# A Critique of the LotR BOOKS



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

Inspired by the Disc 3 of TTT:EE, I am wondering if people would be interested in hearing about / debating about possible MISTAKES, and bad writing in the original Tolkein Lord of the Rings.

We all are aware of how absolutely beloved this work is.
I have seldom read any analysis or detailing of the perceived mistakes of writing that Tolkein made.
Everyone makes out Tolkein to be this wonderful god of a writer, and I never thought he was very good, based on LotR. There were a myriad of things that were unrealistic, and uncharacteristic, and unbelievable that threw me out of the story, saying "WTF? Noone sees this as a problem?"

Recent threads have talked some about this debate, and I wanted to start this thread to try to get more to the heart of the matter, with book examples, and such.

However, I need help.

I only have 3 things to pull from here to mount an argument against the army of fans (the more vocal of which are "fanboys", meaning that it doesn't matter what Tolkein wrote in LotR, they love it anyway):
1) The Disc 3 wonderful featurette which detailed pretty quickly and high-level the "mistakes" that Tolkein made when writing LotR.
(We could debate whether the makers TRULY thought they were mistakes, or whether they thought that those mistakes caused for a better end product, but let's detail the "mistakes" anyway, and let the reader decide whether they are good for the overall work or bad.)

2) This webpage which is basically a rant on Tolkein, made by a self-proclaimed Anti-Tolkein guy:
http://www.theferrett.com/showarticle.php?Rant=69

While his rant is over-the-top and meandering, I think he makes some solid points that I'd love to see discussed/countered.

3) My memory of the book, and personal experience(s) with it, and the movie(s).
I'll detail these later, if there's enough interest to warrant my opinions to be added.

Thanks for participating, any and all.

BTW: If ANYONE has any "Anti-Tolkein" material, I'd appreciate it being included here, so we may read it and see if it warrants merit.
I couldn't find any detailed record of the writing "mistakes" that Tolkein made anywhere on the net.
(*Google-Fu .... weakening*)


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I am wondering if people would be interested in hearing about / debating about possible MISTAKES, and bad writing in the original Tolkein Lord of the Rings.




No, not especially.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 11, 2004)

Be careful with this thread, Reapersaurus.  Tolkien is the ultimate sacred cow to many fantasy fans, and more than a few of them will get downright hostile if anybody says anything bad about their beloved Lord of the Rings.

I love the Lord of the Rings novels, but they are far from perfect.  The biggest problems I have with the books are the inconsistant pacing and bad poetry, which can make reading them a chore at times.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 11, 2004)

Agreed Darrin, and DJ, while i'm not against criquiting Tolkien, I am against this "hate on" people have just because he's not modern. The guy that wrote that article stating how much he liked Martin should be shot for the sake of NOT reproducing. I also feel ashamed to have enjoyed Martin now. Because I have to share the same world as he does.  So while Tolkein might be a sacred cow, I think what I'm against is slaughtering as opposed to dis-sceting the good and the bad of the man.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 11, 2004)

I'd be interested in this discussion just because I love talking about literary works.  

Frankly, I think that Tolkien's power comes from the strength of creating a broad historical canvas for his mythology.  The depth of the material, particularly when considered from the time frame during which he created it, is impressive and the standard upon which most contemporary genre fantasy is based.  It is this material that provides a fantastic foundation for good, but not great, writing and story telling.

There are two things that I think Tolkien accomplishes well as a writer:

1.  *Steady build of tension:*  What I love about LotR is that it takes a considerable amount of time before the reader finds out what is as stake in the narrative.  This allows for a sense of drama and anxiety, a good thing for a text that showcases the kind of World Ending apocalypse LotR offers (in this sense, the end of the World of Elves and, if the Fellowship, et al aren't careful, the end of the World of Men).  Although there are many slow portions to the narrative, by the time one makes it to _The Return of the King_, there's nothing but action, drama, and suspense (which makes sense considering that Tolkien envisioned LotR initially as one text).

2.  *Internal Depth*:  This is where many fantasy novels fail.  Too often, we have the narrator _telling_ the reader about an occurance in the past.  Although this is perfectly fine in a history book, like _The Silmarillion_, this is bad form in a novel because it does not immerse the readers into the story.  Tolkien effectively handles this by allowing the characters, particularly those who, due to the steady build of tension, the readers' come to trust.  Through stories told by Gandalf and Aragorn, we, like Frodo and Sam, find out the depths of the world outside of The Shire and within the rest of Middle-Earth.  This happens repeatedly throughout the trilogy and provides a sense of integrity for the trilogy.

I do not, however, believe that Tolkien is a fantastic writer.  There are many slow areas in the telling that can drive someone who wants more action or at least more evocative language to boredom.  Yes, Tolkien has a powerful command of language; his descriptions of the _environments_ are exemplary.  However, at times he falls short with his descriptions of characters and, more importantly, with what many reading the material knew were key moments, but ended up being glossed over quickly (like certain confrontations in Moria).

But, in the end, I don't know if offering some "negative" critiques of anyone's work is a bad thing.  I think it's still possible to recognize the flaws in a Michelangelo sculpture, or inconsistencies in _Hamlet_.  These factors do not rob a work of art of its power, but offers even more guidance for those who would follow in the footsteps of those who preceded.  Frankly, I think Tolkien's essential reading for anyone interested in writing fantastic, speculative fiction.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

Thank you, Serge.
That's the kind of thing I'm interested in reading:
the ability to point out weaknesses without "slaughtering" the guy.

I agree with what you detail are his good points.
I'm more interested in debating the bad points, and story flaws here.

I also find it interesting how Dark Jezter describes (quite accurately) the legions of Tolkein fanatics who he IS a sacred cow to, yet Nightfall describes a "hate on" against Tolkein because he's not "modern".
I have not witnessed this "hate on" re: Tolkein.

As far as I have witnessed in my life, I have only read or seen those 2 things I mentioned speak anything but high praise for Tolkein's work.

Nightfall, could you describe this "hate on for Tolkein not being modern" that people have, and I can then determine whether it has any validity?


----------



## blackshirt5 (Jan 11, 2004)

Not particularly interested because from what I've seen your idea of discussing and debating something seems to be calling people morons if they don't agree with you and conveniently ignoring points that they make.


----------



## Endur (Jan 11, 2004)

Only the Bible has a higher print circulation.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> We all are aware of how absolutely beloved this work is.




The criticisms you can make are the obvious ones.  Parts of the novels are slower than typical "fantasy sci-fi" writing, so it can be hard to get into if you are not used to reading classical literature.   Likewise, people might not be used to reading poetry and songs intermixed with a novel.  Likewise, the many endings of the story.  

Personally, I think those criticisms are shallow and incorrect.  That the novel is stronger and more powerful because of those elements, but not everyone will agree with that point of view.

I'll admit that I even like Tom Bombadil.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

I'll start with 2 problems I see in the books :

1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
They ignore the facts that Gandalf KNEW it was the One Ring, yet still allowed Frodo to kick back for months before leaving, thus creating the danger with the Ringwraiths later.

This is textual flim-flammery simply to create an action sequence, and people crucify modern directors/writers for pulling this kind of stuff. It'd be utterly refreshing to hear a Tolkein fan say "uhhh... yep! That was weak" and have that be OK.

2) The orcs killing each other to allow Sam to advance into Mordor. Without this silly plot device, Sam would most certainly have been captured. Based on the plot and forces that Tolkein himself described, there was no way for the Quest to have succeeded without pulling male-brain stunts like having an entire fortress kill themselves _the exact moment that Sam & Frodo needed them not to be there._

How many orcs were stationed there, anyway? Any guesses as to the size of the force at Cirith Ungul?


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

blackshirt, I'd appreciate if you contributed to the debate/discussion, instead of threadcrapping.

BTW: If you (or anyone else for that matter) is not interested, than it's a lot easier to NOT post than it is to post that you're not interested....


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Thank you, Serge.
> That's the kind of thing I'm interested in reading:
> the ability to point out weaknesses without "slaughtering" the guy.
> 
> ...




Well with regards to the hate Tolkien camp the best example I can think of would be the National Poll the BBC ran for over a year to find the UK's favourite book. The amount of stick that LoTR got during the whole process was such that even people who did not particularly care for the book started getting rather fed up with academics sniping at it constantly during the run up to the vote. The simple fact is that in a number of literary circles LoTR is down right detested, particularly those who fall in the post modern camp. The comments of the literati however did little to stop the LoTR winning the poll by a hefty margin however.

The BBC message boards were during that poll usually dominated by threads either for or against LoTR and depite the fact that the message boards were there to talk about books as a whole most of the traffic usually degnerated into either flame wars about Tolkiens work. Made for little relevant discussion on the books but some of the flame wars were great to read


----------



## jester47 (Jan 11, 2004)

I think the Ferret, when you strip his outer shell off does have a point.  I think he is somewhat right when he says that fantasy is the only genre where setting is more important that plot and character.  However I think he is wrong to state that Fritz Leiber is a tolkein rip off, as Fafhrd and the Mouser are seriously awesome and deep characters.  Idealy in any story, one should not be able to separate setting character and plot.  The three are supposed to be so intertwined that the story writes itself.  This is easier to do in "real world" stuff and harder to do the more your reader is unfamiliar with the setting.  

Hence the popularity of the world of darkness, and mystery novels(which, nationwide sell far more than fantasy).  

I agree that one of the big things that makes people like a novel is the character sympathy, that is putting the characters in positions the reader can understand.

I do agree that the three part series is getting very very trite.  This is because Tolkein did itfirst but if it was up to him, it would not have been done.  

Nuff said.

Aaron.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus, while the second point is good, there is the fact of the strange streak of luck that was running through the whole book.  It is commented on somewhere in the book by one of the "wiser" characters.  However in the movies I think it is Saruman that comments on Gandalfs erily uncanny luck.  In the books I think Gandalf hints that somthing bigger is working in thier favor.  I think Tolkein saw this and knew that the sheer luck of the characters was so perposterous that he threw in "somthing bigger" to explain it.  Which would means this "somthing bigger" was somthing a little less than the cheap trick that many (myself even sometimes) claim it was.

Aaron.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I'll start with 2 problems I see in the books :
> 
> 1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
> In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
> ...



It wasn't weak. It was Tolkien's style. Everything was time consuming. Bilbo had the ring for many decades, Gollum wandered the country for decades, never able to find the Shire. Frodo took his own sweet time seeing about his departure. Gandalf took years to figure out it was the ring for various reasons.
Frodo was in such danger from the Morgul blade, but he journeyed for what, 10 days?
The quest took a few months.
Oh, and they were in Rivendell for 2 months, after deciding to destroy the ring, they then waited a couple months for more information.
It's Tolkien's style of writing. It's no "fault" of Gandalf that he didn't run for the Shire, grab the ring, use a giant eagle to drop it in Mount Doom and be done with it a year ahead of time...

Fate just doesn't work that way in ME. If Butterbur had sent the letter, things would have gone different. If Aragorn had gone with Frodo into Mordor, then Gondor would have fallen and Men would have lost. If X had done Y, things would have gone different. It's just the way the world works. Either you accept it and move on (in my case with a chuckle) or you don't.



> 2) The orcs killing each other to allow Sam to advance into Mordor. Without this silly plot device, Sam would most certainly have been captured. Based on the plot and forces that Tolkein himself described, there was no way for the Quest to have succeeded without pulling male-brain stunts like having an entire fortress kill themselves _the exact moment that Sam & Frodo needed them not to be there._



You are aware Sam had a ring of insibility and a sword that was created to slay orcs, right? The orcs also fought over Merry & Pippin elsewhen. It's what orcs do.


----------



## Numion (Jan 11, 2004)

Anti-Tolkien dude has something right. We really don't get to know the characters. About the only thing Tolkien writes about Striders appearance is that he's got long legs. Whoah. And that's just superficial. About his thinking and inner thoughts we don't get to know much about. 

The characters remain shallow. That is why it was delighted to see Sean Beans excellent acting as Boromir (high at the glacier when frodo falls, then again when he tries to take the ring). Tolkien couldn't write like that.

EDIT: It's funny to think that Drizzt Do'Urden, the most hated fantasy character on many boards, has more character than Tolkiens'


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I'll start with 2 problems I see in the books :
> 
> 1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
> In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
> ...




In my opinion, this is one part where the movie improved on the book.  In the movie, Frodo and Sam head out as soon as they find out that Frodo, indeed, has the one ring.

Here are some other things that annoyed me about the book:

1)  The tension and sense of urgency in the flight to Rivendell was lessened when Aragorn started telling long tales about the elves and men of old.  One minute the hobbits and Aragorn are trying desperately to get to Rivendell before the Nazgul catch them, and the next minute Aragorn is recounting events that happened thousands of years ago.

2)  The fall of Isengard, a major event, was glossed over.  We get to see the ents begin their march to Isengard, but the next time we see them, Isengard has already been destroyed and Merry and Pippen get to recount the tale to Gandalf and the others.  The first time I read LotR and reached this scene, I said out loud "You have _got_ to be kidding me!"



			
				jester47 said:
			
		

> I think the Ferret, when you strip his outer shell off does have a point.  I think he is somewhat right when he says that fantasy is the only genre where setting is more important that plot and character.  However I think he is wrong to state that Fritz Leiber is a tolkein rip off, as Fafhrd and the Mouser are seriously awesome and deep characters.  Idealy in any story, one should not be able to separate setting character and plot.  The three are supposed to be so intertwined that the story writes itself.  This is easier to do in "real world" stuff and harder to do the more your reader is unfamiliar with the setting.




Weren't Fafhad and Grey Mouser created _before_ LotR?  I've never read the Lankmar stories (so I could certainly be wrong here), but I heard somewhere that the first Fafhad and Grey Mouser stories were written in the 1930s or 1940s, and then more stories featuring these characters were written in the 1960s when LotR became a sensation among college students and modern fantasy established itself as a genre.


----------



## Sakzilla (Jan 11, 2004)

To set the tone, a little background.  I read the trilogy for the first time over the last two and a half years.  I am probably the only 30+ gamer in the world that had not read it yet, but there it is.  I had tried starting MANY times, and I could never get past Tom and the Barrow Downs.  But I gutted it out and got through them.

I think he is hit or miss on character development.  Strider, for example, is introduced in relatively generic terms - the "strange looking weather beaten man" and all.  Throughout the FOTR, I had no sense of who this character really was.  Then I saw the movie, and I was 'tainted' with that imagery for the characters the rest of the way.

But then the whole Moria section was done well.  I enjoyed reading (and re-reading) that section more than the same section on the movie, and I thought it was the best part of the first movie.

MY MAJOR GRIPE: The use of multiple place names for the same location. Lothlorien is also called Laurelindorian (and mispelled on the same page as Larenlindorian - try to keep that straight the first time without the Tolkien atlas!!!).  As Sam and Frodo are heading into Moria, Cirith Ungol and Minas Morgul are used interchangebly by a few characters (and Faramir jumped on this bandwagon in the TT extended DVD) - this is the equivalent of saying "we're going to DC" and your friend jumps in and says "You're going to Baltimore?" - they are not the same thing and upset the pace, diminish the significance of Minas Morgul, and give a reader a headache.

But those are stylelistic comments.  The thread was more about errors or flaws in the writing, and I don't know of any (other than the location switcheroo).  Is excessive use of annoying poetry and song a writing flaw?  He does shift gears a bit with the length and richness of the various 'italicized' passages - the dreaded "skip this for your sanity" sections of each book.

I also think the trilogy is a decent vehicle - Tolkien used this to good effect.  I prefer finding a set of works that are done, or near enough that if I start reading now, the end is in sight.  The Robert Jordan style of dragging out the story for books on end is tired.  Terry Goodkind's series started out with promise, but then started recycling itself and it lost it's magic.  Tolkien did not have to repeat his battle details for every situation.  Jordan would have had AT LEAST nine books about Eowyn individually killing off each of the Nazgul - so Tolkien kept his pacing pretty decent.


Alot of what people don't like are pacing (action chapters mixed in with the Frodo stuff), the underlying anti-war, anti-modernization message coming out of two World Wars, and the "history book"-style writing.

 But the books and supporting material from Christopher Tolkien make for a fantastic gaming set of resources.

I'm subscribing to this thread to see where it goes - I'd love a non-flame discussion on the books.  they just always seem to spin out of control (My fantasy writer can beat up your fantasy writer!).


----------



## The Serge (Jan 11, 2004)

Endur said:
			
		

> The criticisms you can make are the obvious ones.  Parts of the novels are slower than typical "fantasy sci-fi" writing, so it can be hard to get into if you are not used to reading classical literature.   Likewise, people might not be used to reading poetry and songs intermixed with a novel.  Likewise, the many endings of the story.



Although I'm not certain to whom this was directed, I'll respond to it.

I don't think reading poetry/songs regularly or not has anything to do with a reader's ultimate appreciation of a text.  I think it's possible to enjoy a novel, play, or any other literary work, understand its depth (or lack thereof), appreciate its themes, and come away having grasped the author's intent without necessarily "getting into" the poetry and other "side-line" material.  I do think that the reader misses out in the full experience as most writers insert poetry/verse with the purpose of backing up the text's intent through allegory, metaphor, symbolism, etc., but I don't think they miss out on the key elements in most cases.

As for multiple endings...  Well, this generation (is this the N generation?  I'm X, so I'm already old I suppose) is used to multiple ends/false endings.  I don't think most people have an issue with this (unless they've been watching three 3-hour plus movies).      



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> I'll admit that I even like Tom Bombadil.



Tom Bombadil was an interesting element that, in the grand scheme of the overall story, was ultimately superfluous.  He really served very little direct/important role in the story.  We never see him or his wife again after their brief appearance and we never really get to know what the heck he is.  Hell, there continues to be a lot of debate on his nature precisely because he's so nebulous.  Frankly, I don't understand all the fuss over his character since he's not an important player in the story and, as far as I'm concerned, only confuses most readers because he so clearly exists _outsid_ of everything else that progresses in the trilogy.  Even if one reads _The Silmarillion_, I don't think much, if anything, is clarified about his nature and the role he plays.  I'm glad he was excised from the movie adaptation.

I will say that I have read a cool article that posits that Bombadil's actually Aule in disguise...



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> 1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
> In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
> They ignore the facts that Gandalf KNEW it was the One Ring, yet still allowed Frodo to kick back for months before leaving, thus creating the danger with the Ringwraiths later.



It's been a while since I read FoTR, but I got the impression that Gandalf wasn't worried (and, as a result, Frodo wasn't worried) because he thought he had time.  He wasn't certain about the Sorcerer being Sauron and didn't know where Gollum was.  He didn't see the point in another Baggins up and leaving suddenly, which would have certainly drawn suspicion... something Gandalf didn't want.  

If I'm on point, I don't see this as a flaw in the storytelling.




			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> The orcs killing each other to allow Sam to advance into Mordor. Without this silly plot device, Sam would most certainly have been captured. Based on the plot and forces that Tolkein himself described, there was no way for the Quest to have succeeded without pulling male-brain stunts like having an entire fortress kill themselves the exact moment that Sam & Frodo needed them not to be there.



Chalk it up to divine providence.  Or to coincidence.  Shakespeare is full of coincidence.  Although I see your point, I don't think it's fair to single Tolkien out with these sorts of "silly plot devices."

Besides, mythology is full of little tricksters lucking out with these sorts of things.  Nothing new here.



			
				jester47 said:
			
		

> I think he is somewhat right when he says that fantasy is the only genre where setting is more important that plot and character.



I disagree.  I think that plot and character remain _as_ important in fantasy as most other novel-dependant genres, but that setting takes on an increased role, particularly for fantastic worlds, environs, cultures, etc.  This is where a lot of writers stumble.  Many take so much time and put so much effort in creating a world that they lose their characters and plots (and, more importantly, in my mind, the human condition) in their tales.

Then there are those who make an equally heinous mistake: those who don't flesh out their worlds enough on the front end, thereby never effectively allowing more sophisticated readers to suspend their disbelief and become immersed in the story.  Terry Goodkind is an excellent example of this as he's apparently createed stuff for his world as he's written more books... and most of it isn't particularly original.

