Did JRRT’s love of ‘detective stories’ influence him to bury clues in ‘Who done it’ genre fashion, to allow deductions in TLOTR?

Flammifer

Well-Known Member
From Holly Ordway’s book, ‘Tolkien’s Modern Reading’, we know that JRRT “Did a good deal of reading of detective stories’, (quote from Clyde Kilby).

Among those we know he read were Agatha Christie’s books (he praised her as an author). We are sure that he read ‘At Bertram’s Hotel’, by her, and assume he read many others. We know he read ‘The Bloody Wood’, by Michael Innes, and especially enjoyed the etymological puzzle hidden in it. We know that he read every one of the ‘Lord Peter Whimsey’ mysteries by Dorothy Sayers, even though he liked the early ones much more than the later ones. Sayers’ mysteries evolved from classic crime puzzles in the early books to much more of psychological novels in the later ones.

JRRT disliked Chesterton’s ‘Father Brown’ detective stories. Perhaps because they depended more on spiritual and moral insight to come to a solution, rather than clever plotting and hidden clues?

The classical ‘Who done it’ is a mystery or detective story in which the author provides enough clues for the reader to deduce solutions before they are revealed at the climax. The classical ‘Who done it’ is constructed as a ‘double narrative’. Two stories are woven together. The story of the event (crime usually) as it unfolded in real time, and the story of the ‘detective’ who is trying to reconstruct the event after the fact by interviewing stakeholders and gathering clues. Ideally, the construction should allow the clever close reader to deduce the likely ‘solution’ to the event before it is revealed at the climax. In any event, after the climax it should be possible for the reader to see how one could have deduced the solution if clever enough and reading closely enough.

Given that JRRT liked to read ‘Who done its’, did he employ these techniques in TLOTR?

I think he did. Particularly in ‘The Council of Elrond’, I think that Boromir, as the detective, gets enough clues to decipher his Divine Dream, even though the ‘climax’ is never presented (at least not during the Council). Boromir wants his Divine Dream answered (that is the mystery). Surprisingly, he seems to be the only one at the Council focused on this mystery. Boromir, (and the clever and close reading first-time-reader) get enough clues to solve the last puzzle in the Dream. How will ‘the counsels taken be stronger than Morgul-spells’? We learn enough during the Council to realize that the Morgul-wraiths are the bearers of the Nine Rings for Mortal Men; that those Rings are what keeps them ‘alive’ in Middle-earth; and when Elrond believes that if the One Ring is destroyed, the Three will fail, it is easy to conclude that if the Three will fail, the Nine will fail, and the Nazgul will disappear from Middle-earth; thus the Counsel taken, to destroy the One Ring, will be ‘stronger than Morgul spells’.

Now, this is never explicitly stated by anyone at the Council, though it can be deduced (and, I think was, by Boromir, or else he would have said something).

That being so, is it also possible that JRRT buried enough clues, using the same ‘Who done it’ methodology of the dual narrative (events unfolding in real time, while the ‘detective’ needs to work backwards through the evidence to gain illumination) to deduce that destroying the One Ring will also destroy Sauron and win the War?

I don’t think so. I cannot find such clues.

With the benefit of hindsight, knowing that destroying the Ring does destroy Sauron and win the War, I think one can interpret some comments as possible ‘foreshadowings’ of that outcome. However, I do not find enough clues to allow deduction in the classic pattern of the ‘Who done it’ genre.

What do you think? Do you think that JRRT was borrowing from his love of ‘detective stories’ to set up deductive clue sequences in TLOTR in ‘Who done it’ genre fashion? Can you think of other examples?
 
I listened to the discussion with Holly Ordway about the book. In the discussion she didn't mention Dorothy Sayers, so thank you for mentioning that. I was wondering during that talk. I'm in a group that discusses Sayers' books. Not surprisingly I prefer the later books. But the early books have a lot about shell shock (Lord Peter's and it's a major factor in The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club) and were written in the 20's. I wonder if that was a factor for him, besides the classic puzzle mysteries.

