Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Books Discussion » Discuss the Books » Frodo and the Red Book
Author Topic:
Morna_Child_of_Eru
Council Member
Posts: 136
Send Message
Avatar
Post Frodo and the Red Book
on: May 20, 2005 09:32
Hello everyone.

Been thinking about something and thought I'd post it here. Though we know Tolkien actually created all the people and places of Middle-earth, in LotR he does in fact pretend that the story was translated from "The Red Book", written by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins.

So let's suspend disbelief for a few moments and consider the implications of "translated from the Red Book." If it were true, it would mean that much of LotR is actually Frodo's autobiography, though told in third person.

To me, this implies that Frodo decided to tell the whole world that he didn't just throw the Ring into Mount Doom. He told the world that he failed. Wow.

Frodo's confession is the only way the true story could have been told. The only people present were Sam (who would never do anything against Frodo's honor), and Gollum (who died). I assume Frodo felt guilty about his failure, though I can't remember right now if Tolkien ever actually said that. Maybe confessing helped with that. But whatever his motives, that's astounding honesty.

Or did Tolkien want us to consider the "Frodo wrote the Red Book" angle at all. I dunno. But it's past 1am. No more thinking right now.



[Edited on 21/5/2005 by Morna_Child_of_Eru]
LinweSingollo
Movies & Casting Mod, Resident Hobbit & Frodo's Footstool
Posts: 3292
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Frodo and the Red Book
on: May 21, 2005 06:22
First of all: When you write an account has no bearing on whether it's autobiographical or 'just a story'. An autobiography is an autobiography whether you write it immediately or 10 years later.

Secondly, I think Morna brings up an interesting point. I've often pondered this myself: Frodo giving a truthful account of the events in the War of the Ring. He did have the help of friends' recollections and Samwise added more later and his descendants added further annotations which they based on other sources from the Fourth Age, such as the Year-Book of Tuckborough (the Yellowskin) and probably sources from Gondor.

And why wouldn't Frodo 'tell it like it is'? He was at heart, an honest, truthful hobbit. It's interesting to speculate that he did it out of a need to confess his failing, but I think it's more likely that it didn't occur to him to put down anything but the true events as they happened, to record historical events accurately, possibly so that future generations could learn from them.
"To the Hobbits. May they outlast the Sarumans and see spring again in the trees." J.R.R. Tolkien
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Frodo and the Red Book
on: December 08, 2009 10:15
This is an interesting old topic. I've removed such replies as there were so that we can start afresh.

I think it's easy to forget that ALL of Tolkien's legendarium purports to be through the recollections of others, and these all differ in focus and motive. Elves, dwarves, men, Numenoreans, hobbits ... and all of them have their own interpretation of what they saw and read and translated, and their own cultural traditions and biases as to how the world began and why people do the things they do.

I think this blows apart much of the "What is canon|" argument, especially where it is assumed Tolkien is contradicting himself. We cannot assume that any statement is Tolkien's own when it is the held belief of an individual or race within the legendarium.
LadyBeruthiel
Council Member
Posts: 94
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Frodo and the Red Book
on: December 09, 2009 04:49
That is interesting. I knew the pretense that LOTR was constructed from a number of sources (sort of like the Bible), but haven't given it much thought. Now I see that it accounts for something that has always bothered me, which is the shift in the narrative voice throughout the book. The chapters dealing with the Shire and Rivendell have a more commonsensical, homey style, while the closer you get to Gondor, the more you have a style that sounds like some grand medieval epic poem. I always thought that was unconsious on Tolkien's part, but now I see what he was trying to do. Brilliant!
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: September 29, 2015 05:04
* !bump
Elthir
Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: October 01, 2015 02:51
I think this blows apart much of the "What is canon|" argument, especially where it is assumed Tolkien is contradicting himself. We cannot assume that any statement is Tolkien's own when it is the held belief of an individual or race within the legendarium.


I would add that if "canon" means internal truth then yes, some seeming contradictions can arguably be thought of in these terms.

For me canon is "the text that is considered internal" (publications by the author himself), in other words, a poem in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil about a troll baking bread for a Hobbit is certainly canon, despite that the story is arguably "untrue" and just a product of Hobbit whimsy.

And with respect to internal contradiction, I contend (not that anyone said otherwise) that there is a measure of purposed contradiction intended within the legendarium.

In my opinion two examples of this include the two internal variations of the Elessar stone, and the Mannish account of the Fall of Numenor, The Drowning of Anadune.

And for an author-published detail that is related to perspective at least, the interesting notion that the Dwarves claim one of the Seven was given to them by the Elves, not Sauron. Some Dwarves said so, but I think Tolkien was quite aware that such a belief could be questioned in some measure.

But that noted, plenty of other contradictions now associated with Middle-earth, in part due to many posthumously published texts being raised and referred to, can easily be merely the result of one draft text not agreeing with a later (or another) draft text...

... the not unnatural result of a writer writing, changing his or her mind while searching for "what really happened"...

... and these are not true contradictions to my mind (again no one here said otherwise in any case), as they weren't all meant to be internal. Trotter the Hobbit isn't thought of as a contradiction with Strider the West-man, although obviously here we have the finished work to compare to, and we know which version is true and which "never existed" outside of an external context.

So then comes the question: what is merely the result of an author changing his mind, and what are his "intended" contradictions? And what are mere mistakes? I mean we can say that "Frodo" made a mistake when he wrote that Gimli said...

"There may be many a chance ere the night is over,' laughed the Dwarf. 'But I am content. Till now I have hewn naught but wood since I left Moria."

Or that Frodo accurately preserved what Gimli said, and Gimli just forgot that earlier:

"So it was that Legolas and Gimli found him. They came from the western slopes of the hill, silently, creeping through the trees as if they were hunting. Gimli had his axe in hand, and Legolas his long knife: all his arrows were spent. When they came into the glade they halted in amazement;and then they stood a moment with heads bowed in grief, for it seemed to them plain what had happened.

'Alas!' said Legolas, coming to Aragorn's side. 'We have hunted and slain many Orcs in the woods, but we should have been of more use here..."


But in truth, or in "reality", I think it was more likely Tolkien's mistake

Not that I like to break the conceit of the Red Book or Bilbo's Translations From The Elvish.

I don't, and for example I prefer Tolkien's original Foreword to the first edition of The Lord of the Rings which maintains the conceit (even if he later thought it a mistake, which he seems to, for reasons I don't quite understand fully), to his revised Foreword, which breaks the conceit...

... but still, Tolkien is human, and sometimes the discussion tends toward the external perspective.

[Edited on 10/01/2015 by Elthir]
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email