I think most writers who fail in the latter error, poor world design, are also lousy character writers.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

blackshirt5 said:
			
		

> Not particularly interested...




No more of that, Blackshirt.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No more of that, Blackshirt.




Why not? They've obviously debated before and Blackshirt5 has reached that conclusion based on those experiences. I've noticed the way Reapersaurus debates myself and I think that comment was apt. This whole thread is a troll with the intent to cause trouble. That's pretty obvious to me.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> This whole thread is a troll with the intent to cause trouble. That's pretty obvious to me.




I disagree.

There's nothing wrong with the topic - it's a literary analysis question.

People are welcome to debate either side of the question, but let's not attack each other's character.

Personal histories between posters have no place in the thread, and as long as people keep to discussion rather than bickering, there's no problem.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> blackshirt, I'd appreciate if you contributed to the debate/discussion, instead of threadcrapping.




So by indicating that this thread isn;t going anywhere constructive, that's threadcrapping?



> BTW: If you (or anyone else for that matter) is not interested, than it's a lot easier to NOT post than it is to post that you're not interested....




So instead of interjecting that we're not interested in watching you knock some of *THE BEST FANTASY BOOKS EVER WIRTTEN*, you would just have those of us that appreciate Tolkien sit on the sidelines. Forget it. Tolkien is one of the fundamental influences for fantasy gaming and fantasy lit. You can tout Vance all you want, but it really doesn't help the fact that only about 5% of the people who have read Tolkien have read Vance. This is the holy grail for anyone who is into this sort of thing and starting a thread to discuss its weaknesses is like taking a crap all over it. This topic falls in with the politics and religion category. This travesty should be closed before the fur really starts to fly.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> So by indicating that this thread isn;t going anywhere constructive, that's threadcrapping?




So far, everyone else _is_ managing to have a constructive conversation on the topic, Whisperfoot.

Feel free to refute points people are making about pacing, or characterisation, or whatever.  The Serge is doing that just fine.

Just be civil about it.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 11, 2004)

Darrin,

Just keep it light man. 

No more comments period about this thread other than to thank Salthanas for his comments as they were to be mine. But I'm glad someone mentioned that one.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 11, 2004)

One of my favorite negative reviews of the Lord of the Rings would be Edmund Wilson's, "Ooh, Those Awful Orcs!" (published in _the Nation_, 1956).

No copy seems to exist online, but I'd be happy to post some passages (well within fair use) if you'd like.

Warning---the article _enraged _Tolkien fans 50 years ago...and will probably do so again today.


----------



## reiella (Jan 11, 2004)

Character Development is almost non-existant.  Some characters and events reek of Deus Ex Machina.

Erm...  And if statements such as any perceived problem with the style will be dismissed solely as not being a fault, but part of Tolkein's style, it's a moot point to discuss anyway.  Some 'literary' faults can tend to make for a more entertaining or enjoyable book, after all, formula books get dull .

Personally, I don't so much enjoy Tolkien, the lack of character development grates on me far too much, and it may be a difference due to my 'youth' and over-exposure to video games and what not, but I just don't enjoy his writing much due to one major (in my opinion) fault.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> This is the holy grail for anyone who is into this sort of thing and starting a thread to discuss its weaknesses is like taking a crap all over it.



This attitude is an embarassment to critical thinkers everywhere.
Further, it's a slap in the face to Tolkein fans, since it is basically saying that Tolkein's work is incapable of passing any scrutiny, and must depend on un-examined genuflecting on the altar of Fantasy.

Please don't contribute to the thread, Bareandur.

Dark Jezter was prophetic, eh?
___________________________________________

Now that that's (hopefully) out of the way.....

As for most everyone else - thanks for the debate!
Quite enjoyable, and informative/enlightening.

My responses:







			
				Serge said:
			
		

> Chalk it up to divine providence. Or to coincidence. Shakespeare is full of coincidence. Although I see your point, I don't think it's fair to single Tolkien out with these sorts of "silly plot devices."



Chalking it up to divine providence is a cop-out, you realize, right?
You're essentially saying that Tolkein didn't write actions that are reasonably explainable without relying on "luck" or "providence."
And I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I don't spare Shakespeare's ass any slack on these aspects, either.  
I think the guy was a repetetive hack at times, who took the easy way out and wrote what he knew about a lot of times (the over-used 'play-within-a-play' device).

Vocenoctum  - so if I wrote a book where all the characters acted inconsistent and foolish in the face of danger, yet I expected the reader to have sympathy and respect for the heroic characters, could I hide behind saying it was my "style"? (For the record, I'm not saying Tolkein wrote like that)

Reilla is on the right page here : saying that "it's Tolkein's style" is not a good defense of valid criticisms of Tolkein's work.

You say Tolkein's STYLE was to have his characters take a long time to do things?
That's a rather weak defense of unreasonable actions.
You say "Oh, and they were in Rivendell for 2 months, after deciding to destroy the ring, they then waited a couple months for more information."
If that's true, I'll add that to the list of things I think Don't Work in LotR.
And no, I don't simply "accept it and move on with a chuckle."
It's called Bad Writing. That's the point of this thread - to identify the things Tolkein did 'wrong', while still managing to make a legendary work of fiction that has thrilled millions and spawned the great(er) movies.

BTW: A secondary purpose of this thread COULD BE to debate the notion that the movies are a BETTER storyline than the book.

You also said "You are aware Sam had a ring of insibility and a sword that was created to slay orcs, right? The orcs also fought over Merry & Pippin elsewhen. It's what orcs do."
I re-read that passage the other day, and Sam does NOT use the Ring to get past Cirith Ungul. If he did, I would be fine with it.
But he walks right on in. Even AFTER a huge alarm had been set off by the Watchthings. The orcs act like Yo-Yo's on a puppetmaster's strings. They ping-pong back and forth between being exceedingly good in battle, and deadly/scary adverseries, to being buffonish bumblers who literally are _frightened by shadows as Sam ascends the stairs alone in their own fortress._
One second, an orc spins like a cat to kill another orc, the next he's incompetent when faced with a stumbling Samwise "orc-slayer' Gamgee. 

I could quote passages, if you'd like to debate those impressions.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Wormwood - I would be VERY interested in reading Edmund Wilson's, "Ooh, Those Awful Orcs!" (published in the Nation, 1956).
I was trying to find it last night on the web, but couldn't. 
That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for, is a critical review of LotR. Something that details the elements that aren't up to snuff.

Salthanas  - I'd be interested in reading some of the threads that pointed out Tolkein's imperfections.
All I've read and been exposed to here in the States is Tolkein's overwhelming godhood.
I'm serious, when I say it hasn't been easy finding ANY printed negative comments about Tolkein.
____________________________

So if I can sum up a few points:
Have people said that Tolkein is good at fleshing out a world (i.e. the SETTING), and including literary elements like language and poetry and songs (that he didn't include the notes for)?
And he's not that strong at plot, pacing, characterization / character development, or use of Deus Ex Machina, as well as making a proper ending to his novel?
He also includes unmeaningful characters and chapters (i.e. Tom Bombadil) and secondary storylines that tend to not go anywhere and is inexact in his use of Proper Names.
Also, he spends time detailing 'unimportant' scenes in inordinant detail, while glossing over important ones (Mines of Moria, Fall of Isengard).


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Please don't contribute to the thread, Bareandur.




And thus Blackshirt5's point is proven. Oh, and is referring to me by my former handle meant as some sort of insult?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot, Reapersaurus, drop it or take it private.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## KenM (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> so if I can sum up a few points:
> Have people said that Tolkein is good at fleshing out a world (i.e. the SETTING), and including literary elements like language and poetry and songs (that he didn't include the notes for)?
> And he's not that strong at plot, pacing, characterization / character development, or use of Deus Ex Machina, as well as making a proper ending to his novel?
> He also includes unmeaningful characters and chapters (i.e. Tom Bombadil) and secondary storylines that tend to not go anywhere and is inexact in his use of Proper Names.
> Also, he spends time detailing 'unimportant' scenes in inordinant detail, while glossing over important ones (Mines of Moria, Fall of Isengard).




   My thoughts excatly. IMO the movies are better then the books.


----------



## Numion (Jan 11, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> My thoughts excatly. IMO the movies are better then the books.




For me it took the movies to realize that the books are a bit lacking. My favourite reading experience .. when I was younger. Now that I've seen the movies, the books are just too damn boring for me to endure. 

Before the movies came out I had read LotR six times in about 8 years. After the movies started coming out, I've tried them three times, getting fed up after the Balrog at the latest. 

The movies were excellent, and wouldn't be possible without the books, but I think reapersaurus has a point here.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> This attitude is an embarassment to critical thinkers everywhere.
> Further, it's a slap in the face to Tolkein fans, since it is basically saying that Tolkein's work is incapable of passing any scrutiny, and must depend on un-examined genuflecting on the altar of Fantasy.



I agree with this sentiment.  

Although I love LotR, _greatly_ respect it, and recognize it as the standard upon which all modern genre high-fantasy is determined, it is not free from criticism any more than the _Bible_.  Taking anything to that level forces those who want to truly experience a text thoroughly to perceive said text as a not valuable and not worthy of true consideration as a work of art (or as a work that attempts to achieve artistic status and fails miserably).



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Chalking it up to divine providence is a cop-out, you realize, right?



No, I don't think so.  Not within the context of these books and their apparent intent.  Numerous times throughout the showing/telling, we see examples of clearly outrageous luck and fortitude for our heroes in the same way we come across these things in literature of similar vein.  

The _Bible_, when viewed as a literary work rather than as a religious text, is full of coinicedence, divine providence, and foreshadowing.  Myths are filled with luck and good fortune (and then, often times, bad).  The _Iliad_?

Now, I will admit that this can be problematic when one reads LotR strictly as a novel because in novels, one usually wants to see a more... realistic, contextual resolution to most conflicts.  There is a lot of coincidence in LotR and, particularly to modern readers influenced (through osmosis, I think) by formalism and post modern criticism, this sort of thing is a challenge to swallow.  



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> You're essentially saying that Tolkein didn't write actions that are reasonably explainable without relying on "luck" or "providence."



Yes, I am.  And, again, given what he was attempting to do -- i.e. create a myth for England -- it makes sense within that context.  The question is, does it work for a novel and can this be handled by most modern readers?  For some, yes.  For some, LotR has reached a level of almost religious proportions and people (clearly) react to it in a manner similar to how many react when folks criticize religious texts.  Frankly, I think it's possible to go both ways with this sort of thing.  I don't particularly care for the tremendous amount of coincidence in LotR, but I can see its value within its framework as a "new mythology."



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> And I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I don't spare Shakespeare's ass any slack on these aspects, either.



Very happy!  

Now, I have read some of the other comments about poor characterization and that was something I largely forgot to get into when I wrote my initial post.  I think this is a flaw _depending_ on how one approaches LotR.

If one reads books like _Robinson Curuso_, or _Divine Comedy_, or _Paradise Lost_, or _Moby Dick_, one will find very little characterization.  For the most part, we find characters who remain fairly static for the bulk of the story as they are forced to deal with whatever conflicts they confront.  The dialogue tends to be very high-brow, and the themes tends to be fairly universal.  The issue of the human condition is largely philosophical rather than personal (in other words, we're dealing with issues of what is right and wrong, how does one successfully live one's life, when does a person lose their way due to some kind of obsession, and so on rather than how a father interacts with his daughter, how various forms of abuse impact people, 20th Century apathy, or the challenges of living within a dysfunctional family -- although I suppose this could be something associated with _Paradise Lost_).  However, in _every single case_, there is a revelation for at least one character that changes them, transforms them.  Often times, these things are foreshadowed, often times there are symbols that precede this change, but there is a transformation.  These are allegories.

LotR is in this boat.  We have characters who don't usually bathe, worry about using the bathroom, often speak in a high vernacular (except Sam), and don't have sex (they love, but there's a limit to the nature of physical expression).  This is because these things _don't_ matter for this kind of text.  They are irrelevant.  The characters, for the most part then, are types in the same way Curuso was a type, or the "Dante" was a type, or even Satan was a type.  On their journeys, they confront different conflicts that represent universal, philosophical questions and these things change them in the end in the same way many of us may be changed.  Frodo changes dramatically from the first time we see him to the end.  He is a Christ-figure if I ever saw one.  Hell, Sam is an even greater Christ-figure because he has the burden of not just The Ring (the representation of Evil in the showing/telling), but the humanity (Frodo) that must bear the terrible flaw.

When viewed in this light, I think the nature of characterization goes away.  When viewed as a _novel_, particularly in light of modern attitudes and exposures, the issue becomes more complex.  These characters are not well developed, we rarely receive thorough descriptions, and we never really see much of the thinking about things beyond The Ring and the war.  

Look at something like George R.R. Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice (or whatever it's called).  We are confronted by many of the same issues we find in LotR and other classics, but we also have to deal with personal themes and challenges, very earthy concerns (particularly on the road with the second Starke girl, who has to "make water" and risks revealing her gender to boys, an act that could lead to her being raped and/or killed).  There is a tremendous amount of characterization in GRRM's tale to date.  But, I think GRRM would be one to admit that his success is owed, in one way or another, to JRRT's initial foray into this kind of story-telling.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> as well as making a proper ending to his novel?



What's wrong with the ending?



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> is inexact in his use of Proper Names.



I used to think this, but I'm more inclined now to think that names had a great deal of importance to Tolkien because they are signifiers in language and that to have names change or have someone given/referred to another name in another location revealed something of importance.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Also, he spends time detailing 'unimportant' scenes in inordinant detail, while glossing over important ones (Mines of Moria, Fall of Isengard).



I agree here 100%.


----------



## KenM (Jan 11, 2004)

Reading these posts, I see alot of people comparing the LotR books to The Bible. IMO you can't compare the two. LotR is a work of fiction, it's meant to be read for entertaiment(SP?),  while the Bible is based on real life tales written/ handed down, and is used as relgious refference.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 11, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Reading these posts, I see alot of people comparing the LotR books to The Bible. IMO you can't compare the two. LotR is a work of fiction, it's meant to be read for entertaiment(SP?),  while the Bible is based on real life tales written/ handed down, and is used as relgious refference.



Kind of like _Illiad_, which is said to be based on real-life tales written/handed down, and used (for a while at least) as religious reference?  

You can compare the two from a purely literary perspective without getting into whether one set of ideas reflects some kind of legitimate belief system or not.  And, judging from a fair amount of comments by LotR fans and the philosophical books based upon Tolkien, it seems to me that a lot LotR has religious impact for a fair number of people.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 11, 2004)

I think a big part of the disagreements that I see here is based on assumptions readers bring to the books. And the reason that Tolkien is not exactly popular among literary critics arises from the same assumptions. Tolkien was not writing a modern (or post-modern) realistic novel, which many of the best literary figures of his time were doing. He was writing a text (I would never call LotR a novel) which is much more firmly placed in the epic genre, drawing upon ideas and themes which one sees in the Homeric epics and the norse eddas, than in the literature of his time. 



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> My responses:Chalking it up to divine providence is a cop-out, you realize, right?




Not in this case, since it depends on the writer's intent and assumptions. Divine providence in an Ibsen play or a Woolf novel is a cop-out. Divine providence in the _Iliad_ or in the _Faerie Queene_, or in certain works by deeply religious authors such as C.S.Lewis's _Narnia_ series and in this case, the LotR, is perfectly acceptable since it is a part of the author's world-view. Just because you do not believe that there is a divinity that shapes our ends doesn't mean Tolkien needs to agree with you. I am a confirmed atheist, but that does not mean I am incapable of appreciating that a structure of religious belief can be part of a work of literature.  



> You're essentially saying that Tolkein didn't write actions that are reasonably explainable without relying on "luck" or "providence."




I am. And I am fine with that, just as I can appreciate _Paradise Lost_ even though Milton writes about a God, angels and a devil that I do not believe in. And just for the record, I believe that the depiction of a world where nothing happens fortuitously or through happenstance would be incredible unrealistic.  



> And I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I don't spare Shakespeare's ass any slack on these aspects, either.
> I think the guy was a repetetive hack at times, who took the easy way out and wrote what he knew about a lot of times (the over-used 'play-within-a-play' device).




Sure. And perhaps for you the fact that Bohemia has a coast in his plays matters. For me it doesn't, since focusing on that and the fact that Richard III might not have been hunchbacked is missing the wood for the trees. If you consider what the play-within-a-play meant to his audience and how previous dramatists had used it, it's not difficult to see why Shakespeare (who was writing plays in order to make money) uses it.



> Vocenoctum  - so if I wrote a book where all the characters acted inconsistent and foolish in the face of danger, yet I expected the reader to have sympathy and respect for the heroic characters, could I hide behind saying it was my "style"? (For the record, I'm not saying Tolkein wrote like that)




Sure you could, depending on the genre and the intent of the text. 



> Reilla is on the right page here : saying that "it's Tolkein's style" is not a good defense of valid criticisms of Tolkein's work.




The right page for you. 



> You say Tolkein's STYLE was to have his characters take a long time to do things?
> That's a rather weak defense of unreasonable actions.




It's a weak defense if you're writing a realistic novel, perhaps. Tolkien isn't. The conception of realism changes depending on historical period, authorial assumptions, genre and a few other aspects. What's "realistic" for the Eddas isn't for a Broadway show, and what's realistic for a D.H. Lawrence novel isn't for a Dickens novel.



> It's called Bad Writing. That's the point of this thread - to identify the things Tolkein did 'wrong', while still managing to make a legendary work of fiction that has thrilled millions and spawned the great(er) movies.




And here's the point of my post. The definition of Bad Writing is dependent on what's being attempted in a text, the genre, when it is written, and a host of other factors. You are attempting to apply a single frame of judgement to Tolkien's work, and in my opinion applying one which is specifically incompatible with it. The equivalent would be me arguing that Sophocles' plays are full of plot holes because they rely on things which are unrealistic to me. Or that Shakespeare's characters are unrealistic simply because they speak in blank verse, which no "real" person would. 

When I sit down to read the Mahabharata, I do not complain because the characters have no internal monologue. When I read Tolkien, I am setting myself up to read epic mythology, not a realist novel. And so I expect what is appropriate for the former, not the latter. You expect something different, and unsurprisingly, you are disappointed. There lies the difference.


----------



## KenM (Jan 11, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Kind of like _Illiad_, which is said to be based on real-life tales written/handed down, and used (for a while at least) as religious reference?
> 
> You can compare the two from a purely literary perspective without getting into whether one set of ideas reflects some kind of legitimate belief system or not.  And, judging from a fair amount of comments by LotR fans and the philosophical books based upon Tolkien, it seems to me that a lot LotR has religious impact for a fair number of people.




 Good point.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 11, 2004)

*re*



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I'll start with 2 problems I see in the books :
> 
> 1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
> In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
> They ignore the facts that Gandalf KNEW it was the One Ring, yet still allowed Frodo to kick back for months before leaving, thus creating the danger with the Ringwraiths later.




I find it kind of amusing that you would think a young hobbit like Frodo would think to leave home on his own to travel to a place he has no idea how to get to. I found it quite understandable that Frodo was extremely apprehensive about leaving home, and continued to wait for Gandalf leaving only when he felt he had no other choice. Frodo isn't some trained soldier or ranger with years of experience traveling or facing danger. 

If you read the text, Gandalf was duped into traveling to Saruman's while he was scouting the way he planned to take Frodo out of the Shire.



> This is textual flim-flammery simply to create an action sequence, and people crucify modern directors/writers for pulling this kind of stuff. It'd be utterly refreshing to hear a Tolkein fan say "uhhh... yep! That was weak" and have that be OK.




Rubbish. 



> 2) The orcs killing each other to allow Sam to advance into Mordor. Without this silly plot device, Sam would most certainly have been captured. Based on the plot and forces that Tolkein himself described, there was no way for the Quest to have succeeded without pulling male-brain stunts like having an entire fortress kill themselves _the exact moment that Sam & Frodo needed them not to be there._
> 
> How many orcs were stationed there, anyway? Any guesses as to the size of the force at Cirith Ungul?




