Welcome to the secondary Reading Room discussion of entries written for the “J.
R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia.”
This week I’ll be your host as we consider The Treason of Isengard,
which is Volume VII of The History of Middle-earth, by J. R. R. and
Christopher Tolkien. It is also sometimes referred to as Book 2 of “The History
of The Lord of the Rings”, the four-volume subset of HoME which presents
the story of the writing of LotR. In other words, it has “many names.”
I first began reading the HoME series last winter, when the Reading Room
scheduled its late discussion of The Lord of the Rings. So when N. E.
Brigand told me what was available in the way of entries for the Encyclopedia,
I had very recently read Treason. I volunteered to do it, since as I
told him, “Hey, at least I’ve read it,” and it looked to be one of those
“Tolkien-only” topics doable by a non-scholar.
Since the book contains multiple drafts of most of The Fellowship of the
Ring and The Two Towers, it would take weeks to discuss in the
approved RR style. Besides, dense is not the word, if you catch
my drift*.
Instead, this week I’ll let you review the high points and most interesting
tidbits of the book. I’ll also present some of the problems and opportunities I
encountered while trying to write a 1000-word Encyclopedia article about one
500-page volume that no one reads except under court order, that is actually
part of a continuous and intricate 1700-page tetralogy that is entirely about
the writing of another famously rich and heavy 1200-page trilogy!
First things first:
A. Have you ever read The Treason of Isengard, alone or as part of
the series?
B1. If not: Why not? Do you want to someday? Do you have a sense of what it
is?
B2. If yes: Did you enjoy it? Are you glad you took the time? Do you read
the LotR differently now because of it?
C. Does it annoy you, intrigue you, or excite you when RR posts refer to
things like “Trotter,” the original hobbit version of Strider? How about when
people here cite HoME while discussing reasons for why things in LotR are the
way they are?
D. Do you know what the title means, or why Christopher Tolkien chose it for
this volume?
E. Would it occur to you to go to a library and look this book up in a
scholarly Tolkien Encyclopedia? What would you hope to learn? What would you
expect to be different in such an Encyclopedia article compared to the publisher’s
blurb or the Amazon
reviews that can be found on line?
F. Since the Encyclopedia has no plans for an online edition, who do you
expect will be reading it in the years to come? Will you be buying a precious
copy for your very geeky
own?
The Critics Speak:
The most striking revision of all, one also noted by Christopher Tolkien, appears in a draft of the preceding chapter, “Farewell to Lórien,” in which two canceled sentences and Tolkien’s note on their cancellation reinforce speculations about whether time does or does not pass and supply the rationale for the debate in all its versions. As the Company prepares to leave Lórien, their Elf-guide Haldir announces, “I have just returned from the Northern Fences . . . and I am sent now to be your guide again. [struck out: There are strange things happening away back there. We do not know the meaning of them. But].” Above the canceled words is penciled the provocative comment “This won’t do—if Lórien is timeless, for then nothing will have happened since they entered” (Treason of Isengard, 286). Tolkien’s mind here is plain. It “won’t do” to have an Elf in a timeless land report things happening in time. (Verlyn Flieger, A Question of Time: J. R. R. Tolkien’s Road to Faërie, pp. 103-04)squire online:
Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
RR Discussions:The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Footerama: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion
