Some time ago I wrote about the use of shall not and cannot in The Lord of the Rings, how the former was used in the movie and the latter was used in the book; how they are not at all equal and how this single word change kind of changes things much more than intended.

You can go read the post but just to recap, both these phrases are used in book and movie when the balrog is trying to cross the bridge to get the fellowship and Gandalf steps in the way to confront the demon. When Gandalf uses shall not in the movie it means "You don't have permission" or "I intend not to allow it", whereas cannot in the book means "it is not possible". In one, Gandalf is issuing a challenge, in the other Gandalf is saying he is so powerful that it is simply not possible. This difference may be something that only English teachers or linguists would notice or care about, but it is a difference, and one you can be sure the author, who was very much a linguist and agonized for months and years over single sentences, would have cared.

I thought I'd expand on this today. Well, not expand exactly, but just give another example.

^{Still from the movies}

It calls to mind a later scene. In the third book and film, The Return of the King (a title Tolkien didn't like, by the way), when the Witch King comes to Minas Tirith.

In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.

All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen. "You cannot enter here," said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. "Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!" The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. "Old fool!" he said. "Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.

And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the city, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of war nor of wizardry, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn. And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns, in dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the north wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.

You'll notice the same cannot. Gandalf is once again baring the movement of an evil being and saying it is simply impossible for him to pass. Despite the show of bravado, the Witch King retreats, deciding that fighting against the newly arrived Rohan army is the safer move.

Tolkien is again relying on the power of words. The scene may seem understated by modern sensibilities which want more show than tell, but it is extremely powerful when you look at the language.

The movie falls into the trap of thinking the scene not strong enough and decides to change this much more, with the Witch King shattering Gandalf's staff before turning to fight the army. The book paints Gandalf as the more powerful of the two, while the movie shows the Witch King as stronger. Again proving that Peter Jackson, who claimed to know the books inside and out and to be Tolkien's biggest fan, didn't understand the scene as written at all.

The backstory of Gandalf is that he is actually a powerful angel incarnated in human form to help the people of Middle Earth. His power level is much higher than almost everyone in the story, save Sauron himself, but he has been commanded by the gods to let the people fight their own fight as much as possible, not to fight for them, so he rarely explicitly shows his power. But the words Tolkien uses show us just how powerful he is if we pay attention to them.

So knowing that backstory, you can see how the movie change is not only pointless, but just silly.

Oh well. Lord of the Rings on my mind because I looked at one of my son's recent school papers and notices that he signed his name in Dwarf runes. When we read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, he loved the runes and made me print out a translation sheet for him, then he memorized how to write his name in them. That reminded me of LotR, then my thoughts often turn to how the Peter Jackson movies butchered the books.

Well, I'm off to chance my kids and enjoy the day. Have a good one, everyone!

David LaSpina is an American photographer and translator lost in Japan, trying to capture the beauty of this country one photo at a time and searching for the perfect haiku. He blogs here and at laspina.org. Write him on Twitter or Mastodon.

Posted using CineTV