurried, with the effect of
reducing the importance of the Quest. Gandalf does not say they will
leave as soon as they can pack! Two months elapse. There is no need
to say anything with a time-purport. The lapse of time should be
indicated, if by no more than the change to winter in the scenery
and trees.
At the bottom of the page, the Eagles are again introduced. I feel
this to be a wholly unacceptable tampering with the ale. ?Nine
Walkers? and they immediately go up in the air! The intrusion
achieves nothing but incredibility, and the staling of the device of
the Eagles when at last they are really needed. It is well within
the powers of pictures to suggest, relatively briefly, a long and
arduous journey, in secrecy, on foot, with the three ominous
mountains getting nearer.
Z does not seem much interested in seasons or scenery, though from
what I saw I should say that in the representation of these the
chief virtue and attraction of the film is likely to be found. But
would Z think that he had improved the effect of a film of, say, the
ascent of Everest by introducing helicopters to take the climbers
half way up (in defiance of probability)? It would be far better to
cut the Snow-storm and the Wolves than to make a farce of the
arduous journey.
19. Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs!? (Orcs is not a form
of Auks.) The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the
?human? form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
flatnosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact
degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely
Mongol-types.
20. The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above
all he does not laugh or sneer. .... Z may think that he knows more
about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.
21 ff. ?A splendid sight. It is the home of Galadriel ... an
Elvenqueen.? (She is not in fact one.) ?Delicate spires and tiny
minarets of Elven-color are cleverly woven into a beautiful[ly]
designed castle.? I think this deplorable in itself, and in places
impertinent. Will Z please pay my text some respect, at least in
descriptions that are obviously central to the general tone and
style of the book! I will in no circumstances accept this treatment
of Lórien, even if Z personally prefers ?tiny? fairies and the
gimcrack of conventional modern fairy-tales.
The disappearance of the temptation of Galadriel is significant.
Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the
synopsis.
22. Lembas, ?waybread?, is called a ?food concentrate?. As I have
shown I dislike strongly any pulling of my tale towards the style
and feature of ?contes des fées?, or French fairy-stories. I dislike
equally any pull towards ?scientification?, of which this expression
is an example. Both modes are alien to my story.
We are not exploring the Moon or any other more improbable region.
No analysis in any laboratory would discover chemical properties of
lembas that made it superior to other cakes of wheat-meal.
I only comment on the expression here as an indication of attitude.
It is no doubt casual; and nothing of this kind or style will (I
hope) escape into the actual dialogue.
In the book lembas has two functions. It is a ?machine? or device
for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a
world in which as I have said ?miles are miles?. But that is
relatively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of
what one might hesitatingly call a ?religious? kind. This becomes
later apparent, especially in the chapter ?Mount Doom? (III 2135 and
subsequently). I cannot find that Z has made any particular use of
lembas even as a device; and the whole of ?Mount Doom? has
disappeared in the distorted confusion that Z has made of the
ending. As far as I can see lembas might as well disappear
altogether.
I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the
characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in
style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters
(and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more
than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.
Parts II & III. I have spent much space on criticizing even details
in Part I. It has been easier, because Part I in general respects
the line of narrative in the book, and retains some of its original
coherence. Part II exemplifies all the faults of Part I; but it is
far more unsatisfactory, & still more so Part III, in more serious
respects. It almost seems as if Z, having spent much time and work
on Part I, now found himself short not only of space but of patience
to deal with the two more difficult volumes in which the action
becomes more fast and complicated. He has in any case elected to
treat them in a way that produces a confusion that mounts at last
almost to a delirium. ....
The narrative now divides into two main branches: 1. Prime Action,
the Ringbearers. 2. Subsidiary Action, the rest of the Company
leading to the ?heroic? matter. It is essential that these two
branches should each be treated in coherent sequence. Both to render
them intelligible as a story, and because they are totally different
in tone and scenery. Jumbling them together entirely destroys these
things.