Considering that Tolkien already set a precedent about the greedy and violent nature of orcs with the infighting between the Mordor orcs and the Isengard orcs, I didn't see a problem with this. 

Even Gandalf himself said the Mithril Shirt was worth more than the shire in the books. Having the orcs break into a fight and killing each other off over greed was well-set up IMO. The precedents were there, you just seemed to have missed them.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 11, 2004)

I think the biggest 'problem' with Tolkien is what people are expecting from him. As others have said, he wasn't writing a novel. The best thing to compare LotR to is, in my opinion, something like Beowulf or the Illiad.

Unlike in modern literature, where things need to have reasons to happen, and characters NEED development...in Epics like these, it doesn't matter. Something happens. 

Why? Because it did. That's the way it is. Characters are flat? Well, really, they've got as much detail in them(maybe more) then in most Epics. Beowulf...what do we know about him? Not too terribly much. What happened to him when he was five years old to cause him to be as he is? It doesn't matter. It doesn't change things. He is who he is, and will always be that way because he is larger than life. 

Its really the same problem that appears when you look back at periods of history and you keep a modern mindset. Things just don't make sense unless you can detach yourself from a modern perspective and look at it from the perspective of the people involved(or in this case, how Tolkien saw it). Though, of course, that in no way makes it perfect.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 11, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> No, I don't think so.  Not within the context of these books and their apparent intent.




The way one looks at this may also depend on what books you wish to include in for consideration.  If one is including things beyond the Lord of the Rings Trilogy itself (The Silmarillion, for example), one pretty much has to accept the existance of Divine Providence in Middle Earth.  Gandalf is effectively a form of angel pressed into human form (and thus burdened with human faults and weaknesses).  Saruman and Radagast are the same, and Sauron is similar (it is not clear to me that the Enemy operates with the burden of a human form).  

In LotR, the deity isn't directly referenced frequently, but it is there, doing what deities do.  Thus, providence exists.  I don't see it as a cop-out, since human myth and literature has included divine providence since humans started telling stories.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I think the biggest 'problem' with Tolkien is what people are expecting from him. As others have said, he wasn't writing a novel. The best thing to compare LotR to is, in my opinion, something like Beowulf or the Illiad.




Which is exactly why this conversation is pointless. 

Keep in mind that many novels published in 1954 don't hold up to modern scrutiny because the novel itself is still a relatively new literary form and was undergoing a great deal of refinement during that time. It is currently only 300 years old, but its only during the 20th century that they became as numerous and as popular as they currently are. Many of the earliest novels were romances, while certain authors, such as Joyce and Wolfe, decided to use it as their means of exploring stream of consciousness. Although there were some novels that predate the release of the Lord of the Rings that made a great deal of progress in defining things like character development, which is used is most successful modern novels, there were still a great many novels that were very well received that were extremely dry and lacking by today's standards.

Tolkien was interested in creating a world, a language, and a mythos. The Lord of the Rings is based on stories he used to tell his children to get them to bed at night. He was a professor of literature who was writing a text. You won't find modern character development because it wasn't his intent to provide you with that. You won't find perfect reasoning behind all events because he was telling of a great adventure where not all things happened through the skill and forethought of the main characters. 

In short, it is what it is, and dissecting it with the same tools that you would any standard novel doesn't work. This thread, right from its inception and its premise is ignorant and offensive. On the other hand, if you want to start a new thread that is not intended to belittle the Lord of the Rings as a work, but compare and contrast it to epics like Beowulf, the Illiad, Canterbury Tales, and the Bible, then I would be interested in this discussion.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Which is exactly why this conversation is pointless.




It isn't pointless, if we keep in mind that what constitutes a "mistake" (and what constitutes "innovation") depends upon the rules the author was supposed to be abiding by.  Otherwise, we risk convicting a man when he'd no way of knowing what he was doing was wrong, since the law hadn't been written yet.

The man was born in 1892.  That should make his work far more comparable to that of H.G.Wells (born in 1886) and EE "Doc" Smith (born in 1890) than to George RR Martin (born in 1948).  The literary rules these guys followed were those of a different age than our own, and they were the ones forging many of the standards of novels today.  

Thus, I think the original question Reaper asks is rather flawed.  It is quite reasonable to question whether Tolkien is a particularly riveting read to today's readers, and discuss why and why not.  It is not nearly as reasonable to try to call the differences between what he does and what modern authors do "mistakes".


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jan 11, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Quote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




I agree. Perhaps a more accurate (certainly more specific) observation is that Tolkien was not a very *disciplined* writer. His stories meander. Many minor elements are dealt with in great detail, while other elements receive short shrift. This is a function of his personal style of writing. 

We should remember that the trilogy was not written as a self-contained story. It was more a collection of pieces of the vast amount of material he created for Middle-Earth. Tolkien, for better or worse, created a world. The novels are a glimpse into this world. Like many gamers designing a campaign world, it seems Tolkien couldn't resist adding "cool" elements, which were not strictly necessary for the core story. 

Of course, that begs the question: would the trilogy be as beloved if he had cut all the "extras" and told us nothing but the story of the destruction of the Ring?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The man was born in 1892.  That should make his work far more comparable to that of H.G.Wells (born in 1886) and EE "Doc" Smith (born in 1890) than to George RR Martin (born in 1948).  The literary rules these guys followed were those of a different age than our own, and they were the ones forging many of the standards of novels today.
> 
> Thus, I think the original question Reaper asks is rather flawed.  It is quite reasonable to question whether Tolkien is a particularly riveting read to today's readers, and discuss why and why not.  It is not nearly as reasonable to try to call the differences between what he does and what modern authors do "mistakes".




Bingo!


----------



## blackshirt5 (Jan 11, 2004)

Smurfy, all I was saying in my original post was that frankly, I thought that it was a pointless debate(the reasons why have already been stated, probably better than I could've said them, by Whisperfoot), and that I don't think, given his history and previous actions, that any "debate" with reaper has anywhere to go but into the sewers.  Think of it, if you wish, as a heads up, a "Hardhat Area, a lot of crap's gonna fall here!" sign in this little construction area of the boards.  Or not.  It's really up to you, you seem like a standup fellow, I just wish that you'd take a bit of fire and burn away a troll or two.


----------



## KenM (Jan 11, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The man was born in 1892.  That should make his work far more comparable to that of H.G.Wells (born in 1886) and EE "Doc" Smith (born in 1890) than to George RR Martin (born in 1948).  The literary rules these guys followed were those of a different age than our own, and they were the ones forging many of the standards of novels today.




 I have read both Wells, and Smith, and IMO they are alot better then JRRT.

  EDIT: The settings/ plots are alot "tighter", Wells and Smith don't go off describing things that have nothing to do with the main point of the story.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I have read both Wells, and Smith, and IMO they are alot better then JRRT.




A lot better what? A lot better read? Better characterization? Larger in scope? More heroic? Which works specifically? I'm not about to diss either of those authors because they are both legends in their own fields, but a little clarification would be helpful.



			
				Blackshirt5 said:
			
		

> Think of it, if you wish, as a heads up, a "Hardhat Area, a lot of crap's gonna fall here!" sign in this little construction area of the boards. Or not. It's really up to you, you seem like a standup fellow, I just wish that you'd take a bit of fire and burn away a troll or two.




And that is stated better than I could state it myself. I'm all for civil conversation, but there's a point when you have to call troll. A topic with the intent to apply modern novel critique methods to Tolkien with the stated purpose of finding mistakes and errors is, as I stated before, insulting -- even for an Internet discussion.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

blackshirt5 said:
			
		

> ... and that I don't think, given his history and previous actions, that any "debate" with reaper has anywhere to go but into the sewers.




Whereas so far, we've had two pages of reasonable and interesting conversation, with the only problems being the doomsayers claiming that there is no chance of reasonable and interesting conversation.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Whereas so far, we've had two pages of reasonable and interesting conversation, with the only problems being the doomsayers claiming that there is no chance of reasonable and interesting conversation.




OK, its like this. You get fifteen people on a highway overpass flashing the oncoming traffic on a holiday weekend. Now the people in their cars don't care to have this sausage fest paraded in front of them and find it offensive. The fifteen flashers are calling it performance art while the passersby are asking that the flashers be removed from sight. Which one is right? Maybe those people in the minivan understand the purpose of this activity, but find it inappropriate for their gradeschool children.

Apparently in this case the flashers are not only allowed to continue forcing their naked bodies on the rest of the holiday tavelers, but they are also getting a government grant so that they can buy newer trench coats.

No offense Hypersmurf, I recognize the work you've done in the entertainment industry, but as a college grad with a BA in English lit who had to fight with professors to see the error of their ways and give Tolkien the respect he deserves, I don't feel that the premise of this topic can be seen as anything but a troll. I find it offensive, and given the source of the topic, I have a hard time seeing how trashing the architect of the modern fantasy genre can be considered reasonable and interesting conversation. I find it ungrateful and repugnant.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 11, 2004)

TLotR is in a style more like a medieval romance ala chretien de troyes than what we'd consider as "fantasy novel". For those who wonder why certain things happened at "just the right time" for the heroes, consider how the ring manipulated it's environment. Now consider that there was also *good* in the world. Somebody sent Gandalf back from Aman, didn't they? 

Any criticism of TLotR needs to come from someone whose read the Silmarillion as well. Otherwise, what you get tends to not be criticism of the *writing*, but usually more a criticism of what the reader thinks the writing *should* be like.

TLotR is not simply 3 books (the three book idea was from the publisher, JRR wrote it as a single book), it is a discription of a historical event that makes lesser sense when viewed outside of the "culture" that wrote it. The culture that wrote it is was made up by tolkien-and that is important to consider when addressing the literary merits of the work.

joe b.


----------



## KenM (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I don't feel that the premise of this topic can be seen as anything but a troll. I find it offensive, and given the source of the topic, I have a hard time seeing how trashing the architect of the modern fantasy genre can be considered reasonable and interesting conversation. I find it ungrateful and repugnant.




  So you are saying that ANY negative crictisim(SP?)  of his work is wrong, because according to you, JRRT wrote a perfect story. I think you are narrow minded not to see other points of view. 
  I admire what JRRT tried to do, but he needed some lessons with describing the action and pacing.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> In short, it is what it is, and dissecting it with the same tools that you would any standard novel doesn't work.



I think you can attempt to "dissect" LotR with the same tools as "any standard novel."  However, in the end, particularly if you don't have a background in literary theory (or at least well read with regards to English Literature), I don't know that your final analysis will be thorough or well founded.  I think this revelation has been happening organically through out this discussion.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> This thread, right from its inception and its premise is ignorant and offensive.



You're dragging in issues I, and perhaps others, know nothing about in terms of the thread's inception.  With the exception of words shared between reapersaurus, you, and a couple others, I think this thread has moved along quite nicely and in a direction that will force folks who seem not to care for the literary strengths of LotR to at least reevaluate their positions within a larger, more informed framework.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if you want to start a new thread that is not intended to belittle the Lord of the Rings as a work, but compare and contrast it to epics like Beowulf, the Illiad, Canterbury Tales, and the Bible, then I would be interested in this discussion.



Again, this has been happening organically.  There've been at least two other posters besides myself who've mentioned this.  I think that, if you want to enter into this discussion and challenge the initial poster, you'd be best to steer the conversation towards the direction you mention above rather than accuse the thread as being offensive.  That doesn't do you or your position (with which I generally agree) any good.


----------



## HeavyG (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> OK, its like this. You get fifteen people on a highway overpass flashing the oncoming traffic on a holiday weekend. Now the people in their cars don't care to have this sausage fest paraded in front of them and find it offensive. The fifteen flashers are calling it performance art while the passersby are asking that the flashers be removed from sight. Which one is right? Maybe those people in the minivan understand the purpose of this activity, but find it inappropriate for their gradeschool children.
> 
> Apparently in this case the flashers are not only allowed to continue forcing their naked bodies on the rest of the holiday tavelers, but they are also getting a government grant so that they can buy newer trench coats.




Since not reading this thread requires exactly 0 effort on your part, it would be much more appropriate to say that you are the flasher in this example, dude.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 11, 2004)

*re*



			
				KenM said:
			
		

> So you are saying that ANY negative crictisim(SP?)  of his work is wrong, because according to you, JRRT wrote a perfect story. I think you are narrow minded not to see other points of view.
> I admire what JRRT tried to do, but he needed some lessons with describing the action and pacing.




What an incredibly absurd statement. Probably the most successful fantasy book in the 20th century, inspiring legions of fans and critics alike, and Tolkien needs lessons in action and pacing? I don't think so.

The dislike of his work is purely personal. There are very few writers that write perfectly or are textbook examples of how a well-written novel should be. The quality for many writers even varies from book to book. Yet, there are many successful writers who are horrible at writing.

Tolkien was a storyteller and an extremely competent writer. He may not appeal to all, but he certainly doesn't need lessons because he didn't follow the supposed "rules" for writing a good novel. Please stop with the absurdity. The only "rule" for writing fiction is tell a good story in an entertaining manner. Period. You do that, and you have a better chance of selling than those who follow the "rules".

Novels are stories first, and Tolkien told a damn good story that has drawn in many a fan because he spent so much time detailing things that seemed unimportant to some, but were incredibly important to him. The love he put into his own work is readily apparent, and only makes fans love Middle Earth more.

Critiquing _Lord of the Rings_ does nothing to help a young writer. Any young writer would love to produce something as inspired, universal, and timeless as _Lord of the Rings_. It has few peers in the realm of fantasy. 

This is why I see a debate such as this as nothing more than a flimsy attempt by pseudo-intellectuals to criticize a classic work of literature for no other reason than that it is popular. No one would have much to say were _Lord of the Rings_ some fantasy tripe that sold no more than a hundred copies. It is attacked because it is loved by a huge fanbase, and those that can't understand what a person might see in it choose to deride it. How petty to point out its shortcomings rather than just accept that you don't personally like it.

No matter how many critics point out the flaws in a given literary work, only the fans will ever truly decide if a work is worthy or not. Following all the writing "rules" in the world will never be more important than a good, inspired story.


----------



## KenM (Jan 11, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> What an incredibly absurd statement. Probably the most successful fantasy book in the 20th century, inspiring legions of fans and critics alike, and Tolkien needs lessons in action and pacing? I don't think so.
> 
> The dislike of his work is purely personal.




 I agree that the like/ dislike is personel, but how come everytime someone gives reasons as to why they dislike the books, they get flamed by all the fanboys? Just because something sells well and is successful does not make it great, look at any "boy band" CD.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

HeavyG said:
			
		

> Since not reading this thread requires exactly 0 effort on your part, it would be much more appropriate to say that you are the flasher in this example, dude.




I count several people now who would disagree with this statement.


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 11, 2004)

Ok, folks ...

If the question is "can someone start a thread to critique Tolkien and can negative things be said about him or his writing," the answer is absolutely yes.  Those who are offended by the very existence of the thread will just have to live with it.  Those who aren't and who want to participate can certainly do so.  Of course all other guidelines are in place -- don't make fun of people for what they do like, don't attack people, etc.  

And folks -- those who think they've spotted a troll are doing no one a favor by pointing and screaming "Troll!!"  The best remedy for a percieved troll is to ignore it.  Some of you should know better!

edit:  I closed the thread to send a strong signal to those who were disrupting the thread, but at Reaper's request I'm opening it back up so the discussion can continue.  Please feel free to participate if you want, but the issue of whether this thread should exist in the first place is now closed.


----------



## Grazzt (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> No offense Hypersmurf, I recognize the work you've done in the entertainment industry, but as a college grad with a BA in English lit who had to fight with professors to see the error of their ways and give Tolkien the respect he deserves, I don't feel that the premise of this topic can be seen as anything but a troll. I find it offensive, and given the source of the topic, I have a hard time seeing how trashing the architect of the modern fantasy genre can be considered reasonable and interesting conversation. I find it ungrateful and repugnant.




Dude- it's real easy. If you don't like this thread or whatever, don't read it. There are a helluva lot more threads on this board...find one that doesn't offend ya and read away.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

Thank you, Eric.
I felt that it would be detrimental to the debate if it was closed, and/or moved to a new one. 
The thread of shared opinions/approaches speaks for itself.

What also speaks for itself is SOME Tolkein fans absolute inability to talk about LotR in any analytical way.
I put up with a lot of cheap personal shots, and looked the other way for the sake of the discussion.

I would rather not have to weather any personal attacks when the thread itself has proven them wrong.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 11, 2004)

Let's not discuss who should and shouldn't be barred, reaper...  That's a sure way for this thread to be closed again, permanently I suspect.

Now, would you like to respond to some of the posts that have showed up since you've been indisposed?


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

I'll be back later tonight to respond to the excellent informative posts earlier, but I wanted to ask one question:

Are there any other major fantasy books in the last 50 years that have this kinds of "hands-off" approach to criticism?
This 'different rule set', when it comes to criticism, so to speak?

More directly:
Is there any other major fantasy work in the last 50 years to be judged by the rules conventions of classic epics (like Beowulf, The Iliad, and the Bible) and not by common modern conventions?


----------



## EricNoah (Jan 11, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Let's not discuss who should and shouldn't be barred, reaper...  That's a sure way for this thread to be closed again, permanently I suspect.




Yep, yep, let's just go forward from here.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Are there any other major fantasy books in the last 50 years that have this kinds of "hands-off" approach to criticism?
> This 'different rule set', when it comes to criticism, so to speak?
> 
> More directly:
> Is there any other major fantasy work in the last 50 years to be judged by the rules conventions of classic epics (like Beowulf, The Iliad, and the Bible) and not by common modern conventions?



No major work, no.  At least nothing I can think of off the top of my head.  

However, considering that most of the fantasy texts that followed Tolkien were written in a more contemporary style (as clear novels rather than as epic "allegories"... and that's largely what LotR is despite what Tolkien himself suggests), do not have near the quasi-historical depth, and have become more and more influenced by contemporary attitudes about successful publishing, this shouldn't be a surprise.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 12, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I'll be back later tonight to respond to the excellent informative posts earlier, but I wanted to ask one question:
> 
> Are there any other major fantasy books in the last 50 years that have this kinds of "hands-off" approach to criticism?
> This 'different rule set', when it comes to criticism, so to speak?




It isn't that Lord of the Rings has a "Hand's Off approach". Its more like people, including myself, are easily offended when people start critiquing it as though its a modern work. It isn't, and we've established that. If you want to critique it you must do so in the context of the time it was written and what the author's intent of the book was. If you just want to arm yourself with a bunch of stuff that makes you sound intelligent when you argue about it then I suggest you start looking at other books of the period within the same genre.

Oh, there aren't any. You can try to pull from pulp, like Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, but we're comparing apples and oranges. You can pull from Vance, but again its apples and oranges. You can try to compare it to Steinbeck (but of the two I'll personally take Tolkien any day of the week). You could also try to compare to Joyce, Wolfe, H.G. Wells, but you still run into the same problem. Tolkien had no contemporaries in his genre.



> More directly:
> Is there any other major fantasy work in the last 50 years to be judged by the rules conventions of classic epics (like Beowulf, The Iliad, and the Bible) and not by common modern conventions?




Narnia. Which is interesting because Tolkien was a reasonably close  contemporary of C.S Lewis, and he did criticize him for it. You can read an informative aricle about it here: http://www.factmonster.com/spot/narnia-lewis.html


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jan 12, 2004)

Most of the faults with Tolkien's work comes from comparing it to modern works. Much of it was written anywhere from 50-75 years ago, and literary conventions of the time were different. Readers had more patience then. Much of the fantasy literature of today comes more from a pulp magazine tradition, rather than the more literary tradition Tolkien was writing from. That's not a knock on pulp fiction, for the more thin-skinned readers. I like the pulps.

Pick up and read William Morris' "Well at the World's End," from 1896. You'll note a distinct similarity in pacing with Tolkien's works, at least in comparison to what is normal for today. Does this mean Tolkien or Morris didn't know how to pace action? No. They knew how to pace it for their intended audience. 

Now, I do actually have a few criticisms of Tolkien's work, surprise, surprise. I've tried to eliminate the ones that are based solely on not putting his work into its proper historical context.

