In one of his letters–I haven’t the book at hand right now–J. R. R. Tolkien wrote, of Lord of the Rings, that its greatest flaw was that it was too short. Casual readers probably disagree; Tolkien geeks tend to respond, “It’s WAY too short!” It is to the latter this post is addressed.
If you could go back in time to the good professor and encourage or allow the professor the leisure to add on to his masterwork*, what would you suggest to him? Please try to note exactly where in the narrative you think the addition should be made. I’m not looking for things you want deleted, mind you, so the Tom-Bombadil haters can take a bye. Let’s rather discuss things you want covered in more depth.
I have several in mind myself, but I’ll start with two:
In “The Ring Goes South,” I’d add a brief passage–three or four passages at most, certainly less than a page–to explain why the Fellowship doesn’t simply call upon the Eagles to transport the ring. You could do it in three or four paragraphs. Samwise could suggest that the council command the Eagles to help Frodo; Aragorn or Boromir could reply that it’s tactically unwise, since the Enemy’s forces would notice them and shoot them down with arrows; Gandalf or Elrond could add that the Eagles are hardly at their beck and call and cannot be ordered by anyone; and Frodo could end the matter by saying he never thought things could be that simple anyway.
In the Appendices, I’d like to have seen a tale of the youthful Aragorn serving in Gondor, showing his early rivalry with Denethor.
I’d have liked to read a lot more about what was going on around the Sea of Rhun, in Dorwinion, among the Corsairs of Umbar, and around the Lonely Mountain. There was a big battle of Men and Dwarves against the Orcs there, mentioned only in passing in LOTR. And howsabout more on Bilbo enjoying life in Rivendell? Or more about Galadriel and the Elves moving against Sauron’s forces around Lothlorien? That would’ve been cool. I would also have liked more on how Aragorn/Elessar went about taking up his duties as King - cleaning up messes that Denethor had made, rewarding allies, learning more about daily life in Minas Tirith, etc.
Y’know, I’d like to have had Sauron actually appear in a scene or two. Wow. Giving orders to the Mouth of Sauron, whispered conferences with the Nazgul, glaring through the palantir at Aragorn, his panic when he perceives Frodo standing on the edge of the fiery pit, etc. I understand the literary and stylistic reasons to have the top villain (and titular character of the books) not actually appear, but it would’ve interested me. A lot.
[ /Moderator hat off] And I’ll disagree with Elendil’s Heir, a scene with Sauron would ruin the whole impact and effect. The over-riding concept is that you have Sauron the Magnificent, embodiment of evil: but the final conflict is with Gollum. Evil is not, to Tolkien, magnificent and worshipful, but petty and nasssty. A scene with Sauron would ruin that effect.
Many thanks, Dex. While you’re being helpful, please FedEx me my brain if you find it. This loner I’m using sucks.
I entirely agree. Showing Sauron would make it a different story, and a different kind of story. The book’s central conceit is that it is a translation of Frodo & Bilbo’s memoirs, along with emendations added by Merry, Sam, and Gondorian scribes. You’ll notice that virtually everything in the book is told from the point of view of the five hobbits; the exception is those parts of Book III concerning only the Three Hunters and the Rohirrim, which are, I think, mostly from Gimli’s POV. It’s easy to imagine Frodo interviewing his companions to find out what they were doing while he and Sam were in Mordor; that would even explain the paucity of material from Aragorn and Legolas’s POV: the former was King while Frodo was writing LOTR, after all, and would be too far away and too busy to give even his beloved Frodo much time, while Legolas’ viewpoint would likely have been too odd (from a hobbit’s vantage) to work in. Additionally, neither Frodo nor Bilbo ever met Sauron (nor would they have survived to write the tale if they had), so such an addition would shatter the suspension of disbelief.
That’s why Tolkein should have included something after the destruction of the ring to reiterate the point that petty evil will always be with us and we always have to fight it. Perhaps even in the Shire.
What would have been nice, in my opinion, would not be a lengthier LOTR trilogogy per se, but simply more fiction set in that universe and with those characters.
How about a novella about Beorn and his people? Stories about the dwarf conquests and defeats in Moria? A novel concerning the other Ishtari, particularly Radagast but maybe the other two as well? Tales about the war between the heirs of Isildur and the Witch King of Angmar? I’d certainly like to have heard more about a certain hobbit nicknamed the “Bullroarer”: Bandobras Took!
The Simarillion is stuffed with potential novels. I’d wish to have Turin Turambar fleshed out into a unified novel. Not to mention Beren and Luthien, the Akallabeth, the fall of Norgothrond, the fall of Gondolin . . .
Part of what makes the Tolkien universe so fascinating is this abundance of references to stories tantalizingly hinted at, or merely sketched out. They provide a rich backdrop to the actual events of the LOTR, and it’s great fun to have them lingering in our imagination.
I disagree completely. The final scene is Tolkien showing (among 0ther things) the overall theme of LOTR: how ordinary people affect great events. One possible corollary to your idea (but I’m not attributing it to you or anyone else here) is that something not petty and nasty is not evil or even less likely to be evil. Definitely not true. That corollary might be considered a Romantic idea.
Not showing Sauron creates mystery and suspense, and lets our own fears and imaginations fill in the blanks. Showing him, even described in masterful writing as a horrific but magnificent character, would not be as effective.