31. I deeply regret this handling of the ?Treebeard? chapter,
whether necessary or not. I have already suspected Z of not being
interested in trees: unfortunate, since the story is so largely
concerned with them. But surely what we have here is in any case a
quite unintelligible glimpse? What are Ents?
31 to 32. We pass now to a dwelling of Men in an ?heroic age?. Z
does not seem to appreciate this. I hope the artists do. But he and
they have really only to follow what is said, and not alter it to
suit their fancy (out of place).
In such a time private ?chambers? played no part. Théoden probably
had none, unless he had a sleeping ?bower? in a separate small
?outhouse?. He received guests or emissaries, seated on the dais in
his royal hall. This is quite clear in the book; and the scene
should be much more effective to illustrate.
31 to 32. Why do not Théoden and Gandalf go into the open before the
doors, as I have told? Though I have somewhat enriched the culture
of the ?heroic? Rohirrim, it did not run to glass windows that could
be thrown open!! We might be in a hotel. (The ?east windows? of the
hall, II 116, 119,6 were slits under the eaves, unglazed.)
Even if the king of such a people had a ?bower?, it could not become
?a beehive of bustling activity?!! The bustle takes place outside
and in the town. What is showable of it should occur on the wide
pavement before the great doors.
33. I am afraid that I do not find the glimpse of the ?defence of
the Hornburg? ? this would be a better title, since Helm?s Deep, the
ravine behind, is not shown ? entirely satisfactory. It would, I
guess, be a fairly meaningless scene in a picture, stuck in in this
way. Actually I myself should be inclined to cut it right out, if it
cannot be made more coherent and a more significant part of the
story. .... If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at
sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be
the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story; and there would
be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of
which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be
too similar: the big one would gain by having no competitor.
34. Why on earth should Z say that the hobbits ?were munching
ridiculously long sandwiches?? Ridiculous indeed. I do not see how
any author could be expected to be ?pleased? by such silly
alterations. One hobbit was sleeping, the other smoking.
The spiral staircase ?weaving? round the Tower [Orthanc] comes from
Z?s fancy not my tale. I prefer the latter. The tower was 500 feet
high. There was a flight of 27 steps leading to the great door;
above which was a window and a balcony.
Z is altogether too fond of the words hypnosis and hypnotic. Neither
genuine hypnosis, nor scientifictitious variants, occur in my tale.
Saruman?s voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened
to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing
with his arguments, while fully awake. It was always open to one to
reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and
its after impressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers.
Z has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman?s proper death.
In that case I can see no good reason for making him die. Saruman
would never have committed suicide: to cling to life to its basest
dregs is the way of the sort of person he had become. If Z wants
Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, where so many threads are left
loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman
collapses under the excommunication: ?Since you will not come out
and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay till you rot, Saruman.
Let the Ents look to it!?
Part III .... is totally unacceptable to me, as a whole and in
detail. If it is meant as notes only for a section of something like
the pictorial length of I and II, then in the filling out it must be
brought into relation with the book, and its gross alterations of
that corrected. If it is meant to represent only a kind of short
finale, then all I can say is: The Lord of the Rings cannot be
garbled like that.
reasons so many of us find the films flawed are, I think, very
similar to Tolkien's objections written almost half a century ago.
210 From a letter to Forrest J. Ackerman
[Not dated; June 1958]
[Tolkien?s comments on the film ?treatment? of The Lord of the
Rings.]
I have at last finished my commentary on the Story-line. Its length
and detail will, I hope, give evidence of my interest in the matter.
Some at least of the things that I have said or suggested may be
acceptable, even useful, or at least interesting. The commentary
goes along page by page, according to the copy of Mr Zimmerman?s
work, which was left with me, and which I now return. I earnestly
hope that someone will take the trouble to read it.
If Z and/or others do so, they may be irritated or aggrieved by the
tone of many of my criticisms. If so, I am sorry (though not
surprised). But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination
sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the
resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds,
his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places
recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it
is all about. ....
The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly
different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in
exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to
not perceiving where the core of the original lies.