* Introducing important characters and not having them do much "onstage." Elrond, Galadriel, Arwen - these are the examples that leap to mind. Elrond and Galadriel do provide some valuable insight, and Elrond's account of past wars with Sauron in the Council of Elrond is fantastic, but neither character actually does much in the actual storyline of the book besides sit (or stand) and talk. Arwen doesn't even get to speak until the appendices.

* Introducing intriguing characters and then letting them drop. Glorfindel is my favorite example. 

* Focusing too much on details that have nothing to do with moving the storyline. While I like the detail, even I have to admit that detailed descriptions of the landscape grow repetitive, and take focus away from what the characters are doing.

* Lack of an indentifiable villain. "Identifiable" as in a character which the reader can actually "see" and get an idea of what makes him tick. The closest Tolkien comes is Saruman, and even he is a bit of a cipher. Tolkien's villains, for the most part, are faceless and, ultimately, uninteresting. The few glimpses we get into the mind of Sauron, specifically when Aragorn wrests control of the palantir from him, are fascinating. A bit more couldn't have hurt. Sure, there is a bit in the Silmarillion, but even it isn't all that much, and is an entirely different book. The Ringwraiths would have been potentially even more powerfully-written villains if any of the intriguing bits Tolkien revealed about them were followed up - their anguished yet haunting screams, their calling to Frodo "Come back! Come back to Mordor!" at the Ford of Bruinen, the fact that in the spirit realm they could be seen as "haggard" kings...

So, yeah, there is stuff even a big Tolkien fan can find to criticize, but that criticism should always take into account when and where the book was written, and by whom.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 12, 2004)

How about introducing essentially irrelevant characters (Bombadil)?

I'm a big Tolkien fan -- his works are my favorite works of fiction -- but I find some faults with his work (most of which CH nailed quite nicely).

It seems to me that some of LotR's flaws are less noticeable the more one is familiar with Tolkien's other works.  Someone who has only read LotR might see holes in the story that aren't really holes once you know the big picture.  My personal favorite -- the eagles as _deus ex machina_.  At first glance (even at second) they seem like a pretty arbitrary, convenient way to get the heroes out of bind.  Except, from other works, we know the eagles are servants of Manwe, hence a literal _deus ex machina_ that should probably be excused.  So should (say) LotR stand alone, or be looked at within the whole body of Tolkien's work?

Another point that I've pondered (as a result of the discussion and David Brin essay in one of the Star Wars threads): Are Tolkien's tales Campbellian myth? (ie, do they have the heroic mythic structure: reluctant hero is guided by mentor, gradually gaining the strength to take on his task, and is joined by an eclectic group of allies to assist him on his quest, which he fulfils after a overcoming a mounting series of obstacles).  Given Tolkien's sources, professional work, and preferred literary background, I'd guess almost certainly that is the intention -- Frodo, Aragorn, and others (Bilbo, Sam, Merry, Pippin) see to fit the mold of a Campbellian hero.  OTOH, a criticism of the Campbellian hero (really any mythic hero, since Campbell is just the guy who put together the theory, and I believe he may post-date Tolkien) is that he's not everyman -- he's born to his task, the only one that can accomplish it.  Tolkien's hobbits seem the antithesis of this, to me -- they are everyman, unlike Aragorn who is a much more traditional mythic hero -- born to greatness.  I think that departure from the formula lends a great deal to LotR's success, but perhaps not.


----------



## Alcareru (Jan 12, 2004)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> How about introducing essentially irrelevant characters (Bombadil)?
> 
> I'm a big Tolkien fan -- his works are my favorite works of fiction -- but I find some faults with his work (most of which CH nailed quite nicely).
> 
> ...




Wow what a thread. 

I think some of the difficulty with Tolkien is that he wasnt a professional writer as others have pointed out. For instance to alot of people Tom Bombadil is irrelevant- to Tolkien it wasnt, in fact Tom was alot of what Middle Earth and its stories were about. 

Im a fan too, but I always get exasperated with how long it takes to get the story started. And I agree, alot of the goodwill generated towards Tolkien is because of the world he created not necesssarily his writing style. The ideas and world he presents make it worthwhile for all of us.

Anyway, I recommend anything by Tom Shippey if you are interested in a critique/anaylsis of Tolkiens works, especialy _Road to Middle earth _ which was been rereleased and updated. Shippey is of course pro Tolkien and a defender against critics who have bashed him. But he does look at the cases against him and anlyzies why the good Professor did the things he did in the way he did (Even looks at it via Freudian criticism). A very good analysis and investigation why the tales resonate so clearly.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 12, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> EDIT: The settings/ plots are alot "tighter", Wells and Smith don't go off describing things that have nothing to do with the main point of the story.




Ah, well, you see, that's a problem - defining "the main point" of the story isn't cut and dried.  It's a matter of interpretation, especially in a large work.  There's a rather large school of interpretation that would say that there is no single large "main point" to any good story.

What you think is the main point and what I think are the main point and what Tolkien thought was the main point may not be the same thing.  The main point is more a matter of what we get out of it than anything else.  But, what a reader gets out of a story depends on a great many things, including the way they've been trained to read and think about literature.

Bombadil is a great example here.  Today, most readers think he's extraneous.  Tolkien is on record as saying that Bombadil is pretty essential to understanding the nature of Middle Earth.  Who's right?


----------



## KenM (Jan 12, 2004)

Lets see, having the characters break into song every 10 pages over some person that lived long ago, has nothing to do with the ring they are moving into Mordor, is just there to add to the word count and IMO pointless. At least the songs in A Song of Ice and Fire have something to do with the characters/ plot. Thats what I mean by pointless stuff.


----------



## FraserRonald (Jan 12, 2004)

I'd like to address some of the points and I'll try to be as direct and concise as I can, which is sometimes hard.

Tom Bombadil is not extraneous any more than Elrond is extraneous. Bombadil represents forces outside the normal (which is extreme when you're traveling with what might be termed an angelic being made flesh). The Ring had no effect on him, which is important as it helps to frame the Ring's powers, and thereby Sauron's, within the world. Middle-Earth is not our Earth, so it is sometimes necessary to illustrate how it is different. It may seem unnecessary to delineate differences when one has wizards and warriors running around, but wizards and warriors are a part of our own legend and myth. Bombadil is something more basic, more primitive in his power and obviously more pure, as the Ring did not effect him.

Was he extraneous? Well, whether Tolkien thinks he was or not, in my opinion, is immaterial. Once the book is published, it no longer is the sole property of the writer, but becomes a shared possession with the readers. So, the short answer is: if you think Bombadil is extraneous, he is . . . to you. However, he has a purpose.

The songs and poems are there for a point as well. Tolkien is amazing in that he has this extremely complex, deep world and he avoids the dreaded info-dump. It isn't easy to do that, and many authors--too in love with their own work--fail this test of restraint. Tolkien, however, loaded every chapter with background and information in the form that history and legend is passed along in a pre-industrialized (or at least pre-printing press) society--by song and poetry. It certainly does seem odd to us, that's because we read books, watch TV and listen to the radio. It's unfortunate that so many people seem to find this quite normal extension of having a story set in a pre-industrialized society so offensive. However, it is more than understandable, it is realistic and fitting.

Again, if the question is are the songs and poems stupid, I'd have to answer, if you think they are, they are . . . to you. There is a reason for their existence and it is actually quite an excellent literary device, one which many modern fantasy authors need to consider.

Many of CH's criticisms are extremely valid. Tolkien was not--as has been mentioned--a professional writer. TLotR should not be a sacred cow. There should be no sacred cows. However, I believe some of the heated responses came due to a perceived (and note, I indicated perceived) lack of interest in actual criticism rather an interest in simply denigrating or dismissing an important literary work. Dismissing _Morte d'Arthur_ as badly written trash with no story and bad history really misses the point. Dismissing TLotR as poor writing/plotting/characterization does the same. There are problems with Tolkien's writing, but as pointed out before, there are problems with everyone's writing, bar none. No writer is perfect.

So, let's continue the discussion. I would like to thank those people who have offered valid, considered criticism and I look forward to reading more of the same.

And that's me being concise. Scary, ain't it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 12, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Lets see, having the characters break into song every 10 pages over some person that lived long ago, has nothing to do with the ring they are moving into Mordor, is just there to add to the word count and IMO pointless. At least the songs in A Song of Ice and Fire have something to do with the characters/ plot. Thats what I mean by pointless stuff.




Interestingly enough, there is a place the songs seem to fit with...Epics. A lot of times in Epics, people will break out into songs about things that have nothing to do with anything...and it works.

Another things Tolkien used from Epics, is characters that are 'irrelevant'. Really, in the Illiad, do we need to know the Father of the Father of the Father of the guy who just had darkness covering his eyes(I love that line for death, by the way)? Nope, but its there. "Pointless" history thrown in. Its how Epics work.

Now, I'm not saying the works are perfect...but I'm saying that Tolkien knew a lot more about what he was doing that appears at first glance. This man was very vrey intelligent, and he used his knowledge of Epics to influence HIS Epic. It really is hard to find something to compare Tolkien's work with, because not the only thing close ARE the Epics...NOT Fantasy novels. I think that's the key, really. In an Epic, something can happen, just because. And that's the way it is. And it doesn't matter that its crazy and off, because that's what happens. May sound like a cop out to some, but its the way Epics work.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 12, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Vocenoctum  - so if I wrote a book where all the characters acted inconsistent and foolish in the face of danger, yet I expected the reader to have sympathy and respect for the heroic characters, could I hide behind saying it was my "style"? (For the record, I'm not saying Tolkein wrote like that)



But, that's my point in a nutshell. You're criticizing the style it's written in. Everything takes time in his books. Fate Happens.
You can't say "this is wrong" in a definitive manner, simply because you don't like this writing style. If there was a book where all the characters were foolish and inconsistent, and it had it's fans, you telling them that it's written "wrong" is pointless.
All you can say is "I don't like the way he wrote X".
There have been plenty of books I've disliked. In fact, much of what I had to trudge through in English class as "classic literature" was infuriatingly sluggish for me to force my way through. Doesn't mean it's "wrong", means I don't like it. The style doesn't work for me.



> Reilla is on the right page here : saying that "it's Tolkein's style" is not a good defense of valid criticisms of Tolkein's work.
> 
> You say Tolkein's STYLE was to have his characters take a long time to do things?
> That's a rather weak defense of unreasonable actions.
> ...



That's perhaps the intent of the thread you created. To "identify the things Tolkien did 'wrong'." Because you don't like them. I know people that can't read LotR, they complain about what they didn't like so they don't read it. For these people, the movie's are better.
I also know people that can't stay awake through Fellowship or TT! Does that mean the films are also wrong?
My point is this: Either you like a writers style, or you don't. You can complain about various elements, but it's not right or wrong. It's just stylistic differences.

As mentioned, Gandalf acknowledges that it was a mistake.
That means, it wasn't a Mistake of the writer, but of the character. It's not that Tolkien did something stupid, it's that in his style, the folks aren't omniscient, or even terribly smart sometimes.
As for dismissing the God/Fate aspect, the conflict actually boils down to a divine war in many ways, so ignoring it is ignoring the style of the setting.



> BTW: A secondary purpose of this thread COULD BE to debate the notion that the movies are a BETTER storyline than the book.
> 
> You also said "You are aware Sam had a ring of insibility and a sword that was created to slay orcs, right? The orcs also fought over Merry & Pippin elsewhen. It's what orcs do."
> I re-read that passage the other day, and Sam does NOT use the Ring to get past Cirith Ungul. If he did, I would be fine with it.
> ...




Well, first off, let me say that I don' think it's the best scene or anything. There are flaws in the logic, but you ignore the parts that don't fit your outlook IMO.
1) the orcs have fought previously over Merry & Pippin. It's What Orcs Do. (when no strong leader is present.)
2) The orcs WERE Afraid of the "great elven warrior" that drove off Shelob. I'd hazard a guess that they were also afraid of Sting.
Haven't read the chapter in a while, so there may indeed be many elements I've missed.

But, I think you'd have gotten better response with a thread about "what do you like/ not like about LotR" than "a critique".


----------



## shilsen (Jan 12, 2004)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Most of the faults with Tolkien's work comes from comparing it to modern works. Much of it was written anywhere from 50-75 years ago, and literary conventions of the time were different. Readers had more patience then.




Actually I'd argue that Tolkien is not writing within the literary conventions (esp. for novels) of the time that he is writing in. If he had, it is likely that LotR would have been more widely accepted by literary critics. Tolkien is writing within the literary tradition of the epic, as I and a number of people have pointed out. As Ankh-Morpork Guard's post above points out, the methodology Tolkien uses is purely epic in nature. Which is why his writing is so much of an aberration for its time and within the genre of fantasy. And which is also why arguing about its merits on the basis of novelistic writing is a waste of time just as much as studying _The Faerie Queene_ as tragic drama is.



			
				KenM said:
			
		

> Lets see, having the characters break into song every 10 pages over some person that lived long ago, has nothing to do with the ring they are moving into Mordor, is just there to add to the word count and IMO pointless. At least the songs in A Song of Ice and Fire have something to do with the characters/ plot. Thats what I mean by pointless stuff.




Pointless stuff in a novel. LotR is not a novel. Read Book 2 of the _Iliad_ and Book 1 of _Paradise Lost_.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 12, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> It really is hard to find something to compare Tolkien's work with, because not the only thing close ARE the Epics...NOT Fantasy novels. I think that's the key, really.




Precisely. 

I'd just like to add, when you say here...



> Another things Tolkien used from Epics, is characters that are 'irrelevant'. Really, in the Illiad, do we need to know the Father of the Father of the Father of the guy who just had darkness covering his eyes(I love that line for death, by the way)? Nope, but its there. "Pointless" history thrown in. Its how Epics work.




...that one of the primary aims of most epics have been to provide an impression of a history, mythology and a broader world that lies behind the specific story being dealt with. Homer, the author of _Beowulf_, Spenser, Milton all did it. Which is where the epic simile and other forms of extended digression (such as in the example you mentioned) come in. Having such a mention in the _Iliad_ allows the author to take up the position of writing for not just a generation but an entire people. For an epic author, providing a glimpse of the larger tapestry is much more important than plot and character. The songs and the tales that run through LotR serve the same purpose.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 12, 2004)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> * Introducing important characters and not having them do much "onstage." Elrond, Galadriel, Arwen - these are the examples that leap to mind. Elrond and Galadriel do provide some valuable insight, and Elrond's account of past wars with Sauron in the Council of Elrond is fantastic, but neither character actually does much in the actual storyline of the book besides sit (or stand) and talk. Arwen doesn't even get to speak until the appendices.
> 
> * Introducing intriguing characters and then letting them drop. Glorfindel is my favorite example.



As an "epic telling of history" only characters central to the telling are really detailed. I find the books ARE better for giving The Rest a place, but yeah, all the powerful elves sitting around making excuses...
Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn. They're none written as full characters. They're all pretty little things, Galadriels main power seems to be pretty and make people think she's prettier 

Glorfindel is Generic Elf Lord in the book, and in the movie is ably replaced by Arwen. So why introduce him at all? I think Tolkien wanted to fill the land with middle level fella's as well. In his army days, he probably knew folks of Glorfindel's manner, important enough, but in the grand scheme of The War, unimportant.


> * Focusing too much on details that have nothing to do with moving the storyline. While I like the detail, even I have to admit that detailed descriptions of the landscape grow repetitive, and take focus away from what the characters are doing.



Some of the stuff really does. There's also the matter of "discovering" all these lands for the first time. It seems Gandalf and Aragorn were the only folks that traveled much in teh world.



> * Lack of an indentifiable villain. "Identifiable" as in a character which the reader can actually "see" and get an idea of what makes him tick.



Yeah, I mentioned this in the original thread. We never see the "other side" of the conflict.
On one hand, the book is a history book written by Frodo. He couldn't possibly have known what the enemies were saying when one of his companions wasn't there.
OTOH, he also seems to know exactly what happened, while he wasn't there, to his companions...
The Isengard stuff is a perfect example. If Frodo wrote The Lord of the Rings, why did he write it as Merry & Pippin telling about it? But, I'm not really sure that we're reading the exact book Frodo wrote. I would have prefered it if he had written it from a Hobbit's perspective, but then I guess that would have left out the Rohan stuff.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 12, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Lets see, having the characters break into song every 10 pages over some person that lived long ago, has nothing to do with the ring they are moving into Mordor, is just there to add to the word count and IMO pointless. At least the songs in A Song of Ice and Fire have something to do with the characters/ plot. Thats what I mean by pointless stuff.




Me personally, I found that Song of Ice & Fire's "pointless stuff" was sex in every chapter, and a few other things. I found quite a few of Tolkien's songs to be "pointless" to my reading as well, but they were not as intrusive as Martin's stuff. But, that's Martins' Style, so there ya go. 

Now HP Lovecraft never irritated me in his writing. I like some stories more than others, but even the one's I didn't like don't bug me.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 12, 2004)

Hm.  Upon consideration, a bit of a explanation and an anecdote that tends to back up the thought that Tolkien's work is rather similar to the Epics...

As I understand it, the epics are a written form of an oral tradition.  The epics aren't really so much intended to be read as listened to.  

My fiancee is one of those folks who finds Tolkien to dry to read.  She falls alseep when she tries to read his stuff.  But, when she heard about the movies coming out, she wanted to get through the books, so she'd know the original storyline and be better able to follow the movies if bits were left out.  But reading them just didn't cut it.

However, when we switched approaches - and I read them aloud to her as she did her craft works, she began to enjoy them.  They went from a thing that was too dull to stay awake through to something moderately interesting.  Now, she thinks Sam is one of the greatest heroes of modern literature.  All because we went to a presentation more in line with an epic form.

Now, Tolkien isn't _pure_ epic.  If you judge him by the standards of epics, he also falls short.  Seems to me that Tolkien is a sort of bridge or hybridization between the two forms.  Or an infusion of some epic elements into something close to late 20th century novels.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> However, when we switched approaches - and I read them aloud to her as she did her craft works, she began to enjoy them.




Did you do the songs?

I read _The Hobbit_ to a girlfriend, once, but I confess to leaving out at least half to two thirds of the verses of all of the songs 

I've found _The Belgariad_ great for reading aloud - I don't know if I could generate sufficient enthusiasm to do the same for LotR...

-Hyp.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 12, 2004)

I don't know how much worthwhile discussion I'll be able to add to the conversation, since my major was Biochemistry, not English, but I'll try anyway.

For one, there _is_ an identifiable villian - Self.  I read somewhere (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the big story types are something like Man versus Man, Man versus Nature, and Man versus Self.  In the case of LotR is main enemy in the books isn't Sauron (Man) or the travel itself (Nature) but the danger that the One Ring posed to the Self.  Numerous times through the books we see characters powerful and weak struggling to resist their own impulses and desires.  Some succeed, and some fail.

Secondly, I'm in the camp that believes Tolkien at times rambled a bit too much, if you read the book like a novel, which I believe the majority of people do, despite what people here would like to think.  If read as a world history, much in the vein of Silmirillion, then the book takes a different tone where gaffs are lessened if not removed.

I would like to rebutt the anti-_deus ex machina_ arguments though.  Given his other works, it is obvious that there is indeed a discreet divine entity that can affect changes on the world.  However, the books should also be judged on their own merit.  In which case, the idea of a tangible deity is in fact marginally hinted at.  And thus, many of the fortuitous acts in LotR _are_ an instance of _deus ex machina_.  In fact, IIRC Tolkein barely even broaches the subject of belief systems of various characters.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I read somewhere (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the big story types are something like Man versus Man, Man versus Nature, and Man versus Self.




The 19th century also added _Man versus Space Alien_ to the list.

-Hyp.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The 19th century also added _Man versus Space Alien_ to the list.
> 
> -Hyp.




And the 20th centuy added Man Vs. Software.


