To Make a Soul: Tolkien and Variations of Speech in the Lord of the Rings

         According to Ursula Le Guin, if a novel doesn’t have style, all that is left is a synopsis of the plot (or, to use her example, “a recipe without a cake”). Style is what characterizes both the novel and the author itself. As creator of the Legendarium, Tolkien could have chosen to affect any style he wanted, and the reader would be none the wiser. What I’m primarily interested in, following Wednesday’s discussion, is why Tolkien chose to consciously forsake creating his own consistent style when writing the Lord of the Rings, and instead why he decided to use style as a tool to create realistic and distinct characters. Further, I’m also interested in what consequences these decisions had upon the story. Every aspect of Tolkien’s writing is heavily considered and conscious; understanding his intentions are key to understanding the Lord of the Rings.

Le Guin’s characterization of Tolkien’s writing style as journalism is consistent with the way that he meant for The Lord of the Rings to be read. In Appendix F, he stated that he did not write the Lord of the Rings himself; he simply translated The Red Book of Westmarch from Westron to English. Tolkien altering the text in any way or inserting his own stylistic tendencies would invalidate his role as translator and observer and ruin the façade he had created. He intentionally suppressed his own personality and stylistic tendencies in order to allow the culture and behavior of his characters to shine through. As we discussed in class, it’s not that Tolkien could only write in plain, journalistic styles of speech – the poetry scattered throughout the Lord of the Rings and in the Tom Bombadil reading is evidence of his ability to wear many stylistic caps. His choosing to write plainly was a conscious decision. Instead of making the bulk of the text heavily styled, he instead chose to insert stylistic variations into the dialogue, speech, and tone of the different characters.

While other fantasy authors use archaisms and style to distinguish themselves, Tolkien used variations in style as a tool to distinguish his characters. Through word-choice, syntax, and tone, Tolkien managed to convey thousands of years of culture, nationality, and personality through the speech of his characters. He used style to create genuine-feeling identity. This is no small feat, indeed. Tolkien calls these “human touches” in his letter to W.H. Auden, and these small, deliberate touches are what elevate his style beyond the norm.

Shippey delved into Tolkien’s differentiation in characters’ speech in his close analysis of Book II, Chapter 2: “The Council of Elrond.” Like many others in the class, I was struck by how I didn’t notice the variations in the speech between characters the first few times I read The Lord of the Rings. (Although, to be fair, I was mostly distracted by Tolkien’s poetry and other more exciting chapters; I remembered this one being particularly boring to my nine-year-old self.) The beauty of these variations is that they are barely noticeable to the reader; one notices the character and the speaker himself, not the speech. Tolkien uses syntax and archaisms to imply aspects of the characters’ personality and culture without coming directly out and stating these facts. Elrond’s age and sagacity are implied through his archaic word order; the stubbornness of the dwarves is communicated through Gloin’s oblique statements; Saruman’s duplicity can be felt through his politically minded, abstract manners of speech. Tolkien even went to far as to consider the tone and cadence with which the Rohirrim would speak C.S.; it being their second language, he imagined it would be much slower and more deliberate. These considerations not only support the reality of the world that Tolkien has created; they also support Tolkien’s claim that he is only acting as translator. Without these variations and style, the chapter on the Council could have devolved into a mere listing of concerns, a cake without the frosting or sugar.

Each character consistently speaks like the most genuine version of themselves. Their individual tendencies and archaisms never sound forced or inauthentic. The result of this authenticity is that the reader readily accepts the reality and existence of the speaker. (The readers' acceptance, then, also supports Tolkien's claim that this is a work that he found and that he is just acting as translator.) Tolkien's commitment and consistency are his greatest strengths. While there are distinct variations in speech and tone between characters, each character’s own speech is consistent throughout the entirety of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien himself acknowledged this in his letter to Terrence Tiller. When responding to the notion of accents with the characters, he stated that he “…paid great attention to such linguistic differentiation as was possible: in diction, idiom, and so on…” (p. 254). Critics seem to get stuck on the distinctions between characters and call these variations “a lack of consistency” without fully realizing that it is the consistency in the variations that makes Tolkien’s writing so realistic. Shippey noted this, stating “…Elrond’s archaism is consistent, achieved not just by vocabulary (the first resort of the amateur medievalist), but also by grammar” (p. 76). The consistency creates identity and reality.
          Le Guin says, “The greatness of soul shows when a man speaks” (p. 83). This was Tolkien’s mission in creating differentiating styles and tones: to open wide the pages and bare the souls of his key characters. He did not make stylistic choices just for flourish and show; he made them purposefully and distinctly, in order to flesh out and create a background and culture for each of his characters. He did it to create souls, to create the impression that these characters had histories and pasts that extended far beyond his translation of The Red Book of Westmarch; I would argue that he succeeded.

-- K.G.