Your description of the process of discovery involved in solving mysteries reminded me of Tolkien's method of writing LOTR, in which he goes on and discovers key elements of the story as he goes. The whole book is a mystery that he has solved - thouh not completely, since he kept up the process long after the writing in some of his later writings. Just think of the sound of hoofs in the Shire that turned out to be a Black Rider, or the stranger in the corner of the public room of the Prancing Pony. In both cases, his job as writer was to discover what these things meant, and with these two early examples the whole story began to come clear for him.
 
Hi Rachel,

As you probably know, Dorothy L. Sayers knew both JRRT and CS Lewis. Lewis said that he read her play, 'The Man Born to be King' every Easter.

It's been a long time since I read all the Lord Peter Wimsey books, but I think I would agree with JRRT about the early ones being the best. Topically, for Mythgard, she also translated Dante's 'Inferno' and 'Purgatorio'. Umberto Eco praised these translations for preserving the rhyme scheme and metre of the original.

My favorite work by Sayers is her little known poem, 'The English War'. Sayers published two collections of her poetry, 'OP. I.' in 1916, and 'Catholic Tales and Christian Songs' in 1918, but 'The English War' was much later. It was published in 'The Times Literary Supplement' in September 1940, the darkest days for Britain in the Second World War.

I first encountered 'The English War' in 'Other Men's Flowers', a collection of poetry selected and annotated by Lord Wavell. Wavell served in the British Army in the Boer War, WWI, and WWII, rising to the rank of Field Marshall. In WWII, he was Commander-in-Chief Middle East, followed by Commander-in-Chief India. Later he was Viceroy of India.

I think I would also agree with JRRT on Chesterton's 'Father Brown' stories. There are many other works by Chesterton which I like more. My favorite is his poem 'Lepanto'.
 
Last edited:
By the way, on Chesterton, I learned from Holly Ordway's book, that JRRT loved the work of G. K. Chesterton (except for the Father Brown stories). He admired both the poetry and the prose, and also read a lot of Chesterton's non-fiction (though Ordway does not detail this, as she confines her study of Tolkien's modern reading to poetry and fiction).

We know from Priscilla Tolkien that JRRT enjoyed reciting 'Lepanto'. Ordway speculates that the description of Don John of Austria in 'Lepanto' as 'a crownless prince upon a nameless throne', might have influenced JRRT's creation of the character of Aragorn.

George Sayer reports that JRRT knew by heart at least three other Chesterton poems, 'The song of Quoodle', The Song against Grocers', and 'The Rolling English Road'. Ordway wonders whether 'The Rolling English Road', influenced 'The Road goes ever on and on'?

We also know that JRRT enjoyed Chesterton's 'The Ballad of the White Horse', and went through it in detail with Priscilla. Ordway thinks that JRRT's phrase and chapter title 'The Scouring of the Shire', may have taken the word 'Scouring' from the title of the last book of this poem, 'The Scouring of the Horse'.

We also know that JRRT read 'The Man who was Thursday', and 'The Napoleon of Notting Hill', which I would suggest are Chesterton's two best novels.

In some earlier post on this forum, I suggested that JRRT must have known Chesterton (as the best known contemporary Catholic essayist, novelist and poet). I am happy to discover from Holly Ordway that my speculation was correct.
 
Thanks Rachel,

I did find it interesting, but also not totally convincing. Did JRRT dislike the later Lord Peter Whimsey books because of differing conceptions of the roles of women, men, marriage and sex than Dorothy Sayers? Perhaps. But I think it more likely that he preferred the earlier books which were more traditional puzzles in the 'Who-done-it' tradition, to the later books which were less 'detective stories' and more 'psychological novels'? Now, it is quite possible, that as psychological novels, he disagreed with the psychology. However, a simpler explanation is that he liked detective stories, and did not appreciate the Whimsey books shifting from that genre?
 
It seems to have been just Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon, which implies something specific to those two - the Oxford book, and the one that explores marriage where the husband and wife are working at an egalitarian marriage (and very close to x-rated). He doesn't seem to have included other late novels, like The Nine Tailors or Murder Must Advertise. That's what I found interesting, since those two are my favorites, and the favorites of many people I know. It makes me want to know why, which of course I cannot.
 
Back
Top