----------



## ShadowX (Jan 12, 2004)

As the anti-LotR article and posters have mentioned, Tolkien obsessed over the details of his world.  Unfortunately, they glanced over an important reason for this description.  Most novels are set in our world or a close replica.  Thus, the background is already established and the world familiar to the reader.  Fantasy resides on the basis of a world that starkly contrasts with our own.  Therefore the details of the world must be expounded or the world and the story become an enigma as the reader struggles to understand the actions and characters.  Versimilitude is the backbone of the escapist genre of fantasy and so the setting becomes even more integral to the storytelling.  Most other genres already have versimilitude established as they are set in worlds similar to our own and so there exists no need for world building.

Most modern fantasy writers have the difficult task of world building already completed for them.  They fall back on the world conventions laid out by Tolkien; stealing tall elves and grumpy dwarfs to create their setting.  This does not excuse Tolkien's obsessive detail, his characters are flat and his description often tedious.  However, one can not discard the fact that he created the foundation for other authors to focus on characters and action.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 12, 2004)

*re*



			
				KenM said:
			
		

> I agree that the like/ dislike is personel, but how come everytime someone gives reasons as to why they dislike the books, they get flamed by all the fanboys? Just because something sells well and is successful does not make it great, look at any "boy band" CD.




It is the final statement when the post implied that Tolkien needs lessons in action and pacing that evoke a taloned response. If a person simply states they dont' like the books while not deriding the author, then I really could care less. That wasn't the case.

Boy bands may not be very talented themselves, but you fail to understand that the reason they succeed is because their management hires very talented songwriters. Boy band songs are often very high quality songs done by boys with moderate personal talent. I don't mean high quality in terms of depth, but high quality in terms of good, catchy music and memorable lyrics. For example, when I think of Britney Spears, I can't help but think of the phrase "Oops, I did it again." Though I don't actively listen to her music. The songwriters did an excellent job of creating a catchy, memorable tune.

Boy bands have high quality songwriters with a proven track record.


----------



## Orius (Jan 12, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> 2) The orcs killing each other to allow Sam to advance into Mordor. Without this silly plot device, Sam would most certainly have been captured. Based on the plot and forces that Tolkein himself described, there was no way for the Quest to have succeeded without pulling male-brain stunts like having an entire fortress kill themselves _the exact moment that Sam & Frodo needed them not to be there._




It's because they're orcs.  Orcs never get along, and often end up fighting among themselves.  Look at the scene later on with the small tracker orc and the larger soldier.  Sauron spends a lot of time exerting his will on them so they will fight properly and work together, that's why thy don't put up much of a fight in the book after the Ring is destroyed.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Did you do the songs?




The verses in English, yes, sort of.  I didn't have any tune for them, but they work pretty well done in a kind of tuneless sing-song, actually.  Not being a songwriter, Tolkien seems to have kept the things simple so they work with a natural rise and fall kind of pattern.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 12, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Boy bands may not be very talented themselves, but you fail to understand that the reason they succeed is because their management hires very talented songwriters. Boy band songs are often very high quality songs done by boys with moderate personal talent. I don't mean high quality in terms of depth, but high quality in terms of good, catchy music and memorable lyrics. For example, when I think of Britney Spears, I can't help but think of the phrase "Oops, I did it again." Though I don't actively listen to her music. The songwriters did an excellent job of creating a catchy, memorable tune.
> 
> Boy bands have high quality songwriters with a proven track record.



Somewhat far off topic, but I have to disagree.

If, thirty years from now, songs performed by Britney, N*SYNC, the Backstreet Boys, and the like are well-known then maybe I would agree, but at this juncture I have to disagree.  Which is why LotR is a classic - so many years later it still is popular.  Even more so now, what with the movies.

That aside, I really wouldn't call the songwriters all that talented.  Making something catchy now-a-days bascially involves something with a strong beat; short, easily understandable lyrics; and a VERY standard I-IV-V-I progression with some vi, I-7, and V-7 chords thrown in with the occasional modulation to a related key, usually with the V as the new root.  In fact, a lot of the complexity of music has disappeared over the last thirty years - compare something like the Beatles (arguably pop music of their time) to any modern stuff.  Right off the bat most people will notice the predominance of lyrics over instruments, with instruments taking a strong background/filler role as opposed to a complimentary/counterpuntal one.  Another is that the lyrics tend to have more than a superficial meaning, that may even erquire thought to interpret.

Though, the more apt comparison would be boy-bands and solo-girls to disco.  And look how smashingly popular that is today.


----------



## Orius (Jan 12, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The verses in English, yes, sort of.  I didn't have any tune for them, but they work pretty well done in a kind of tuneless sing-song, actually.  Not being a songwriter, Tolkien seems to have kept the things simple so they work with a natural rise and fall kind of pattern.




FWIW, Legolas' Nimrodel song can be sung to the _Gilligan's Island_ theme.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 12, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> In fact, a lot of the complexity of music has disappeared over the last thirty years - compare something like the Beatles (arguably pop music of their time) to any modern stuff.  Right off the bat most people will notice the predominance of lyrics over instruments, with instruments taking a strong background/filler role as opposed to a complimentary/counterpuntal one.  Another is that the lyrics tend to have more than a superficial meaning, that may even erquire thought to interpret.




You're making me all weepy now. Play some Skynnyrd!

Seriously, the closest equivalent of Led Zeppelin I can see these days is Pearl Jam, and their a bit of a kinder, gentler version of the almighty rockzilla. Regardless, they're still one of my top 3 rock bands that are still together and touring (the other two being U2 and Radiohead).

I think that the grunge movement was the last real wave of "deep and meaningful" music with quality instrument playing. Of course we all see how that turned out. I wonder what percentage of them actually died from their habits. Still, I quite often would rather pop something in from Nirvana or Soundgarden than the stuff that passes for alternative these days.

Ah well, I used to have this theory that good TV and good music alternated decades. Then the 90s happened and we got both. Now we have neither. And we probably won't have it again, at least not for a good long while.


----------



## SynapsisSynopsis (Jan 12, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> It isn't that Lord of the Rings has a "Hand's Off approach". Its more like people, including myself, are easily offended when people start critiquing it as though its a modern work. It isn't, and we've established that. If you want to critique it you must do so in the context of the time it was written and what the author's intent of the book was. If you just want to arm yourself with a bunch of stuff that makes you sound intelligent when you argue about it then I suggest you start looking at other books of the period within the same genre.




Suddenly there' a concensus about what literary criticism and theory are and how they _must_ be applied to works (and a concensus about what works are, for that matter)?  Apparently my department did not receive that memo.  For your touted background, you seem awfully confident in notions like genre and period--perhaps no one told you that these sorts of unities constitute the great scandal of literary history and theory over the last 50 years?

I for my part would love to participate in the discussion and 'arm myself with stuff that makes me sound intelligent,' but once through Tolkien was enough for me.  For everyone else, though, I hope that you will not limit yourselves according to Whisperfoot's dictum of what does and does not constitute proper literary criticism.  It is only one approach.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 12, 2004)

SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> perhaps no one told you that these sorts of unities constitute the great scandal of literary history and theory over the last 50 years?




Perhaps not. It is possible that it was never mentioned during the years I spent studying literature. Do you have more to say one the subject? A link to better inform me possibly? Learning is lifelong, and as such I would be foolish to turn down the opportunity to further my understanding.

Until I've been sufficiently shown the error of my thinking, I'll keep my Chaucer out of my Tom Clancy, thank you.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 12, 2004)

SynapsisSynopsis said:
			
		

> I hope that you will not limit yourselves according to Whisperfoot's dictum of what does and does not constitute proper literary criticism.  It is only one approach.




After reading such statements as...

_"This is the holy grail for anyone who is into this sort of thing and starting a thread to discuss its weaknesses is like taking a crap all over it. This topic falls in with the politics and religion category. This travesty should be closed before the fur really starts to fly."
"This thread, right from its inception and its premise is ignorant and offensive."
"...but as a college grad with a BA in English lit who had to fight with professors to see the error of their ways and give Tolkien the respect he deserves..."
"Its more like people, including myself, are easily offended when people start critiquing it as though its a modern work."
"If you just want to arm yourself with a bunch of stuff that makes you sound intelligent when you argue about it then I suggest you start looking at other books of the period within the same genre."_​
I don't think you'll have to worry about me listening to Whisperfoot's notions of what literary criticism is appropriate or not.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 12, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I don't think you'll have to worry about me listening to Whisperfoot's notions of what literary criticism is appropriate or not.




Flamefest resumed!


----------



## KenM (Jan 12, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Pointless stuff in a novel. LotR is not a novel. Read Book 2 of the _Iliad_ and Book 1 of _Paradise Lost_.




 If its not a novel, how come it can be found in the FANTASY NOVEL section of bookstores? Its being published as a novel, it looks like a novel, its marketed as a novel, its a novel. 
  I have always been bored and can never make it though the books, but I love the EE DVD's.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 12, 2004)

I would like to point out Paradise lost is an epic POEM not a novel in the truest sense of the word. Illiad I could see as a novel but it's really just an oral epic poem in any case.

Secondly, while I could decry a lot of what's said on this thread by BOTH sides, what I will say is this thread has become utter pointless other than to bash people's opinion to nothingness. So congradulations folks. This has to be the WORST thread I've read ever. And yes I could have gone elsewhere but I was hoping for some stimulating talk. So far I just see a bunch of modern people bash the old people who bash the new people who are in turn bashing all. So congrats.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 12, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I would like to point out Paradise lost is an epic POEM not a novel in the truest sense of the word. Illiad I could see as a novel but it's really just an oral epic poem in any case.




I think I'm the one who brought up those examples, and I never wrote (or meant) that any of them are novels, because they aren't. Both are epic poems, as you say. I used them to argue that the LotR is a very unusual text - epic prose. Not novel either.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 12, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> If its not a novel, how come it can be found in the FANTASY NOVEL section of bookstores? Its being published as a novel, it looks like a novel, its marketed as a novel, its a novel.




Because there is no fantasy epic section in existence anywhere on the planet. Good thing too, since only LotR would show up in it


----------



## Gez (Jan 12, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> And the 20th centuy added Man Vs. Software.




Actually, it's an older theme than this. Man vs. its creation. Frankeinstein was on that theme. The Jewish tale of the Golem too.  As it can be understood as Man usurping God's power (and creating new lifeforms), I say it can be traced back to the Tower of Babel. Otherwise, the creation fighting the creator, or vice-versa, can be found in a different way in Norse or Greek mythology, with gods battling titans, Chronos eating his children, and all that stuff.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 12, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
> In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
> They ignore the facts that Gandalf KNEW it was the One Ring, yet still allowed Frodo to kick back for months before leaving, thus creating the danger with the Ringwraiths later.*





He allows Frodo to create a plausible story for his desire to leave, sell his house, and wrap up his affairs. As a hobbit normally would. Bilbo's sudden disappearance caused enough of a stir  that having Frodo also suddenly dissapear would have caused questions to be asked that Gandalf didn't want asked. The key to moving the Ring was _sercrecy_, and avoiding unexplained disappearances is a pretty good step to achieving that goal.

You maybe would not have done things that way if you were in a similar situation, or written things that way if you were writing the story, but caution does not mean someone made a mistake.



> *2) The orcs killing each other to allow Sam to advance into Mordor. Without this silly plot device, Sam would most certainly have been captured. Based on the plot and forces that Tolkein himself described, there was no way for the Quest to have succeeded without pulling male-brain stunts like having an entire fortress kill themselves the exact moment that Sam & Frodo needed them not to be there.*




But you fail to understand that the orcs set to killing each other exactly _because_ Frodo was there, and because they were left leaderless (Sauron's attention being elsewhere, and the Witch-King having gone to lay siege to Minas Tirith). Left unattended, the story repeatedly shows how orcs become clanning, and how different groups of orcs tend to infight amongst each other. Frodo's expensive and pretty equipment caused the orcs to bicker over who got to have the items (and who got credit with "the boss" in Barad-Dur for finding it). Orcish bickering turns into violent fighting pretty easily.

As to your question about garrison: it was probably stripped pretty bare. Most of the forces seem to have been committed to the invasion of Gondor, which means that there was likely only a skeleton force left behind.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 12, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *You say "Oh, and they were in Rivendell for 2 months, after deciding to destroy the ring, they then waited a couple months for more information."
> If that's true, I'll add that to the list of things I think Don't Work in LotR.*





Of course, you don't know _why_ they waited after deciding to destroy the Ring before setting out, so you come to a rash conslusion. (Elrond sent out scouts to investigate the surrounding area for dangers before sending to Fellowship out. Until they reported back, he didn't want them marching into the wilderness.)



> *The orcs act like Yo-Yo's on a puppetmaster's strings. They ping-pong back and forth between being exceedingly good in battle, and deadly/scary adverseries, to being buffonish bumblers who literally are frightened by shadows as Sam ascends the stairs alone in their own fortress.
> One second, an orc spins like a cat to kill another orc, the next he's incompetent when faced with a stumbling Samwise "orc-slayer' Gamgee. *




You _do_ realize that the orcs Sam fights are the guys who were _left behind_ when the Witch-King took his forces to attack Minas Tirith. The guys one would not expect to be very good warriors, since they were kept out of one of the most important engagements of the war.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 12, 2004)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> ** Focusing too much on details that have nothing to do with moving the storyline. While I like the detail, even I have to admit that detailed descriptions of the landscape grow repetitive, and take focus away from what the characters are doing.*





For me, this is one of the strengths of the books. In too many books, the writing is so "tight" that everything has a point, a purpose, and relates in some way to the main story. As a result, there is no mystery, there is nothing that is outside the scope of the main story. If everything has a purpose, then everything that appears "on camera" (as it were) is important. To me, this detracts from a story, because it simplifies the action down to the tunnel vision version of what we see. Tolkien's strength on this is that you get the impression that there is a larger world out there, of which _this_ story is only one story among many.

Further, in most novels, there is nothing that is "normal" to serve as a baseline. In too many novels, the characters leap from one action sequence to another, running from place to place, and event to event. But if everythign is action, then action becomes routine. In a book contructed in a more "standard" manner, the balrog scene would have been lost, because it would have been surrounded with a half dozen _other_ big tension filled action scenes. In FotR, it sticks out as unusual, because Tolkien took the time to establish normal life in the rest of the book.



> ** Lack of an indentifiable villain. "Identifiable" as in a character which the reader can actually "see" and get an idea of what makes him tick. The closest Tolkien comes is Saruman, and even he is a bit of a cipher. Tolkien's villains, for the most part, are faceless and, ultimately, uninteresting.*





I also find this to be a strength. The biggest weakness of many books is that they try to describe a villain like Sauron. But when an author tries to describe a horrible, scary, terrible evil villain, they usually resort to what _they_ consider to be horrible, scary, and terrible. If I don't agree with his opinions in this regard, the villain is diminished for me when I read it. (The example that springs to my mind is Dennis L. McKiernan's Modru character in the Iron Tower trilogy, when described, he's just a ratty man in an iron mask, which made him seem silly when I read the books). By describing Sauron in terms of the reactions that _other_ characters have to him Tolkien allows the reader to fill in _for himself_ what Sauron is like, and preserves his power as a villain.


----------



## CCamfield (Jan 12, 2004)

I agree with Stormraven about the villains in LotR.  If Tolkien had presented some of the book through Sauron's eyes, I think that would have personified him and reduced his impact.

Otherwise I can mostly just chime in agreement about the LoTR being an epic which follows different conventions from novels generally.  That may make it a less enjoyable _read_ for many, novel or no.  

On the subject of divine providence, let me just quote a short passage about Sam from near the end of The Two Towers as he confronts Shelob:



> 'Galadriel!' he said faintly, and then he heard voices far off but clear: the crying of the elves as they walked under the stars in the beloved shadows of the Shire, and the music of the Elves as it came through his sleep in the Hall of Fire in the house of Elrond.
> 
> _Gilthoniel A Elbereth!_
> 
> ...




What's going on here?  _Sam_, of all people, is having some sort of aural vision and quoting Elvish that he doesn't know.  And it's right after this that he gathers up his courage, and the vial of Galadirel blazes with light, driving Shelob away.

The answer, I think, is that he's being touched by the divine.  That section ends with Tolkien writing that he "becomes Sam again".  (It's been a while since I read enough Tolkien to recall the names of the higher beings.)  

So when someone says that divine providence plays a role in the books, _it really does_.  The divine forces of good _want_ the heroes to succeed and aid them in their quest at various points.  I think Frodo has points of similar inspiration in the book.  Gandalf also makes a comment that the ring was _meant_ to find Frodo.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 12, 2004)

Umbran said it earlier, but before I read his post, I was thinking of making the same point -- Lord of the Rings is neither a modern novel, nor a historical-style epic -- it's a hybrid creature that incorporates elements of both in many ways.  Saying that Lord of the Rings doesn't hold up under modern criticisms for it's failing as a modern novel is both a cop-out, and at the same time partly true.

Many of the "flaws" with the work are deliberate, and Tolkien knew very well that they weren't appropriate for a modern novel, but that they worked in the context he needed them.

LotR really is a unique beast -- which is why it fails even a casual attempt at serious literary criticism and yet has become probably the classic work of our century as well as the best-selling work (besides the Bible) of all time.  Rather than arguing about parts that don't work for us individually, and trying to explain why they were done that way, I think it's perhaps more appropriate in the vein of the thread's probably purpose to simply state what doesn't work for you and why.

For me, I'm disappointed in recent readings with how ineffectual the Nazgul seem to be throughout Book 1.  Although atmospherically and through description, they are established as credible and frankly quite potent and frightening threats, their actions continually bely their ability to actually stop Frodo and Co.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 12, 2004)

Should LotR be found on the fantasy/sci-fi or literature bookshelves in bookstores?  Discuss.

While I consider it the equivalent of the literature that's on the lit shelves, I prefer to see it in F/SF because it's more likely to be found by folks who are interested in that genre.  

OTOH, is it a literary slight to be placed on the same shelf as pulp F/SF?  Perhaps, but I'm not bothered by it (but then, I'd file Tom Clancy and Thomas Hardy in the same section, since they're both fiction, albeit vastly different in quality).

I'm wondering what the folks with formal lit backgrounds define as "literature", and does Tolkien's work fit that definition?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 12, 2004)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Should LotR be found on the fantasy/sci-fi or literature bookshelves in bookstores?  Discuss.
> 
> I'm wondering what the folks with formal lit backgrounds define as "literature", and does Tolkien's work fit that definition?




That's definitely not an easy one to answer because it actually has more to do with merchandising than it has to do with actual categorization. I went into a Borders looking for a Larry McMurtry book, so I went to the Western section. When I got there, I saw a sea of Louis L'Amour, but no McMurtry. I almost gave up and left the store, but decided to check the literature section and there I found most of the books he's ever written.

I feel that in terms of when it was published and the wide appeal the LotR has, it probably should be with the literature. I think that would show it a proper amount of respect and aknowlege how loved it is worldwide. That's my personal bias but there's this attitude among many academics that LotR is simply escapist fantasy. Those who buy into that philosophy (which I obviously don't) would have it filed next to the pulp so they don't have to aknowlege it as literature. I also find it interesting that a lot of the people who decry LotR as escapist fantasy teach things like the Fairy Queen, Morte D'Arthur, the Iliad, and other early works of a similar vein. An opposing, and more common sense view is that it should be with the fantasy because it will be easier to find that way.

So, this is really an excellent question. I say literature, but I'm not really convinced that I would do that if I were a business owner.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> So, this is really an excellent question. I say literature, but I'm not really convinced that I would do that if I were a business owner.




Bookstores that stock Tolkien tend to have more than one copy of most of the titles they stock.  Would it be bad, business-wise, to have Tolkien on the shelves in the literature section (to show it the proper respect etc) _and_ in the SF/F section (where people will probably look for it first)?

-Hyp.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 12, 2004)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I'm wondering what the folks with formal lit backgrounds define as "literature", and does Tolkien's work fit that definition?



I've a BA in English and I'm contemplating pursuing a Ph.D. in Literature (M.Ed. right now).

I would say that Tolkien stands as a literary work on two levels.  First, he's the first (and, apparently to some people on this thread, the only) person to write in this fashion.  While arguably Homer and the _Beowulf_ author wrote "histories" and allegories based upon past events, Tolkien created an entire world (well, actually, really just a continent) in order to tell his tale, which in part was intended to reflect a lost myth for England.  This was a clear goal of his, and this too, as far as we know, sets him apart from others who've written mythical tales.