Z .... has intruded a ?fairy castle? and a great many Eagles, not to
mention incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic (such
as the floating body of Faramir). He has cut the parts of the story
upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends,
showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt
to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the
Ringbearers. The last and most important part of this has, and it is
not too strong a word, simply been murdered.
[Some extracts from Tolkien?s lengthy commentary on the Story Line:]
Z is used as an abbreviation for (the writer of) the synopsis.
References to this are by page (and line where required); references
to the original story are by Volume and page.
2. Why should the firework display include flags and hobbits? They
are not in the book. ?Flags? of what? I prefer my own choice of
fireworks.
Gandalf, please, should not ?splutter?. Though he may seem testy at
times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular
attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and
great dignity. The description on I p. 2391 should never be
forgotten.
4. Here we meet the first intrusion of the Eagles. I think they are
a major mistake of Z, and without warrant.
The Eagles are a dangerous ?machine?. I have used them sparingly,
and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness.
The alighting of a Great Eagle of the Misty Mountains in the Shire
is absurd; it also makes the later capture of G. by Saruman
incredible, and spoils the account of his escape. (One of Z?s chief
faults is his tendency to anticipate scenes or devices used later,
thereby flattening the tale out.) Radagast is not an Eagle-name, but
a wizard?s name; several eaglenames are supplied in the book. These
points are to me important.
Here I may say that I fail to see why the time-scheme should be
deliberately contracted. It is already rather packed in the
original, the main action occurring between Sept. 22 and March 25 of
the following year. The many impossibilities and absurdities which
further hurrying produces might, I suppose, be unobserved by an
uncritical viewer; but I do not see why they should be unnecessarily
introduced. Time must naturally be left vaguer in a picture than in
a book; but I cannot see why definite time-statements, contrary to
the book and to probability, should be made. ....
Seasons are carefully regarded in the original. They are pictorial,
and should be, and easily could be, made the main means by which the
artists indicate time-passage. The main action begins in autumn and
passes through winter to a brilliant spring: this is basic to the
purport and tone of the tale. The contraction of time and space in Z
destroys that. His arrangements would, for instance, land us in a
snowstorm while summer was still in. The Lord of the Rings may be a
?fairy-story?, but it takes place in the Northern hemisphere of this
earth: miles are miles, days are days, and weather is weather.
Contraction of this kind is not the same thing as the necessary
reduction or selection of the scenes and events that are to be
visually represented.
7. The first paragraph misrepresents Tom Bombadil. He is not the
owner of the woods; and he would never make any such threat.
?Old scamp!? This is a good example of the general tendency that I
find in Z to reduce and lower the tone towards that of a more
childish fairy-tale. The expression does not agree with the tone of
Bombadil?s long later talk; and though that is cut, there is no need
for its indications to be disregarded.
I am sorry, but I think the manner of the introduction of Goldberry
is silly, and on a par with ?old scamp?. It also has no warrant in
my tale. We are not in ?fairy-land?, but in real river-lands in
autumn. Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such
lands. Personally I think she had far better disappear than make a
meaningless appearance.
8 line 24. The landlord does not ask Frodo to ?register?!2 Why
should he? There are no police and no government. (Neither do I make
him number his rooms.) If details are to be added to an already
crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described.
9. Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an
impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which
I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is
based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg
Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the
unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no
great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and
the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The
Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the
others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III.
There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force.
But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just
broken. See III 114.3
10. Rivendell was not ?a shimmering forest?. This is an unhappy
anticipation of Lórien (which it in no way resembled). It could not
be seen from Weathertop: it was 200 miles away and hidden in a
ravine. I can see no pictorial or story-making gain in needlessly
contracting the geography.
Strider does not ?Whip out a sword? in the book. Naturally not: his
sword was broken. (Its elvish light is another false anticipation of
the reforged Anduril. Anticipation is one of Z?s chief faults.) Why
then make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly not
fought with weapons?
11. Aragorn did not ?sing the song of Gil-galad?. Naturally: it was
quite inappropriate, since it told of the defeat of the Elven-king
by the Enemy. The Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more
terrifying silence. Aragorn does not blanch. The riders draw slowly
in on foot in darkness, and do not ?spur?. There is no fight. Sam
does not ?sink his blade into the Ringwraith?s thigh?, nor does his
thrust save Frodo?s life. (If he had, the result would have been
much the same as in III 117?20:4 the Wraith would have fallen down
and the sword would have been destroyed.)
Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for
the rest of the tale? I can see that there are certain difficulties
in representing a dark scene; but they are not insuperable. A scene
of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowly
approaching as darker shadows ? until the moment when Frodo puts on
the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed ? would seem to me far
more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather
meaningless slashings.....
I have spent some time on this passage, as an example of what I find
too frequent to give me ?pleasure or satisfaction?: deliberate
alteration of the story, in fact and significance, without any
practical or artistic object (that I can see); and of the flattening
effect that assimilation of one incident to another must have.
15. Time is again contracted and hurried, with the effect of
reducing the importance of the Quest. Gandalf does not say they will
leave as soon as they can pack! Two months elapse. There is no need
to say anything with a time-purport. The lapse of time should be
indicated, if by no more than the change to winter in the scenery
and trees.
At the bottom of the page, the Eagles are again introduced. I feel
this to be a wholly unacceptable tampering with the ale. ?Nine
Walkers? and they immediately go up in the air! The intrusion
achieves nothing but incredibility, and the staling of the device of
the Eagles when at last they are really needed. It is well within
the powers of pictures to suggest, relatively briefly, a long and
arduous journey, in secrecy, on foot, with the three ominous
mountains getting nearer.
Z does not seem much interested in seasons or scenery, though from
what I saw I should say that in the representation of these the
chief virtue and attraction of the film is likely to be found. But
would Z think that he had improved the effect of a film of, say, the
ascent of Everest by introducing helicopters to take the climbers
half way up (in defiance of probability)? It would be far better to
cut the Snow-storm and the Wolves than to make a farce of the
arduous journey.
19. Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs!? (Orcs is not a form
of Auks.) The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the
?human? form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad,
flatnosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact
degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely
Mongol-types.
20. The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above
all he does not laugh or sneer. .... Z may think that he knows more
about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.
21 ff. ?A splendid sight. It is the home of Galadriel ... an
Elvenqueen.? (She is not in fact one.) ?Delicate spires and tiny
minarets of Elven-color are cleverly woven into a beautiful[ly]
designed castle.? I think this deplorable in itself, and in places
impertinent. Will Z please pay my text some respect, at least in
descriptions that are obviously central to the general tone and
style of the book! I will in no circumstances accept this treatment
of Lórien, even if Z personally prefers ?tiny? fairies and the
gimcrack of conventional modern fairy-tales.
The disappearance of the temptation of Galadriel is significant.
Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the
synopsis.
22. Lembas, ?waybread?, is called a ?food concentrate?. As I have
shown I dislike strongly any pulling of my tale towards the style
and feature of ?contes des fées?, or French fairy-stories. I dislike
equally any pull towards ?scientification?, of which this expression
is an example. Both modes are alien to my story.
We are not exploring the Moon or any other more improbable region.
No analysis in any laboratory would discover chemical properties of
lembas that made it superior to other cakes of wheat-meal.
I only comment on the expression here as an indication of attitude.
It is no doubt casual; and nothing of this kind or style will (I
hope) escape into the actual dialogue.
In the book lembas has two functions. It is a ?machine? or device
for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a
world in which as I have said ?miles are miles?. But that is
relatively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of
what one might hesitatingly call a ?religious? kind. This becomes
later apparent, especially in the chapter ?Mount Doom? (III 2135 and
subsequently). I cannot find that Z has made any particular use of
lembas even as a device; and the whole of ?Mount Doom? has
disappeared in the distorted confusion that Z has made of the
ending. As far as I can see lembas might as well disappear
altogether.
I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the
characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in
style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters
(and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more
than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.
