That's not really "information" in the information-theoretic sense that the other person was using, when it can be rewritten in all manner of different ways while conveying the same overall mood. The densest way to communicate "Sam and Frodo walk across the plain towards Mt. Doom. They're both really tired" is exactly that. All the other words one would write around that core idea would not provide any more specificity to the sentiment, they'd just there to allow the reader to immerse themselves. Unless the information is simply the words themselves, in which case no text is any more entropic than any other.
> Sam and Frodo walk across the plain towards Mt. Doom. They're both really tired.
This does not set a mood and thus does not convey the same information. This removes the information about mood and setting away while keeping only rough plot point in.
The outcome in terms of how reader interpret the situation is massively different. The thing you wrote implies that all they need is to go to sleep an hour sooner and rest, all will be fine.
The thing you're describing that's missing is context, not information. At that point in the plot, the reasons why they couldn't simply take a break wherever they wanted had already been explained, so it didn't need restating. As for mood-setting, I've already addressed that in other replies.
> The densest way to communicate "Sam and Frodo walk across the plain towards Mt. Doom. They're both really tired" is exactly that
Uh, yes. This is press-release speak, optimised for a fourth grader’s reading comprehension.
If, on the other hand, you want to develop the motif of the Unseen—central to Tolkien’s work—the type of tired the characters are and how they’re detecting and addressing it is incredibly germane, interesting and totally lost in your summary.
You’re also describing the first scenes we see through familiar eyes of Mordor. The landscape is an extension of Sauron’s will. The contrast with the developed, organised, albeit crowded cities of men; the arrogance implied in the desolation; et cetera pack information lost in your summary.
The type of tired is "really". What happens is not that there's some additional information that I'm not communicating in that one sentence, but rather that the time it takes you to read "they're both really tired" is not enough for your mind to dwell on the idea and empathize with the characters. Now, if I instead were to write "They're both really tired. They're super tired. Oh man, they're so tired. They're so tired, you've never been this tired in your life", that would be extremely shitty writing, but it would give you time to ruminate on the information.
Extended time is your own proposal, and one you successfully defeated. This is generally called a strawman.
Instead, I propose that the type of tied is informationally and qualitatively distinct. The exhaustion of the weight of the world, internal struggle, amidst a dismal hellscape is different than "really tired".
Great writing can build depth of quality and understanding with the authors intent.
LOTR could be summarized with a sentence. The content is in the detail.
>Extended time is your own proposal, and one you successfully defeated. This is generally called a strawman.
Uh... Huh? So it's my argument, which I've refuted, and therefore it's a strawman? I think you should go get refreshed on informal fallacies. No, what's happening here is that there's a phenomenon that's being discussed -- namely, mood-setting in fictional writing -- and I'm proposing as its mechanism not additional information, but rather additional time. If you want to participate in the discussion you can't dismiss my argument my incorrectly calling it a strawman. You have to explain why it doesn't work as an explanation, like this:
>Instead, I propose that the type of tied is informationally and qualitatively distinct. The exhaustion of the weight of the world, internal struggle, amidst a dismal hellscape is different than "really tired".
Yet, if we were to replace the particular flavor of tiredness with a completely different, equally intense one, it would evoke the exact same empathic feeling on the reader, because the imagination is not precise enough to reproduce other people's feelings with such granularity. Someone can't precisely imagine the difference between the tiredness felt by Conan after 12 hours of turning a mill for the sixth day in a row, and that felt by Frodo. The reader is going to reach that passage and feel that the characters are really tired. That's why such long descriptions don't contain any more meaning; because they can be replaced with something completely different and put the same idea in the reader's mind: "Sam and Frodo are really tired".
>LOTR could be summarized with a sentence. The content is in the detail.
I've already addressed that. If the information is the words themselves and not their meaning, then any English text is equally information-dense. "It's raining" contains a third as much information as "it's raining, it's raining, it's raining", since it contains a third as many words.
> * if I instead were to write "They're both really tired. They're super tired. Oh man, they're so tired. They're so tired, you've never been this tired in your life", that would be extremely shitty writing, but it would give you time to ruminate on the information*
You’ve set up a great question. Why is what you wrote shitty writing while what Tolkien wrote not?
The answer isn’t just variation. If you look at what’s been conveyed in his writing that wasn’t with your repetition, you’ll start unlocking what I suspect you know is there but are having trouble describing.