Additionally, Tolkien is the only author I know of who also created a great deal of extraneous material that, while beneficial to a deeper understanding of his "masterpiece," is not essential reading.  I disagree with those who posit that _The Silmarillion_ must be read in order to fully grasp LotR.  Reading it certainly does offer a better understanding, but LotR can stand on its own well enough.  Most other writers who are part of The Canon (which, in and of itself, is a whole other debate when it comes to determining who belongs and who doesn't) who refer to other works, often refer to another established text, myth, belief, or historical event.  Tolkien's references are to materials that _only_ the characters are familiar with unless the reader deigns to read that additional material.  This reinforces the creation of a "fantasy" world.

I think the placement of Tolkien in the "fantasy/sci-fi" section of bookstores is due to the desire to codify everything and because it's what people expect.  I find it interesting that Stephen King, who has written many fantastic stories (horror if you want to use that term) and Anne Rice, who has written many fantastic stories (gothic horror if you want to use that term) are found not in the "fantastic" section, but in Fiction and Literature.  I suppose the veneer of "realism" in those stories, their greater accessibility to those who think they're reading about "real life," makes such material seem more literary.  It's interesting that you'll find _Moby Dick_ in the literature too despite the clearly supernatural elements in that text.  Or Kafka's _Metamorphosis_.

Finally, on the notion that LotR can't be critiqued using established standards... Utter nonsense.  Anything can be critiqued.  The problem is not all methods of approach are appropriate for every book.  I don't know that New Criticism (which has dominated Literary Criticism for some time now) is the only approach to reading Tolkien, much less other authors.  There are different ways to read and consider any text.  _The sad thing about criticism is that everyone thinks they can do it with a degree of competence and this simply isn't the case.  Having an opinion on something, particularly a poorly conceived opinion based strictly upon one's own attitudes or ideas, tends to cause the critic to ignore the what was written._  Although some would argue that this approach is just as valid as any other, I strongly disagree.

Why the hell can't I write short posts..?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 12, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I feel that in terms of when it was published and the wide appeal the LotR has, it probably should be with the literature. I think that would show it a proper amount of respect and aknowlege how loved it is worldwide. That's my personal bias but there's this attitude among many academics that LotR is simply escapist fantasy.



To be fair, that's a view that is held by more than just academics, but the majority of our culture.  Escapism is very much considered at best an undesirable trait in our society, while "realism" and cynicism are considered more neutral to even beneficial.

As for LotR, I would rather see it in the "Fantasy" section.  More exposure means more people reading it.  There are definitely a group of people that will avoid the "Literature" section simply because it's stuff they had to read in school, let alone because they find it boring for one reason or another.  I suspect that group is rather large, myself.

And obviously based on my quotation marks, I don't particularly subscribe to definitions of Literature and Fantasy as book companies would classify them.  To be semantic, technically everything fiction is fantasy - they're practically synonyms.  Now while obviously there are different types of fiction, these labels are very much abused and, IMO, very much constraining.

You see a similar problem with video games,especially RPGs.  There's computer RPGs versus console RPGs.  There's action RPGs, adventure RPGs, tactical RPGs, and pure RPGs, and it's all a gigantic muddle where labels really do nothing but to confuse the issue and cause people to judge a game not based on the game itself, but on predefined categories.  Worse yet, it can cause developers to constrain themselves to one formula based on these ambiguous terms.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Bookstores that stock Tolkien tend to have more than one copy of most of the titles they stock. Would it be bad, business-wise, to have Tolkien on the shelves in the literature section (to show it the proper respect etc) _and_ in the SF/F section (where people will probably look for it first)?



Yes, for the following reasons.

One, it's more work for the employees.  When you deal with the volumes of books they carry, it's important to keep everything in one location, even if it really belongs in more than one.  That way it's easily and quickly found.

Two, it's a waste of space.  There's no reason why it should take up shelf space in two places when it can just take up space in one.  LotR, while a classic, is not the only book out there.  As I said in my previous post, I suspect there are a large number of people that avoid the Literature section altogether.  Which means it's just wasted space.

Three, since it sells so well, it makes sense to put it on a stand out in a prominent location, rather than in either area.  Especially given the huge success of the movies.  

Four, as someone mentioned, the majority of the population thinks of it as fantasy.  And that's where they'll look first.  More effort on their parts means lesser sales, unfortunately.  And bookstores are first a business, second a literary guide.  People that work in bookstores aren't necessarily English Lit majors either - the first place they'll probably think is fantasy as well.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 12, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I've a BA in English and I'm contemplating pursuing a Ph.D. in Literature (M.Ed. right now).
> 
> Finally, on the notion that LotR can't be critiqued using established standards... Utter nonsense.  Anything can be critiqued.  The problem is not all methods of approach are appropriate for every book.  I don't know that New Criticism (which has dominated Literary Criticism for some time now) is the only approach to reading Tolkien, much less other authors.  There are different ways to read and consider any text.




Which is really not any different than the argument I've been making. Sure, youcan compare it to other fantasy novels that are considered 'good' by today's standards. It might even measure up well against some of the books that have more closely modeled Tolkien's writing style, such as _Memory, Sorrow, and Thorne_, but when you try to take it out of the context of the time it was written, in the opinion of many people, the criticism will be lacking because it will lack the context in which it was written. But granted, there are a number of different approaches to analyzing any text.



> _The sad thing about criticism is that everyone thinks they can do it with a degree of competence and this simply isn't the case.  Having an opinion on something, particularly a poorly conceived opinion based strictly upon one's own attitudes or ideas, tends to cause the critic to ignore the what was written._  Although some would argue that this approach is just as valid as any other, I strongly disagree.




Very eloquently put. And not to go on beating a dead horse, but this is the reason that I object to the premise of this thread. Before you can start trying to find weaknesses in a work, you really should have an adequate critique of it first, and coming up with the critique or critiques you are going to work from is much more important that stripping out the negative elements. 



> Why the hell can't I write short posts..?




Because the only quotes I ever see from you are well thought out and explained, which requires a greater degree of thought than most people, including myself, are interested in puting in on a messageboard.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Well, I'm glad I finally gave in and poked my head in here. I assumed I'd see poor reaper strung out over some hot coals while the elusive (but somehow always available for blame) "Tolkien fanboys" applied barbecue sauce and knocked back a six-pack of 1462.

(Have I got that date right? 'That was a proper 1462, that was')

Anyway, there has certainly been much more civilized discussion in this thread than I dared to imagine there might be. Well done, us! And congrats to Eric for re-opening it even though it did look a little dicey there for a while.

Now, I guess I belong to the "Tolkien fanboy" camp. I honestly think these are tremendous works of literary genius. The more I read them, the more impressed I get with the good professor's talent and vision and insight.

That said, the orcs at Cirith Ungol -- yeah, okay. It's pretty darn convenient, isn't it? It's got nothing on, say, your average Edgar Rice Burroughs novel ("What? You say you're the son of the Emperor of the nation currently at war with the nation the woman I love happens to be the daughter of the Emperor of, and she's this very moment sealed up in a high tower room to which you happen to know a secret passage to, and you're dissatisfied with your father's efforts to make war on her father's nation, which combined with the fact that you're in love with her, you'll help me free her, but fortunately you're not so in love with her that you'll stand in the way of my future marriage to her? Lead on!") but as a coincidence, it's a pretty big one.

There's a couple of ways to consider this, and which way one chooses probably says more about how one WANTS to interpret the books, rather than any inherent quality in the books themselves.

You could say, "divine providence" and make a case that the books are deeply infused with (and even largely about) the idea that grace works upon us all, and without it we can never truly succeed. The self-slaughter of the orcs is just one example of this (other candidates being Gollum, Bombadil and the Eagles) and so is an expression of Tolkien's point, rather than a failure of his imagination.

You could say that it's in fact perfectly logical and well-supported by the rest of the story -- orcs, they kill each other. A lot. Over very little.

You could say that it's just a failure of Tolkien's imagination -- he couldn't think up a good way to get them out of this little fix and so hand-waved a solution.

All three of those ideas have some merit to them -- the second one perhaps least of all -- but I'm not sure any of them are completely convincing. I mean, the idea that he just _couldn't think up_ a way for them to escape seems kind of unlikely, doesn't it? Given the other six million words of the text. But I don't think any of these reasons really provide a slam-dunk explanation of the text. It's problematic, no matter how you slice it.

As far as the delay of Frodo in getting out of the Shire -- that he (and to a lesser degree, Gandalf) make a serious error in judgement here does not to my mind make them less sympathetic characters (heck, if you had any insight into MY life, you'd see that I have no right to condemn other people for lapses in common sense) -- indeed, it frankly makes them MORE sympathetic, given where the story is about to take them. These bumbling rustics who have apprehension of how important they are in the scheme of things eventually make the right decision and actually manage to get the Ring to the Cracks of Doom. That Frodo grows so much and then at the end is unable to defeat the Ring's pull is pretty much the whole point of the book, says me.

LotR is a very strange book. There's nothing else much like it -- which is one of the reasons I like it so much. I find that I greatly enjoy many of the qualities that some people list as failings.

It rambles. Thank heavens for the rambles, and the endless descriptions! The story _takes time_. It asks you to invest a great deal over the course of the book, but I certainly find the payoff worthwhile.

That characters appear and then disappear is again, one of the great attractions. And this is a quality I think that gets overlooked in a lot of modern criticism -- at least "pop" criticism (movie critics and suchlike). It's tempting to say that a story should only include such elements as are crucial to the plot. That elements that do not contribute significantly to the working out of the narrative ought to be dropped, as if brevity in story-telling were the prime virtue to which all other qualities should be dropped.

But "extraneous" elements serve an important purpose in a story -- they keep you guessing. As Tolkien introduces one character after another, you can never be quite sure who's going to turn out to be important and who isn't. The usual cues -- the amount of information given about the character -- don't work because Tolkien invests even characters who have almost nothing to do with the plot (Bombadil) with all sorts of dialog, description and so on. So you can't relax, sit back and expect the author to only tell you the important bits -- you have to work it out for yourself who's important and why.

Now, I do happen to believe that much of _Fellowship_ is what it is because JRRT didn't really know where he was going -- but I like that about it. It delights me because it puts me in the same position as the hobbits -- with no way to distinguish important from insignificant, ally from foe. I'm not sure he meant to do this -- I think it just happened as a matter of course of the way he was writing.

But I don't think that stories improve according to how much information that isn't essential to the plot gets removed. _Hamlet_ would shrink considerably, for example, but would it get better? I am unconvinced.

As for the songs -- again, I love them. I love the fact that in this world, when Boromir dies, his three friends spontaneously make up a long and involved song for his funeral. I want to live in a world where that happens!

But then I love musicals, so there you go. I do think Tolkien was an exquisite poet in the tradition of older Anglo-Saxon-based forms.

Okay, maybe I'm a raving fanboy unwilling to allow any criticism of my favourite book. But a couple of points in my defense:

I didn't drag in any marketing statistics. A quick look at popular culture over, say, the past thirty years simply has to dispel any idea that there's a necessary connection between what's popular and what's good. I'm thrilled that so many people appear to love a work that means so much to me, but I don't for a second take it as evidence that the work is any good.

I didn't call reapersaurus names. Not even "pettifogging hornswoggler", which I've always wanted to call somebody.

I didn't utterly reject the suggested errors in the book, and even admitted that one of them could be, in fact, a failure on Tolkien's part. Pretty broadminded of me, huh? Huh? Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. Uh-huh.

I didn't try to claim some special status for the book. I think you can apply any critical stance you like to any work you wish to. The whole idea of critical theories is that each of them offers a different way to approach a work, and thereby offers new insights into the work and ourselves. Treating the work as a modern novel is every bit as valid an approach as treating it as an epic. That goes for the fanboys as much as for the "roasters". If it happens to seem less effective from one approach, well, that doesn't necessarily make it a worse book -- I'd be interested in seeing somebody offer up a work that succeeds as both an epic and a modern novel. Heck, throw in musical comedy, revenge tragedy and comic book! I got a copy of _Lankhmar: City of Adventure_ for anyone who can come up with a candidate that succeeds in all those categories.

And no, _Singing In The Rain_ doesn't succeed as a revenge tragedy, people. Perhaps if Gene Kelley had done a soft-shoe over Donald O'Connor's twitching, dismembered corpse...


----------



## Spatula (Jan 13, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that Stephen King, who has written many fantastic stories (horror if you want to use that term) and Anne Rice, who has written many fantastic stories (gothic horror if you want to use that term) are found not in the "fantastic" section, but in Fiction and Literature.



I find King & Rice in bookstores exactly where I'd expect them to be - in the Horror section.  A few stores don't have seperate horror sections, and throw the horror books the general Fiction section, which is no surprise.  Fiction/lit is the place for the books that don't fit into 
any of the specific genre sections that are present in a particular store.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 13, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Very eloquently put. And not to go on beating a dead horse, but this is the reason that I object to the premise of this thread. Before you can start trying to find weaknesses in a work, you really should have an adequate critique of it first, and coming up with the critique or critiques you are going to work from is much more important that stripping out the negative elements.



Well heck, most of the threads in this particular forum fit your same criteria of inadequate criticism.


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 13, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Finally, on the notion that LotR can't be critiqued using established standards... Utter nonsense.  Anything can be critiqued.  The problem is not all methods of approach are appropriate for every book.  I don't know that New Criticism (which has dominated Literary Criticism for some time now) is the only approach to reading Tolkien, much less other authors.  There are different ways to read and consider any text.  _The sad thing about criticism is that everyone thinks they can do it with a degree of competence and this simply isn't the case.  Having an opinion on something, particularly a poorly conceived opinion based strictly upon one's own attitudes or ideas, tends to cause the critic to ignore the what was written._  Although some would argue that this approach is just as valid as any other, I strongly disagree.




When it comes to any sort of criticism I generally tend to look first and foremost to the objectivity of the critic. I actually think its very rare to find a piece of criticism that is balanced and that often those versed or supposed experts in literary theory can often be amongst the worst offenders in letting their own personal bias manifest itself in their analysis. At the end of the day no matter how well trained someone may be in the art of critiquing, if they are unable to keep a sense of perspective and also be able to view a work in a detached light their comments should really carry no more weight than anyone elses.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Well heck, most of the threads in this particular forum fit your same criteria of inadequate criticism.



 Depends on how you define "adequate critique".

"SUCKS!" is maybe lacking a little, but I think the first post in this thread is sufficient to start a reasonable debate with. Five pages later, I appear to be right.

About that, if nothing else...


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 13, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> (Have I got that date right? 'That was a proper 1462, that was')




Proper 1420!  

Sad that I know that off by heart but it used to be my sig on some message board long ago


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> No matter how well trained someone may be in the art of critiquing, if they are unable to keep a sense of perspective and also be able to view a work in a detached light their comments should really carry no more weight than anyone elses.



NOBODY'S comments should carry any more weight than anybody else's.

What matters isn't the training, perspective or detachment of the critic. All that matters is the content of the statements themselves. Some statements are true, some are interesting, some are humourous -- don't worry too much about the source. Concentrate on what's being said.

Good criticism sparks debate and draws out new ideas about a work. It challenges preconceptions and stands up to intellectual analysis. It examines the work in question deeply, seriously and with wit and style. 

There are many qualities, however, which are not necessary to good criticism. It may for example ask questions, or attempt to answer them. It may defend or attack, insist or suggest -- indeed it may be objective or entirely subjective. It may even be true or false. None of these qualities are necessary for a critical statement to be useful. Let us say, successful.

Good critics don't have secret knowledge the rest of us lack -- they just possess insights into the nature of their chosen field (usually because they spend all day thinking about it, and are well-versed in its canonical works), and the ability to communicate those well.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 13, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> It might even measure up well against some of the books that have more closely modeled Tolkien's writing style, such as _Memory, Sorrow, and Thorne_



You know, I think think this trilogy was a reaction _against_ Tolkien and those who've followed in a tradition more akin to his own (like Terry Brooks).  But that's a topic for another thread.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> but when you try to take it out of the context of the time it was written, in the opinion of many people, the criticism will be lacking because it will lack the context in which it was written. But granted, there are a number of different approaches to analyzing any text.



I think your last sentence is the clincher.

There are very many people, particularly Formalists, who despise Marxist and other sociopolitical/historical reads of literary texts.  To these types, the text stands alone and anything one needs to draw from it comes from the words, the format of the verse, characterization, etc.  

My attitude is that you can approach most texts from a variety of positions, but this will not always do all texts due justice.  Frankly, I think that if one wants to read Tolkien in an attempt to critique his work, Marxist Theory, Medieval Theories, and Poststructural Theories (especially from an intertextual perspective) are the best approaches to take.  I suppose it also helps to have a decent grasp of Jung, so I suppose some Psychoanalytical Theory too.  

I think most literary folks approach it from a Formalist position and this doesn't really do Tolkien justice since he is clearly influenced by factors beyond the text.  Formalists want to ignore Tolkien's intent and this can be problematic.  Still, a close read of Tolkien can uncover as many gems as clumps of dirt.  Many also bring a significant amount of Reader-Response to the fore, and I've never cared for this direction as it is so clearly subjective.  What's funny here is that these two approaches are very much antithetical to each other...



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Very eloquently put. And not to go on beating a dead horse, but this is the reason that I object to the premise of this thread. Before you can start trying to find weaknesses in a work, you really should have an adequate critique of it first, and coming up with the critique or critiques you are going to work from is much more important that stripping out the negative elements.



Well, I think that this thread has proven to be quite informative to many people.  While I don't particularly care for underdeveloped opinions based strictly upon an individual's preferences, I think that forums like these allow us to interact and share our knowledge with each other.  I think I have a better grasp of how to approach Tolkien that I did before.  I think reapersaurus does as well (not to suggest that anyone's changed his mind, since that's not my intent).  

However, I do think that such conversations ought to reveal that just because you think something or feel something doesn't necessarily mean that your position has any logical/formal basis.  Yeah, this sounds really snooty, but...  I suppose this is okay as long as you recognize this.  For example, I loved _Freddy vs. Jason_ despite the fact that it was a lousy piece of crap.  I don't particularly care for half the stuff in the _Bible_, but I recognize its value and its successes. 




			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Because the only quotes I ever see from you are well thought out and explained, which requires a greater degree of thought than most people, including myself, are interested in puting in on a messageboard.



Thanks!


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 13, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I didn't drag in any marketing statistics. A quick look at popular culture over, say, the past thirty years simply has to dispel any idea that there's a necessary connection between what's popular and what's good. I'm thrilled that so many people appear to love a work that means so much to me, but I don't for a second take it as evidence that the work is any good.
> 
> I didn't call reapersaurus names. Not even "pettifogging hornswoggler", which I've always wanted to call somebody.
> 
> ...




Thank you for that post, Barsoomcore.  It proves that a person can be a big fan of Tolkien and still tolerate differing opinions of his works.

I've also enjoyed reading the posts by The Serge throughout this thread.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Thank you for that post, Barsoomcore.  It proves that a person can be a big fan of Tolkien and still tolerate differing opinions of his works.



You pettifogging hornswoggler.


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 13, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> NOBODY'S comments should carry any more weight than anybody else's.




Not saying they should but in practice things pan out slightly differently.




> What matters isn't the training, perspective or detachment of the critic. All that matters is the content of the statements themselves. Some statements are true, some are interesting, some are humourous -- don't worry too much about the source. Concentrate on what's being said.




I'd think that the point the critic is trying to make is probably the central pilar of any criticism. What the general thrust of his argument is, is going to depend on his opinion and objectivity regarding the work, which is why I think they are important parts of the critical process. Poor objectivity can often lead to weak arguments which undermine the critics point.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 13, 2004)

I need to add some clarity about the whole who can critique and who can't.

There's a difference between offering an opinion and offering a critique.  An opinion, in most cases, implies a lot of subjectivity and emotional weight.  A critique, in most cases, implies a degree of subjectivity and a more objective response to something.