Parts II & III. I have spent much space on criticizing even details
in Part I. It has been easier, because Part I in general respects
the line of narrative in the book, and retains some of its original
coherence. Part II exemplifies all the faults of Part I; but it is
far more unsatisfactory, & still more so Part III, in more serious
respects. It almost seems as if Z, having spent much time and work
on Part I, now found himself short not only of space but of patience
to deal with the two more difficult volumes in which the action
becomes more fast and complicated. He has in any case elected to
treat them in a way that produces a confusion that mounts at last
almost to a delirium. ....
The narrative now divides into two main branches: 1. Prime Action,
the Ringbearers. 2. Subsidiary Action, the rest of the Company
leading to the ?heroic? matter. It is essential that these two
branches should each be treated in coherent sequence. Both to render
them intelligible as a story, and because they are totally different
in tone and scenery. Jumbling them together entirely destroys these
things.
31. I deeply regret this handling of the ?Treebeard? chapter,
whether necessary or not. I have already suspected Z of not being
interested in trees: unfortunate, since the story is so largely
concerned with them. But surely what we have here is in any case a
quite unintelligible glimpse? What are Ents?
31 to 32. We pass now to a dwelling of Men in an ?heroic age?. Z
does not seem to appreciate this. I hope the artists do. But he and
they have really only to follow what is said, and not alter it to
suit their fancy (out of place).
In such a time private ?chambers? played no part. Théoden probably
had none, unless he had a sleeping ?bower? in a separate small
?outhouse?. He received guests or emissaries, seated on the dais in
his royal hall. This is quite clear in the book; and the scene
should be much more effective to illustrate.
31 to 32. Why do not Théoden and Gandalf go into the open before the
doors, as I have told? Though I have somewhat enriched the culture
of the ?heroic? Rohirrim, it did not run to glass windows that could
be thrown open!! We might be in a hotel. (The ?east windows? of the
hall, II 116, 119,6 were slits under the eaves, unglazed.)
Even if the king of such a people had a ?bower?, it could not become
?a beehive of bustling activity?!! The bustle takes place outside
and in the town. What is showable of it should occur on the wide
pavement before the great doors.
33. I am afraid that I do not find the glimpse of the ?defence of
the Hornburg? ? this would be a better title, since Helm?s Deep, the
ravine behind, is not shown ? entirely satisfactory. It would, I
guess, be a fairly meaningless scene in a picture, stuck in in this
way. Actually I myself should be inclined to cut it right out, if it
cannot be made more coherent and a more significant part of the
story. .... If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at
sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be
the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story; and there would
be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of
which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be
too similar: the big one would gain by having no competitor.
34. Why on earth should Z say that the hobbits ?were munching
ridiculously long sandwiches?? Ridiculous indeed. I do not see how
any author could be expected to be ?pleased? by such silly
alterations. One hobbit was sleeping, the other smoking.
The spiral staircase ?weaving? round the Tower [Orthanc] comes from
Z?s fancy not my tale. I prefer the latter. The tower was 500 feet
high. There was a flight of 27 steps leading to the great door;
above which was a window and a balcony.
Z is altogether too fond of the words hypnosis and hypnotic. Neither
genuine hypnosis, nor scientifictitious variants, occur in my tale.
Saruman?s voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened
to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing
with his arguments, while fully awake. It was always open to one to
reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and
its after impressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers.
Z has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman?s proper death.
In that case I can see no good reason for making him die. Saruman
would never have committed suicide: to cling to life to its basest
dregs is the way of the sort of person he had become. If Z wants
Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, where so many threads are left
loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman
collapses under the excommunication: ?Since you will not come out
and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay till you rot, Saruman.
Let the Ents look to it!?
Part III .... is totally unacceptable to me, as a whole and in
detail. If it is meant as notes only for a section of something like
the pictorial length of I and II, then in the filling out it must be
brought into relation with the book, and its gross alterations of
that corrected. If it is meant to represent only a kind of short
finale, then all I can say is: The Lord of the Rings cannot be
garbled like that.