Italicisation in LOTR (and the consequences) + bonus point on Sam's devotion

[J D Roscoe]

Hello Corey and the wider community. Long-time listener and first time poster from the UK here. I'm usually up to date, but lately I've been stalking the classes from a distance like dear old gollum!

I'd like to ask about the lack of italicisation in the story. Is using italics for emphasis a more modern phenomenon, or do you think this was a specific choice of Tolkien to create ambiguity?

There are times in which the use of italicis would really clarify meaning. Think back to Frodo's words on the journey to weathertop:

"I truly shall become a wraith."
Vs
"I truly shall become a wraith."

Another example I noticed recently seemed to go unnoticed during the class:

"Poor old Bill! Wolves and snakes! But the snakes were too much for him. I had to choose, Mr Frodo. I had to come with you."
Vs
"Poor old Bill! Wolves and snakes! But the snakes were too much for him. I had to choose, Mr Frodo. I had to come with you."

Notice how this changes the emphasis. The first quote sounds slow and reasoned, as if Sam took pause and made a conscious decision, master v servent, Bill v Frodo- and chose Frodo in the moment despite huge internal turmoil.

But the italics change the emphasis and for me they actually enhance Sam's sense of devotion to Frodo. Of course Frodo is more important to him than Bill. In my eyes this is never in question.

"I had to choose, Mr Frodo. I had to come with you."

In this reading Sam isn't even making a decision. As soon as he sees the tentacle has his master there is no longer a choice to make and so we see him turn at once to aid him.

What Sam is expressing in these lines is not decision, but his sadness that he was forced to leave Bill to the wolves. I hear Sam almost pleading with Frodo to understand this, that he failed in his responsibility to Bill only because he was forced to Frodo's side by the weight of his unconditional devotion.

I hope I have explained this sufficiently and would be interested to hear your thoughts. Do you agree with this reading, and why do you think Tolkien shied away from italicisation, even when it seemed to lead to lack of clarity?

 

[TThurston]

Nowdays it costs nothing to use italics. Back when the books were first printed, there may have been a cost issue.

On the other hand, the italics in your examples force a particular reading and emphasis. The text without italics allows multiple readings; the reader is allowed to choose how he will read, with his own choice of emphais. Sometimes ambiguity is a good thing.

Then we might consider the in-story presentation of how this text comes to us - not as the creation of an english author who can do whatever he wants, but as a compilation from multiple scribes, authors, and editors. Who knows what means were available to them to do what you suggest Tolkien could have done using italics?