Now, in our society, the two have become almost as one.  There not a critic today who can truly offer a critique without a bit of his/her opinion coming out in the wash.  

Additionally, I do not want to imply that having training in reading automatically means that such an individual's critique/opinion is accurate or in line with my own attitudes.  However, I do believe that more formalized positions have greater weight and impact because there is a degree of... sophistication about them.  This can make the statements offered by such individuals either very valuable or very dangerous.  

Now, back to LotRs.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

...and then away from LotRs again.

I agree with your statements, TS. But anytime we rely on someone's reputation rather than the content of their statements, we are being lazy.

I guess it depends on what you want a critic to do for you. If you're looking for insight into a work you've read, then there's no need to rely on someone's ability to be objective, accurate, blah blah blah. If on the other hand, you're looking for somebody to tell you about a work you haven't read (or viewed or whatever), you're going to have to rely on their ability since you can't compare their analysis with the work itself. In this case, we naturally look for people whose opinions we've come to trust (for whatever reason).

Now, when I'm scanning the bookshelf and deciding which ponderous tome on critical theory I'm going to curl up with for a crazy Friday night, I do of course consider the varying reputations (or the impressions I've gathered) of the writers. I'm more likely, for example, to take down Frye than I am Derrida (unless I'm consumed with self-loathing and looking for a really painful way to perform an auto-lobotmy).

But it falls upon us, the readers of critical statements, to judge their validity and usefulness. And in that task, we should endeavour not to be distracted by the source of the statements themselves.

...and back to LotRs...


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 13, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Well heck, most of the threads in this particular forum fit your same criteria of inadequate criticism.




Very true, but a good deal (not all) of the entertainment discussed in this forum is hastily assembled and thrown out there for public consumption. I (and many others) consider Tolkien to be one of the few timeless classics from the last hundred years. I agree that it isn't perfect. I'll admit that at times its a downright chore to read. On the other hand it stands head and shoulders above most other pieces of work to come from the same time period and since then. Its because of the fact that this is a genuinely high quality piece of work that I don't like to see someone come along and say what amounts to 'Hey, Lord of the Rings, lets trash it.'  As much as I enjoy reading Salvatore or Robert E. Howard, I don't mind that mentality as much, because they do fall into the category of pulp. Good pulp maybe, but still pulp.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Whisperfoot, I agree with your estimation of LotR.

All I'll say is that because of that, I demand it be held up to higher standards than other works.

Not that it be treated with special caution or respect. It doesn't need to be protected -- it's a great book and can stand on its own against any criticism. I love watching people take shots at it because they inevitably reveal their own biases and the manner in which they attempt to encompass the work.

It's like Harold Bloom says about _Hamlet_: interpretations of the work do not in any way limit the work. They merely reveal the limitations of the interpreter.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Jan 13, 2004)

Am I the only person who really dislikes the term 'fanboy?'

To refer to someone as a 'drooling fanboy' or any other variations on that theme seems to me to anathemize legitimate fans of the particular work to which it refers.

Specifically, in this thread, I found it telling that the very first post managed to disregard all dissenting opinion as the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.'  At least that's how I read it.

-F


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Femerus the Gnecro said:
			
		

> In this thread, I found it telling that the very first post managed to disregard all dissenting opinion as the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.'  At least that's how I read it.



Well, you're reading quite a bit into the following sentence, which is the only reference to fanboys in that very first post:


			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I only have 3 things to pull from here to mount an argument against the army of fans (the more vocal of which are "fanboys", meaning that it doesn't matter what Tolkein wrote in LotR, they love it anyway)



reap's pretty clearly drawing a distinction between "fans" and "fanboys" -- which makes it clear to me that he's deliberately NOT saying, "all dissenting opinions are the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.'"

At least that's how I read it.


----------



## Camarath (Jan 13, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> That characters appear and then disappear is again, one of the great attractions.



 I have always felt that this and the way in which the books deal with "history" makes the world presented in the books seem a fair bit bigger than the worlds in most other works of fiction especially fanstay novels. I think this sense of vastness produced by the books is one of thier primary successes. I know this is a subjective (and thus non-universal) reaction but the factors which produce this reaction are worth considering when critiquing the LotR. 

That aside, I think that the pinnacle virtue of any work is the benefit that can be derived from the work. The main benefit of fiction is entertainment. So in some sense how a book fairs in the realm of literary criticism and analysis has little impact on the value of the work. A poorly written book that is meant to entertain and that people enjoy is a better book than a well written book that is meant to entertain and that people do not enjoy. If a book succeeds in imparting its intended benefit it should be considered a good book. The qualities than are important in a book are dependent on the benefit the book wishes to impart. The style and devices use in a book should be judged chiefly with regard to thier effect on the what the book it trying to convey. The fact that the benefit of most works is subjective makes it difficult to give quantitative value to a work and the devices used in a work. The parts of a work can be evaluated as either adding to or detracting from the impact of the work but the absolute value of any work in depentant on the reader. I feel that literary criticism and analysis is important as a way to better understand, appreciate, and enjoy a work not as way to assign an objective value to a work.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 13, 2004)

Femerus the Gnecro said:
			
		

> Am I the only person who really dislikes the term 'fanboy?'
> 
> To refer to someone as a 'drooling fanboy' or any other variations on that theme seems to me to anathemize legitimate fans of the particular work to which it refers.
> 
> ...




_[Edited by Moderator.  Remember what Eric said... -Hyp.]_

And I agree that the term fanboy means less than nothing. By using that title you are effectively making the statement that anyone who appreciates the subject in question is mentally incapable of critiquing it and therefore it is not worth taking their opinions or statements into consideration. By allowing someone to poison the well with this term, you are limiting the discussion of a topic to mostly negative comments about the work.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 13, 2004)

Just wanted to add this, which is basically how I feel;

"The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amusi them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate reviewed it, have found it boring, absurb, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer. but even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at teh same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 13, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I would go on about how this is classic trolling, but I digress.




... but let's not go there.

I agree about the use of the term 'fanboy' - it's not constructive, and I don't think anyone in this thread (even barsoomcore, who takes pride in the label  )has behaved in a manner that would warrant it.

Nobody has taken the Infallibility position that seems to be associated with the caricatured image of the most fervent supporters of [The Bible/Lord of the Rings/Star Trek/whatever] - discussion has, for the most part, been reasoned and civil from everyone involved.

I'd as soon see the label 'fanboy' not used in this thread any further, since it seems, to judge so far, out of place.

Thanks for keeping things pleasant, gentlemen.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 13, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Well, you're reading quite a bit into the following sentence, which is the only reference to fanboys in that very first post:
> 
> reap's pretty clearly drawing a distinction between "fans" and "fanboys" -- which makes it clear to me that he's deliberately NOT saying, "all dissenting opinions are the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.'"
> 
> At least that's how I read it.



Thanks for actually reading the post in question, barsoom.

It's amazing how well the written language works when someone actually reads the words, instead of making up their own words that were written...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 13, 2004)

Reapersaurus - as far as "keeping things pleasant" goes, it applies to you too.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Whisperfoot, you avatar has inspired in me an analogy.

The Lord of the Rings may be a hunk of junk. It may not look like much. When you mention it to some people, they may look askance at you and say, "You're braver than I thought." It doesn't really belong to you -- it belonged to others before you and it'll probably belong to somebody after you, and they'll love it just as much as you. It may appear to communicate in a peculiar dialect.

But it's got it where it counts. It's full of surprises. It's got just about everything under its skin, and it always manages to hold together (which doesn't stop some of us from murmuring under our breath, "You hear me, baby? Hold together," when the firefights start). It can make it past any blockade. It beats the odds. And sometimes, the fact that it looks like garbage to some turns out to be a real advantage.

It's the fastest hunk of junk in galaxy. Have a little faith in the old girl -- she's weathered worse and come out just fine. Heck, this is nothing compared to the Kessel run -- and we know she did that in twelve parsecs.

You've got yourself a ship.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 13, 2004)

Hyp - why did you edit my post while leaving Whisperfoot's personal attacks against me and this thread up there?

I have not responded yet to his continual antagonistic posts, after he was told to stop, yet when I point out how even on NL they're making fun of him for being unreasonable over here, you edit my comments out?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 13, 2004)

If you've got something to say to a Mod, keep it to email.  You've got mail.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 13, 2004)

Since it's OK to have a word like 'fanboy' removed from the thread (as I defined it, "people who it doesn't matter what Tolkein wrote in LotR, they love it anyway"), than can I have the derogatory term 'troll' removed as well?


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I agree about the use of the term 'fanboy' - it's not constructive, and I don't think anyone in this thread (even barsoomcore, who takes pride in the label  )has behaved in a manner that would warrant it.



But I'm willing to. You just wait.

reap, Whisper, I say enough. I don't care who started what, I don't want to see this thread shut down because people can't let one name or another slide. I'm actually enjoying this conversation, and if you get this thread closed, you'll make me cry.

You don't want to make me cry, now, do you?   

(don't answer that, reaper)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 13, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Since it's OK to have a word like 'fanboy' removed from the thread (as I defined it, "people who it doesn't matter what Tolkein wrote in LotR, they love it anyway"), than can I have the derogatory term 'troll' removed as well?




God, I would be ecstatic.

-Hyp.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 13, 2004)

*re*

If the question had been "What do you personally dislike about _Lord of the Rings_?", or "like less" is a term I prefer, the rabid fans wouldn't come out of the woodwork defending Tolkien like you just insulted their mother.

Even I, a fairly rabid fan of Tolkien, find certain parts of the book dull or boring. For example, I usually stop reading for a few days to a few weeks after I finish the first part of _The Two Towers_. About the first 6 to 8 chapters of Book IV of the _The Two Towers_ is such a huge drop off in action from the previous chapters concerning the Battle at Helm's Deep and dealing with Saruman that I just can't seem to get into the slow building journey of Frodo until I take a break. Happens everytime I read the books. I don't consider this a mistake on Tolkien's part because I personally don't find a certain part of the book particularly stimulating, it amounts to personal taste.

Once you take the books down to a level of personal criticism, rather than universal criticism, it is easier to critique parts that you may personally like or dislike without bashing the entire book. Too many anti-Tolkien fans bashing the entire book because they don't like it or don't like certain parts. That is very annoying.

I have often heard Tolkien derided for poor characterization. I personally liked the lack of physical character development as well as not knowing everything the character was thinking or had done. It better allowed me as a reader to step into the character and personalize them. For example, I didn't need to know everything about Aragorn. It was enough for me to know that he was destined to be king and was a great warrior. I could fill in all the blanks with my own imagination about what he looks like or what his life was like or what he might be thinking. Character ambiguity makes imagining the character more interesting IMO.

I personally don't like to negatively critique another person's work unless it is just outright garbage that is beyond redemption. Even then as the old saying goes, "One man's garbage is another man's treasure."


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 13, 2004)

> The qualities than are important in a book are dependent on the benefit the book wishes to impart. The style and devices use in a book should be judged chiefly with regard to thier effect on the what the book it trying to convey. The fact that the benefit of most works is subjective makes it difficult to give quantitative value to a work and the devices used in a work. The parts of a work can be evaluated as either adding to or detracting from the impact of the work but the absolute value of any work in depentant on the reader.




I think that anyone can name at least one book that was just awful and most people who have read it will agree. Thankfully one of the benefits of a bad book is the ability to put it down (or throw it against the wall) and stop reading.   I personally absolutely hate Steinbeck, but that is such a personal dislike that even I give the guy a ridiculous amount of credit for writing novels that were well researched and were written with realistic details and dialects. My dislike centers less around the fact that he didn't do a good job and more around the fact that I'm just not that interested in reading about the historical periods that fascinated him. I'm sure that this opinion will make a lot of people reading it feel sad for me.

The weird ones are the books where the author attempted to do one thing (and may have been successful to some degree) but succeed at something that may have been completely unintended. At the time the LotR was written, I doubt that Tolkien was trying to invent a new genre of fantasy literature, nor did he know that certain setting details would be used by so many others who were inspired by his works. I don't necessarily think that spawning an entire genre of literature was the series' greatest achievement, but it is something that I feel should be looked at more closely. 



> I feel that literary criticism and analysis is important as a way to better understand, appreciate, and enjoy a work not as way to assign an objective value to a work.




I feel that in some cases it becomes absolutely necessary to apply literary criticism to a work in order to even understand it and get through it with any amount of sanity intact. I absolutely love James Joyce and Virginia Wolfe, but if you don't understand that their novels are largely experiments in stream of consciousness, you'll find yourself wondering 'what's the point?' Indeed, Ulysses is a masterful work which is roughly 800 pages long which describes the day in the life of one man to the most minute detail. It even goes into bathroom moments. Formatting, headings, breaks, and other elements we normally take for granted are experimented with and placed almost randomly on the page in some places. The final 45 pages of the book is all one long unpunctuated block of text. Now, if someone who doesn't understand what the heck Joyce is trying to do with this picks it up and reads it, there's a pretty decent chance that they just won't get it. Or they might get it to a point, but miss out on many of the points they should be picking up as they read it. Without the existing literary criticism and the discussions that continue to this day on Ulysses, I have to wonder if it would have eventually been overlooked in favor of books that are simply easier. Honestly, without literary criticism, I have to wonder if there would even be any perceived value of Joyce and Wolfe.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 13, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> You know, I think think this trilogy was a reaction _against_ Tolkien and those who've followed in a tradition more akin to his own (like Terry Brooks).  But that's a topic for another thread.




That is something I would be very interested in discussing. Please do start that thread.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 13, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> That is something I would be very interested in discussing. Please do start that thread.



I'll get it started later on today!


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Jan 13, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Well, you're reading quite a bit into the following sentence, which is the only reference to fanboys in that very first post:
> 
> reap's pretty clearly drawing a distinction between "fans" and "fanboys" -- which makes it clear to me that he's deliberately NOT saying, "all dissenting opinions are the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.'"
> 
> At least that's how I read it.




I should clarify.  I posted my comment in this thread only because it seems to be the latest thread which involves an offensive use of the word 'fanboy.'

I readily admit that there are plenty of other threads which have used the term 'fanboy' in much more offensive and derogatory ways... it was just this thread which finally got me to post about it.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> It's amazing how well the written language works when someone actually reads the words, instead of making up their own words that were written...




Smartass 

-F


----------



## Storminator (Jan 13, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Lets see, having the characters break into song every 10 pages over some person that lived long ago, has nothing to do with the ring they are moving into Mordor, is just there to add to the word count and IMO pointless. At least the songs in A Song of Ice and Fire have something to do with the characters/ plot. Thats what I mean by pointless stuff.




Still 3 pages from the end of this thread, so forgive me if this has been said.

I think you're completely wrong. Tolkien started by making up languages. As he became more versed in linguistics, he realized languages change of over time, in response to the history of the speakers. So he invented variants of the languages (Quenya, Sindarin, Black Speech, etc), and he invented a people to speak these languages. Then he created the world they lived in, and finally he created the stories of the peoples, which we get on three important levels: children's tales (The Hobbit), heroic epic (LoTR), and creation myths (Simirillion). 

In short, the entire creation is there just to provide places to drop in the songs and poetry. And the poetry's not bad once you realize it's alliterative nordic verse.

PS


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 13, 2004)

Quote:

Inspired by the Disc 3 of TTT:EE, I am wondering if people would be interested in hearing about / debating about possible MISTAKES, and bad writing in the original Tolkein Lord of the Rings.

EndQuote


No, because there are none.  Lord of the Rings was divinely inspired, and as such, can contain no errors.  Any subsequent adaptations for film, however, are not, and as such, should be ignored.


----------



## Camarath (Jan 13, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> No, because there are none.  Lord of the Rings was divinely inspired, and as such, can contain no errors.



 That is an interesting view point. Would you mind sharing which divinity you believe inspired the Lord of the Rings?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 13, 2004)

The Festivus King inspired JrrT to write that book.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 13, 2004)

Camarath said:
			
		

> That is an interesting view point. Would you mind sharing which divinity you believe inspired the Lord of the Rings?




Well, Tolkien was a pretty devout Catholic. Just sayin' . . .


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2004)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Still 3 pages from the end of this thread, so forgive me if this has been said.
> 
> I think you're completely wrong. Tolkien started by making up languages. As he became more versed in linguistics, he realized languages change of over time, in response to the history of the speakers. So he invented variants of the languages (Quenya, Sindarin, Black Speech, etc), and he invented a people to speak these languages. Then he created the world they lived in, and finally he created the stories of the peoples, which we get on three important levels: children's tales (The Hobbit), heroic epic (LoTR), and creation myths (Simirillion).
> 
> In short, the entire creation is there just to provide places to drop in the songs and poetry. And the poetry's not bad once you realize it's alliterative nordic verse.



That's an interesting theory, but fails the test of looking at the chronology.  While I have no doubt that languages were the primarily inspiration of the work -- after all, Tolkien himself said as much several times, the Lost Tales were written when Tolkien was quite young and both the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings were not even a twinkle in his eye in the least.  The Creation mythology was really the "mythology for England" that Tolkien was working on all this time, as well as the setting for his languages, and they and the languages both evolved over the course of decades together.  The Hobbit was kind of an afterthought -- it initially wasn't even intended to be part of the "Middle-earth" canon, it was just a story he wrote to amuse his kids and he borrowed some names and concepts from his mythology that he was working on.  When it was eventually published and eventually was commercially successful was when he went to finally concieve of Lord of the Rings.  By this point, because the Hobbit already dipped heavily into his mythology, he decided to make the Lord of the Rings concept fit as well, so he advanced the timeline several thousand years, came up with the whole concept of the "third age" and tied it in many ways to both the first and second ages, -- the first being his mythology and the second being his Atlantis concept, which he had had in mind for a long time without truly developing.

So...  the rest, as they say, was history.  But your neat divisions of children's story, adult story and creation myth are somewhat arbitrary -- really the creation myth was his life's work, and the Hobbit was the fluke; the idle story that kicked off the Lord of the Rings, which is his true masterpiece.  Even so, the Silmarillion was what he most loved, which is why it was never published in his lifetime, because he was so concerned with getting it right (plus he never figured it would be commercially successful.)  His son Christopher later put together the book we now call the Silmarillion, partly from late writings, partly from early writings, and in some very small parts, from stuff he wrote himself.  The Silmarillion that was published is most definately _not_ the Silmarillion Tolkien himself would have published had he lived long enough to do so.  Likely he never would have finished or published it at all, even if he lived twenty years longer than he did, so it's a moot point anyway.


----------



## Storminator (Jan 13, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's an interesting theory, but fails the test of looking at the chronology.  While I have no doubt that languages were the primarily inspiration of the work -- after all, Tolkien himself said as much several times, the Lost Tales were written when Tolkien was quite young and both the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings were not even a twinkle in his eye in the least.




I don't for a moment believe that Tolkien completed each step before moving to the next. I can see where you'd think that from my post, but it wasn't my intent. All elements of his creation underwent nearly continuous revision. But the essential ordering of importance that I outlined holds. 

The first work of the Book of Lost Tales was a poem. Everything else followed on.



> So... the rest, as they say, was history. But your neat divisions of children's story, adult story and creation myth are somewhat arbitrary -- really the creation myth was his life's work, and the Hobbit was the fluke; the idle story that kicked off the Lord of the Rings, which is his true masterpiece.




If a piece of mythology is important, these are the three methods it gets transmitted. I find it fascinating that Tolkien hit all three levels of text in creating his own mythic world. Whether that happened by design or by accident is less important than the fact that it happened.

