Mad Harlequin wrote:
One, more than one---it still doesn't matter. Not to the degree you believe.
Go hiking for a while with full supplies and you will understand (and I'm not trying to be condescending here.) You take only what is necessary because so very much is necessary. I've heard army grunts say Sam and Frodo should have packed extra socks, and kept them away from water (a fact Tolkien should have been well aware of). Because they need to carry a ton of stuff, because they need to carry it so very far, and because they don't have pack animals, you limit what you bring. If I wanted to be petty I'd question his spice supplies, but they don't really matter. His pots, on the other hand, add significant weight and awkwardness to an already burdened pack while on a massive journey.
Mad Harlequin wrote:The point I'm trying to make, however, is that certain details may be considered nonessential depending on the circumstances. To me, the minutiae of cooking don't much matter in a fantasy story taking place in a fictional world like Middle-earth.
Firstly Middle-Earth isn't really fictional, and by that I mean it is and it isn't. Tolkien meant it to be an alternate/mythological history of Britain (which is why you will always have that lingering question of racism hanging over his work.) It's not like Middle-Earth has completely different rules of physics or common-sense.
Also, as long as things are reasonably logical, and generally accurate I don't have a problem with it. While I won't chuck Tolkien aside because Sam chose to take pots/pans, I HAVE chucked books to the side for either an accumulation of such errors, or a couple of slightly more significant ones. I also have a couple of pet hates, like inaccuracy in the portrayal of medieval weapons and armor, and I'll skip whole passages if they contain glaring errors on these subjects. Inaccuracies of any kind will jerk a person who has knowledge about it out of the story. Writers need to be cognisant of the following fact - it is true that certain details are non-essential, what is non-essential though differs from person to person.
Mad Harlequin wrote:
That being said, I don't consider Tolkien's characters' consumption of stew on the road and use of bits of cookware a flaw. And I'd honestly much rather read about lembas than foraging for berries.
A scene about foraging for berries probably wouldn't be necessary. If a scene isn't moving a novel forward then people need to question its inclusion - is it just adding unnecessary bloat or is it worth having. Having a scene about the aftermath, say them huddled around the fire with 2 rotten berries and a dispirited air around the place (just giving an example) might be interesting to read. It would have added another significant hurdle to overcome, and the real creativity would have been writing a logical way for Frodo and Sam to overcome it *shrugs*.
Mad Harlequin wrote:
So we disagree. That's fine, but that still doesn't make your opinion any less of an opinion. (The same is true of my opinions, of course.) It's best to avoid stating an opinion it as if it's a fact.
Not just my opinion. It is well established in writing and literary circles that Deus ex machinas are poor writing, and they are not recommended. Ignore this consensus if you wish.