PS


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 14, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's an interesting theory, but fails the test of looking at the chronology.  While I have no doubt that languages were the primarily inspiration of the work -- after all, Tolkien himself said as much several times, the Lost Tales were written when Tolkien was quite young and both the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings were not even a twinkle in his eye in the least.  The Creation mythology was really the "mythology for England" that Tolkien was working on all this time, as well as the setting for his languages, and they and the languages both evolved over the course of decades together.  The Hobbit was kind of an afterthought -- it initially wasn't even intended to be part of the "Middle-earth" canon, it was just a story he wrote to amuse his kids and he borrowed some names and concepts from his mythology that he was working on.  When it was eventually published and eventually was commercially successful was when he went to finally concieve of Lord of the Rings.  By this point, because the Hobbit already dipped heavily into his mythology, he decided to make the Lord of the Rings concept fit as well, so he advanced the timeline several thousand years, came up with the whole concept of the "third age" and tied it in many ways to both the first and second ages, -- the first being his mythology and the second being his Atlantis concept, which he had had in mind for a long time without truly developing.
> 
> So...  the rest, as they say, was history.  But your neat divisions of children's story, adult story and creation myth are somewhat arbitrary -- really the creation myth was his life's work, and the Hobbit was the fluke; the idle story that kicked off the Lord of the Rings, which is his true masterpiece.  Even so, the Silmarillion was what he most loved, which is why it was never published in his lifetime, because he was so concerned with getting it right (plus he never figured it would be commercially successful.)  His son Christopher later put together the book we now call the Silmarillion, partly from late writings, partly from early writings, and in some very small parts, from stuff he wrote himself.  The Silmarillion that was published is most definately _not_ the Silmarillion Tolkien himself would have published had he lived long enough to do so.  Likely he never would have finished or published it at all, even if he lived twenty years longer than he did, so it's a moot point anyway.




I was under the impression that Tolkien was inventing langauges pretty much non stop since he was about 11. In one of his essays he pretty much refers to the fact that in inventing a language you spawn a mythology. I don't know when exactly he started either the first elements of the mythology or the languages but the impression I had was that they developed in tandem. If anything its more likely the langauges came first due to the way Tolkien constructed his story telling elements.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 14, 2004)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that Tolkien was inventing langauges pretty much non stop since he was about 11. In one of his essays he pretty much refers to the fact that in inventing a language you spawn a mythology. I don't know when exactly he started either the first elements of the mythology or the languages but the impression I had was that they developed in tandem. If anything its more likely the langauges came first due to the way Tolkien constructed his story telling elements.



Yes.  I believe that's also what I said -- he developed the languages and the "Lost Tales" i.e.; "Prototype Silmarillion" together.  He had been playing around with languages since he was a little, but he had no concept of anything similar to elvish until he was developing the lost tales along with them.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 14, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I think that plot and character remain _as_ important in fantasy as most other novel-dependant genres, but that setting takes on an increased role, particularly for fantastic worlds, environs, cultures, etc.  This is where a lot of writers stumble.  Many take so much time and put so much effort in creating a world that they lose their characters and plots (and, more importantly, in my mind, the human condition) in their tales.
> 
> Then there are those who make an equally heinous mistake: those who don't flesh out their worlds enough on the front end, thereby never effectively allowing more sophisticated readers to suspend their disbelief and become immersed in the story.  Terry Goodkind is an excellent example of this as he's apparently createed stuff for his world as he's written more books... and most of it isn't particularly original.
> 
> I think most writers who fail in the latter error, poor world design, are also lousy character writers.




Thats a good point.  Where Ferret says that Setting is the most important thing in fantasy, I think after reading what you said that it is equally important.  But the trap of working so much on setting and loosing characters happens so much that it has sort of defined the genre.  Goodkind, Martin, Jordan.  They are marked and they only get one novel to save thier bottoms in my mind.

Aaron.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 14, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Thats a good point.  Where Ferret says that Setting is the most important thing in fantasy, I think after reading what you said that it is equally important.  But the trap of working so much on setting and loosing characters happens so much that it has sort of defined the genre.  Goodkind, Martin, Jordan.  They are marked and they only get one novel to save thier bottoms in my mind.



I don't think Jordan is particularly guilty of losing characters in the setting -- rather he spends interminably long bouts of character development to the point that readers start to get bored with them.


----------



## The Serge (Jan 14, 2004)

I don't see Jordan or Martin as guilty of losing characters or settings in their works.  Jordan's flaws come from having too many characters and a tendancy to fall in love with writing a lot material that seems to go nowhere...  In a sense, Jordan overcharacterizes his characters (how many times do we need to see Nynaeve lose her temper and think about why she lost her temper and then get more upset because she lost her temper in the first place).  But Jordan clearly has a very deep world view, deeper, I think, than Tolkien's.  The fact that he has an entire book on _The Wheel of Time_ that discusses the world apart from the books (written in text-book format, no less!) is a testament to his world building talents.

Martin's flaws tend to revolve around... Well, off the top of my head, I can't think of any.  I love the handling of characters and the obvious depth of his world to date.  Indeed, I think he's a stronger, more comeptent writer who handles characterization in a more sophisticated manner than Jordan.  Still, if one doesn't like the fairly relative philosophical nature of his narrative to date, and the non-heroic aspects of the work, then Martin's a tough pill to swallow.

Goodkind, though...  Wow.  Talk about lousy.  It's obvious that Goodkind didn't have an overall concept for this world.  Initially, we have the evocative names of three sections in his continent:  Westlands (which surprisingly lies in the western most part of the continent), Midlands (you'll be surprised to know that this is in the middle of the continent), and D'Hara (which is where the initial badguys come from.  Another surprise).  We see no major cities.  I mean, once we get into the Midlands, we encounter what we find out a novel later is a small kingdom and the Mud People... whose leader looks nothing like the rest of them and is the Bird Man...  Yeah.  And then, in subsequent books, we find out that there's _another_ continent that stretches for miles and miles and miles that no one knew anything about because of some mystical barrier.  Beyond this barrier are a bunch of women who have a completely new form of magic different from the additive and subtractive magic composed of manipulating existing elements.  These women live together in a big building where they train other women and some men who never age.  Does any of this sound familiar?  I could go on, but what this boils down to is Goodkind's poor handling of his world and how he just tacks on stuff (which is often very similar to other popular, contemporary writers).  I won't get into his poor characterization.

But, why should I complain?  I've bought all of his books but the most recent one, reading to make sure that I don't make the same mistakes he makes.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 14, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> But Jordan clearly has a very deep world view, deeper, I think, than Tolkien's.  The fact that he has an entire book on _The Wheel of Time_ that discusses the world apart from the books (written in text-book format, no less!) is a testament to his world building talents.




Eddings has done the same, but I don't think either Eddings' or Jordan's worldviews match up to Tolkien's.  Tolkien has an immensely developed history, mythology, geography, cultures, etc that are linked to a remarkable depth by his study and development of language -- a field in which I believe he is unmatched among fiction writers.  The Silmarillion, Books of Lost Tales, Book of Unfinished Tales, LotR Appendices, etc are a tremendous amount of additional depth.

The difference, of course, is that the worlds of Jordan and Eddings are much more visible to the reader than that of Tolkien, since they took the time and effort to publish their background material (something we wouldn't have at all from Tolkien except for his son's editting efforts, and from what I understand even the currently published work doesn't encompass all his writings).  Eddings and Jordan have a financial incentives to do so, since they're full-time writers; I don't think financial gain from his writing was ever one of Tolkien's incentives.

If you'd said Jordan's background material is more polished, I'd agree -- if only because he had the time and interest to polish the material.  For more depth, my vote's to Tolkien.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 14, 2004)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> The difference, of course, is that the worlds of Jordan and Eddings are much more visible to the reader than that of Tolkien, since they took the time and effort to publish their background material (something we wouldn't have at all from Tolkien except for his son's editting efforts, and from what I understand even the currently published work doesn't encompass all his writings).  Eddings and Jordan have a financial incentives to do so, since they're full-time writers; I don't think financial gain from his writing was ever one of Tolkien's incentives.




A book about Gandalf like Belgarath the sorcerer could have been fun.
But, I'm kind of glad Tolkien didn't go too far. Eddings really has run the well dry, IMO, and I won't even bother picking up the new series of his. The Belgariad was fun light reading, but Redemption of Althaus was boring and repetitive. It's like he has the formula and just keeps reusing it over and over...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 14, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Eddings really has run the well dry, IMO, and I won't even bother picking up the new series of his. The Belgariad was fun light reading, but Redemption of Althaus was boring and repetitive. It's like he has the formula and just keeps reusing it over and over...




I reread the Belgariad about once a year, on average, and the Malloreon and the two Sparhawk trilogies about half that often.

The Redemption of Althalus I found tedious the first time I read it; I've only read it once since, and I didn't find it quite as bad, but it's not something I'm in a hurry to read again.

The first book of the Elder Gods was... okay.  But I'm not hanging out for the second one, and I'm quite happy to reread the Belgariad in the mean time 

-Hyp.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 14, 2004)

I happen to like Eddings (though I haven't read his latest).  When someone asks me how to roleplay a paladin who isn't lawful stupid, I point them at Sparhawk.

Whether you like him or not, though, his treatise on world building (The Rivan Codex) is great reading for any DM building a world for a campaign.  I'll bet the Jordan background material is equally useful for world building, though I haven't read it (I gave up on Jordan at about book 6 of WoT, and I'm not going back).


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 15, 2004)

While I can't complain about Eddings world-building skills, his characterizations haven't been remotely good since the original series, and he also needs to learn to stop recycling the same plot.  After reading the Belgariad, the Malnorean (or whatever the heck the followup to that was called) and then the second two series about Sparhawk, I decided I had had more than enough Eddings to last for a while.

Although, I wouldn't mind picking up the Belgariad itself again.  He struck gold the first time and then tried to repeat it a little bit too literally.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 15, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> While I can't complain about Eddings world-building skills, his characterizations haven't been remotely good since the original series, and he also needs to learn to stop recycling the same plot.




You have to give him credit for making recycling-the-plot a _part of the story_ in the Malloreon, though 

The characters have philosophical discussions on the fact!

-Hyp.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 15, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You have to give him credit for making recycling-the-plot a _part of the story_ in the Malloreon, though
> 
> The characters have philosophical discussions on the fact!
> 
> -Hyp.




Technicly, this puts the "recycling the plot" complaint into the exact same boat as the "divine providence" complaint about tolkien - its not bad writing if its part of the fundemental makeup of his world and the theme of the book.    Good for the goose...   

To digress slightly, though, the idea in Eddings of competing prophecies, and a prophecy as a *force* that tries to bring something about rather than merely predicting it stuck with me beyond anything else from those books, and has been incorporated almost wholesale into my ideas of how to use prophecy and "choosen ones" in roleplaying games without running into predestination problems. A prophecy is a plan, not a promise. You have a sacred destiny, but so does the guy you're fighting, so don't get cocky.   

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Orius (Jan 15, 2004)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Eddings has done the same, but I don't think either Eddings' or Jordan's worldviews match up to Tolkien's.  Tolkien has an immensely developed history, mythology, geography, cultures, etc that are linked to a remarkable depth by his study and development of language -- a field in which I believe he is unmatched among fiction writers.  The Silmarillion, Books of Lost Tales, Book of Unfinished Tales, LotR Appendices, etc are a tremendous amount of additional depth.




I'd say Jordan comes close to Tolkien; his history of the current Age is fairly well developed.  Tolkien has more linguistic deveopment and a longer history, but the history tends to focus on the Eldar, Edain, and to a lesser extent the various groups of Northmen and the dwarves.

Jordan's history focuses mainly on the area of the continent where the stories take place, but there's lot of cultural diversity there.  Then there's the Aiel, the Sea Folk, and the Seanchans, and Seanchan is hardly monolithic either.  So while the last few books have been a little flat, he has built a pretty impressive world.

Eddings is nowhere even close.  His cultures are little ore than a bunch of cliched cultural archetypes thrown together, and most members of those cultures all walk, talk and apparently think alike.


----------



## Orius (Jan 15, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I reread the Belgariad about once a year, on average, and the Malloreon and the two Sparhawk trilogies about half that often.




The first half of the Belgariad is good.  After that, he really drags things out.  Part of the problem is that he introduces too many unimportant characters that are somehow tied in with this prophecy, yet do almost nothing.

The Elenium is fairly good, though he pads out parts of it, particularly the second volume, with meaningless crap.  The Tamuli could have been good, but it gets dragged down by even more padding, and by Edding's social and political prejudices.


----------



## Orius (Jan 15, 2004)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Technicly, this puts the "recycling the plot" complaint into the exact same boat as the "divine providence" complaint about tolkien - its not bad writing if its part of the fundemental makeup of his world and the theme of the book.    Good for the goose...




No, Eddings takes that bad writing to a huge extreme, they repeat things nearly point-for-point at least a half a dozen times, and _then_ comment on it.  Here's a sample passage from any one of the five books of _The Mallorean_:

Garion: Grandpa, didn't we do this before?
Belgarath: Why you're right, it must be the *prophecy*!

Even worse then any deux ex machina Tolkien _ever_ used.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 16, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> No, Eddings takes that bad writing to a huge extreme, they repeat things nearly point-for-point at least a half a dozen times, and _then_ comment on it.  Here's a sample passage from any one of the five books of _The Mallorean_:
> 
> Garion: Grandpa, didn't we do this before?
> Belgarath: Why you're right, it must be the *prophecy*!
> ...




It's even worse in Redemption of Althaus.
Besides the fact his "redemption" is more like "indoctrination", if you're held captive long enough, you come around... 
They used the same phrases and such over and over. It was so plentiful that I actually stopped seeing them, just skimming over the repetitive dialogue...

I liked the other series (Belgariad, Mallorean, the two Rose's) and The Losers is a great book. The Belgarath & Polgara books were so-so, and Redemption killed it for me.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 16, 2004)

Took me a while to catch up on this topic, which has been for the most part, a great read (Kudos to the consistent posters who kept things interesting and relatively tidy).  But I felt the need to address one (off-topic) thing...



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> NOBODY'S comments should carry any more weight than anybody else's.



On the internet?  Or in real life?

No personal offense intended, but really... that's the biggest load of bunk I've ever heard.

Unfortunately, I seem to hear it every day anymore.

Example, my advisor is a widely published and respected expert in the evolution and development of mammalian brains.  Accepting your thesis would mean that the quotes about garlic and tinfoil my aunt pulls out of poorly written health magazines about alzheimer's are as valid as my advisor's opinions on the debatable origins of this disease.

BUNK.

In the absence of hard facts, an informed opinion is 100x as useful and informative as an uninformed one.  Expertise and study are ALWAYS an important part of evaluating an opinion.  Expertise is fundamentally unimportant to most internet discussion, which generally falls in the realm of "I don't like such and such a book because the characters are STOOO-pid!"  But if we wanted to, for example, seriously compare the merits of LotR as an epic in the vein of The Illiad or Beowulf vs as a modern novel, then we need people who understand the significant characteristics and differences of those forms.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 16, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> No personal offense intended, but really... that's the biggest load of bunk I've ever heard.



My point is that informed people can be just as stupid as uninformed people. The fact that a statement is made by somebody with expertise doesn't make it a correct or useful statement.

Not bunk. Just being intelligent.


			
				Canis said:
			
		

> In the absence of hard facts, an informed opinion is 100x as useful and informative as an uninformed one.



Only if it happens to be correct. An incorrect informed opinion will be 1X as harmful and informative as an incorrect uninformed opinion.


			
				Canis said:
			
		

> Expertise and study are ALWAYS an important part of evaluating an opinion.



Only in the absence of facts. Expertise and study should be explicitly NOT used to evaluate an opinion which we are capable of determining the truth or usefulness of ourselves.

A class to which I suggest all criticism falls into.


			
				Canis said:
			
		

> But if we wanted to, for example, seriously compare the merits of LotR as an epic in the vein of The Illiad or Beowulf vs as a modern novel, then we need people who understand the significant characteristics and differences of those forms.



Only to help us come up with ideas, if we were stuck. But I suggest you and I are perfectly capable of comparing said merits -- given enough time to do the research and think things through.

Will Harold Bloom probably have more (and more interesting things to say) about this topic? Yeah, probably. But that doesn't mean that every statement he makes should be accepted as true, or even considered more or less carefully than the statements we make.

I bet if we considered the content of your advisor's statements about Alzheimer's with those of your aunt, the question of which statements were more likely to be true would be clear -- without paying any attention to WHO they originated from.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 16, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Took me a while to catch up on this topic, which has been for the most part, a great read (Kudos to the consistent posters who kept things interesting and relatively tidy).  But I felt the need to address one (off-topic) thing...
> 
> 
> On the internet?  Or in real life?
> ...




And what does that mean to the reader?   I couldn't care less how "correct" a book is by literary conventions.  If it entertains me it's a good book.  If it bores the  out of me then it's a crappy book.   A lot of classics fall into the crappy book section IMO.   Same with movies.  Terms of Endearment was a snoozefest of crap.   But it's a "classic".   Why would I pay any attention to the critics who proclaim this kind of stuff?


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 16, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Why would I pay any attention to the critics who proclaim this kind of stuff?



You might possibly want to note their email address for future sale to porn spammers...

But that's just my opinion. I'm not an EXPERT, I hasten to add.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 17, 2004)

Perhaps I was a bit strident in stating my case.  This topic touches a nerve, as I am constantly exposed to students who don't know anything about anything and yet are sublimely convinced that they're right on all subjects.  Sorry.

In any case, I was talking about these various opinions on "literary merit" and such.  We are all equally qualified to judge whether we find something fun or entertaining, and someone's "expert" opinion on the merits of a book doesn't suddenly make it succeed or fail to entertain.  Some can say that Aragorn lacks a well-realized character arc while others can consider his relatively static nature a better example of a mythic hero (which it certainly is, IMO, though that's not how I prefer my heroes, personally).  We can debate until we're blue in the face the apparent "Divine providence" of Frodo stumbling across in the wilderness the only human on the face of Middle Earth who wouldn't even pick up the ring if it were laying on the ground (and furthermore why this guy, who is, by this action, apparently wiser and more virtuous than Aragorn, wouldn't be the ideal choice in a King).  And we can all throw around equally valid opinions on such nebulous ideas as the "quality" of the book.  But when you get into such areas as trying to decide if LotR should be evaluated as a modern novel, a romantic epic, or a religious epic, I think there's room for informed opinions.  And, dare I say it, a scholar in literature is probably more qualified than most of us geeks.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 17, 2004)

I did not think you were being strident. You are conflating two separate notions, however.

There's the question of who is more likely to have correct and/or useful opinions about any given topics.

Then there's the question of whether or not a particular opinion is correct and/or useful.

In the first case, an informed person, all other things being equal, is more likely to have correct and/or useful opinions. In the second case, the informed-ness of the opinion's origin has NO bearing on whether or not the opinion is correct and/or useful or not. Ideas that come from informed folks may have a higher PROBABILITY of being correct, but that does mean that any particular idea from an informed person will be correct.


----------



## FraserRonald (Jan 17, 2004)

And on this, I would add that I personally don't believe an "opinion" as such can be correct or incorrect. That is why it is an opinion. The Oxford Dictionary defines opinion as "1. unproven belief. 2. view held as probable. 3. professional advice. 4. estimation." Now, in some cases, for example, the cost of getting one's car fixed, the opinion can be verifiably proven to be correct or incorrect (however, there's always the problem of not being able to poll every single garage on the planet to find if the opinion was correct somewhere). Of course, once the opinion is proven, it ceases to be an opinion and becomes either fact or fallacy. 

And, more to the point for this thread, when we are talking about literary criticism, who judges what is correct or incorrect?

I don't think that Canis meant to say that all informed opinion is correct. I think, and I would agree, that someone with experience or education on a topic should be offered more credence than someone without the same. As an example, in a discussion of post-Roman British history on a newsgroup some years back, one poster continued to interrupt the scholarly discussion (and not all the participants were academics, just well-read on the subject) with posts regarding King Arthur's use of Dalmatian mercenaries and their historic ties to Troy. Whether one believes in King Arthur or not, our knowledge of the figure that has come to be known as Arthur is dubious at best and does not involve mercenary horsemen from the Balkans. However, if one were to lend as much credence to this individual as someone who had actually researched the period, one might become quite confused.

Everyone does have an opinion. In regards to personal matters--liking or disliking RotK, for example--all opinions are equal. Attempting to make wider inferences from these personal opinions--in my opinion--is a mistake. My opinions regarding romance fiction, for example, are fine for myself, but in a discussion regarding the uses, practices and techniques of the same, my opinion is not equal to the opinion of a writer, editor or publisher of romance fiction.

At least, that's my opinion.


----------

